Global Warming Rant

This was taken from a Google+ debate I was having.

First it was global cooling in the 70ies, a new ice age was going to get us.  Then it was global warming, we are all going to cook off.  Then it became climate change, and now "Global Climate Destablization issues".  And those on the enlightened left, like , are here to listen and weigh the evidence carefully by not looking at any evidence that doesn't jive with a preconceived outcome all the while weeping for humanity.  Humanity is lucky to have such guardians. 

Also let's take on 's understanding of the Founding Fathers.  Many of them came from state's where you had to swear allegiance to God in order to have office, http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/167/Delaware_Constitution_of_1776_1.html the the primary textbook at the time was the Bible http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/evolving_classroom/books.html .  I'm not advocating that, but you don't get a pass to spin history to meet a foundation delusion that supports a false ideology.  You accuse me of it, surely you do not wish to do the same.

And to why a lot of the "denial" information comes through conspiracy sites might have to do with things like this- http://goo.gl/Jfi7Gi Think that the fact of a scientific expedition to Antarctica to investigate claims of vanishing ice getting stuck in ice on the way there some in the public might find interesting?  But on
these issues there is essentially soft censorship...we can't have the prolies getting their little minds confused and asking questions of the conclusions of their betters.

First, there are a variety of issues here.  Climate change obviously happens, it has been happening sense the earth's existence, and will continue to happen.No one is debating that.  What is being debated is if human economic activity has an impact on climate change and to what degree.  http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/  Also being debated is if man caused climate change, significant or imagined, is being used as a political football to promote a  political agenda that has nothing to do with climate change...aka "The Conspiracy".

On the conspiracy side of things, here is a link with a few interesting quotes that can start as a bread crumb for research if you are interested- http://toryaardvark.com/2012/08/07/the-real-green-agenda/ .  Funny how many of the elite even openly acknowledge a greater plan for a global government http://twitpic.com/dndafn .  I will say this, I'm extremely disappointed with many of you who just can't grasp that everyone involved in "climate research" might not have pure motives.  Climate change is potentially a huge issue, and many have dog piled on for funding and advancement of agendas.  If you take nothing away from this "denier", take away skepticism for the true motives of politicians, both the ones that say things that you like and the ones that don't.  One example http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55022  Also do me a favor, quit relying on politicians who talk about saving the world all the while taking campaign contributions from the very corporations most at fault for pollution and exploitation.  You might want to think that one through. We could get more into how the full frontal approach didn't work, so the green agenda was slid in the backdoor through education, Agenda 21 and other "sustainable" development programs, but there is plenty of documentation of that, use google.  Also almost every treaty or solution to "helping against global warming"
originate from shadowy think tanks like the Club of Rome their three sister organizations and those solutions again almost always involves giving up national sovereignty to a global body of unelected and unaccountable technocrats.  Is that the only way to deal with things?

As to proving global warming or climate change or climate instability is or is not happening because of man's activity a few comments.  First, a lot of sketch has been proven on the part of some of those who are pushing anthropomorphic climate change.  First there was the hacked emails and the hockey stick.  Then
there was the satellite positioning to get the warmest data.  Then there are all the various computer models that failed over the years, the predictions that never came to pass.  On the first link I posted on this threat it led to hundreds of links showing problematic AGW "science".  A key issue should be is the trust
worthiness of the science presented.  There are problems.  The fact that so many are willing to attack anyone who points out any of these problems reveals an almost religious attachment to the "truth" of AGW and religious defenses of it against those who threaten the dogma.  You may not agree with me, but I invite you to become more skeptical and open minded.

Another problem is the guardians of information that many of you consider authoritative are controlled. http://www.cairco.org/news/media-owned-six-corporations  There is no fourth estate anymore Lastly, While everyone is focusing on the theology of anthropomorphic global warming, real ecological disasters such as plastics polluting the ocean https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SO89Bj2Fvc and Fukushima radiating the world http://nodisinfo.com/Home/holy-fukushima-radiation-from-japan-is-already-killing-north-americans/ http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-05-29/%E2%80%9Cabsolutely-every-one%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-15-out-15-%E2%80%93-bluefin-tuna-tested-california-waters-co are left unattended.