Pointed questions for the global warming political movement

1. Don't you find it odd that after 55 years, over half a century, of trying to link carbon dioxide to climate cycles, they have had to admit there still is no workable scientific model? Let's not even talk about the complete lack of evidence that human activity has an effect on climate. They're light years away from having that.


2. Don't you find it odd that the global warming political movement has managed to get a few dozen actual scientists on board, but 34,000 scientists including many of the living Nobel laureates have signed statements saying there is no man-made global warming, yet they claim a consensus?

3. Don't you find it strange that we were told for years that it would just get hotter and hotter, then in 1999 the climate started cooling, with record lows and record snowfall now posted all over the world every winter?

4. Don't you find it strange that global warning scientists consistently refuse to let anyone look at their original (unaltered) data, and algorithms, even though that IS the scientific method?

5. Isn't it strange that these same "experts" first told us in 1975 that carbon dioxide had "without question" brought about a new ice age, then told us we would all starve due to overpopulation, then told us we would all burn due to an ozone hole, then told us it was global warming, and now we have had a pretty ugly cool-down?

6. Don't you find it strange that global warming scientists tried to erase the typical natural cycles from history, claiming they didn't exist, but now when we have had a decade of cooling the explanation is that it's just part of a natural cycle?

7. I won't even get into the most glaring stuff, like them trying to make the Medieval Warming Period go away, even though it's 500 years of well established history. Did they think we wouldn't miss 500 years of recent history? Also, it would be too easy to beat them up over the fact that carbon dioxide levels historically rise 800 years AFTER warming cycles, not before. Also, I guess it would be too much of a cheap shot to point out that the best information we have says that that 24 million degree ball of fire in the sky has the most to do with the temperature (who could have guessed?), not a trace gas that is .0037 of 1 percent of our atmosphere. Non-global warming scientists (the 95% of regular scientists who are not part of the political movement) think the whole idea of carbon dioxide killing the planet is "absurd" and "unsupportable."
8. Don't you find it strange that the main global warming booster is Elmer Fudd Gore, of all people? How many times have top scientists said they have no idea what he's talking about? I've lost count.

9. Isn't it strange that the people who are really selling this idea are leftist and socialist politicians, who by some strange coincidence happen to want all of the things that real global warming would require, eg. massive control of citizens, high taxes, huge government, one-world government (see paragraphs 36 and 38 of the Copenhagen Treaty draft for more on that), redistribution of everything, punishment of profit-seeking businesses, etc? That's a freaky coincidence.

10. Should I find it weird that Elmer Fudd Gore is the main one saying the sky is falling, and is the first sky-is-falling billionaire, and flies around in a private jet that uses thousands of gallons of fuel per trip, and has a mansion with a $30,000 a year electric bill? He says if I use a light bulb he doesn't approve of I have just murdered a polar bear, but he can use $20,000 of jet fuel to go give a speech about reducing our carbon footprint and that doesn't hurt anything???

11. What about the fact that Elmer Fudd hasn't allowed a question at one of his appearances for over four years, and if someone tries to ask why his data is inaccurate or something they are roughed up and detained by security? Is that odd? What about all of the scientists who have offered to debate him over the years and he has run away? We know he's a very good debater; what is he afraid of? Why are we not allowed to ask questions anymore, but are just told the debate is over, although 6.4 billion people still don't believe it, as well as at least 34,000 scientists who have publicly opposed it. That is hardly over. If someone refuses to answer questions or allow debate, it normally means they have no answers or are untrustworthy. What would be so wrong with open debate head to head in a public forum???

12. Why is it that the climate cycle the warmists say is so significant was only 19 years (from 1979 through 1998, by their own admission) and that's a huge deal, but the current cooling cycle that has been 10 years so far and keeps getting worse is "just a natural cycle?" Since both are well within normal bounds in terms of amount of warming or cooling, how is 19 years life and death, but 10 years so far just "natural?"

13. For that matter, the cooling cycle they told us was "without a doubt" the beginning of a new ice age due to carbon dioxide was 31 years (1947-1978). Isn't that cooling more significant than the 19 years? Why not? By the way, they said they had that magical "consensus" about the ice age too. The "ice age" ended three years later. Oooops!

I could go on, but I'm starting to feel like a bully. But it's their fault for getting those few dozen scientists tangled up in their political movement, which means it will then have to make sense scientifically and logically.