It is necessary to include this post to update the AGW issue.
More and more evidence supports the argument that AGW and its associated claimed justification for CO2 emission reductions per carbon trading schemes is not sustainable. It is the privilege of this blog to add a little more.
Let’s travel back in time to 1989. A first class stamp at the US post office cost 25 cents and the first George Bush was in the White House. Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini was urging people to kill Salman Rushdie for authoring The Satanic Verses. Thousands of Chinese demonstrators were murdered by their own government for gathering in Tiananmen Square and demanding democracy. The Berlin Wall fell and people from the East Bloc were no longer shot by border guards when they tried to flee to the West.
Amid all that drama and turmoil, the United Nations was telling us that governments had only a 10-year window before global warming would be beyond human control.
That’s right, twenty-two years ago the UN was saying exactly what we’re being told today. Entire nations are at risk of being wiped off the face of the Earth as a result of global-warming-induced rising sea levels. Well, not quite exactly. You see, according to that 1989 prediction, those nations were supposed to have disappeared by the year 2000.
Of course, nothing of the kind actually happened. Which means we’re entitled to an explanation. What’s different this time? Why should we believe today’s warnings about the dire effects of global warming when the UN has already cried Wolf?
Please read the original article and give some thought to the possibility that the AGW belief scenario is garbage!
- AGW movement is Fraudulent and Politically Driven. (tipggita32.wordpress.com)
- The truth about AGW is becoming CLOUDy (thebrightlibertarian.blogspot.com)
- How many years of global cooling are needed to disprove AGW? (ktwop.wordpress.com)