globalwarming: man made?

Question

i know this is a kind of broad question, but what do you think is primarily resposible for global warming? do you think it's manmade or a natural phenomenon. this question stirred up quite a bit of commotion in our classroom discussion and i would like to know others take on this issue.

Answer 1

It is a natural occurence. The earth's temperature is constantly changing. Study of past temperatures using ice core data shows that over the last 10,000 years, the earth's temperature has been relatively constant, swinging between about 2*C above to 2*C below present temperatures.



People like Milezpergallon think that we are somehow warming faster than ever before. The data does not bear this out. He thinks that the warming over the last 30 years (about 0.4*C) should take 10,000 years. But the ice core data shows that within the last couple of thousand years there has been warming by as much as 2.75*C in one century. That is twice as fast as seen over the last 30 years.

Answer 2

No, Global Warming is not man-made. It is natural, caused by sunspots, little black spots on the sun that vary the radiation emitted by the sun. Because of this varying radiation, the Earth warms and cools for centuries at a time. After some research, I found that temperatures during the Medieval Times were actually warmer than they are today by 2-3 degrees. Temperatures cooled down in the 18-19 centuries by a mini ice age. Ever since the 20th century, we are simply coming out of that ice age by warming up by around 1 degree. And to all those people who believe in global warming out there, in the 40-70's, the world actually cooled down, causing a "Global Cooling" scare. I see the same thing happening now. Also, according to the Max Planck Institute of Science, the sun is emitting the most radiation now than it has for more than 60 years, thus causing our temperatures on earth to rise. So there. Global Warming is completely natural.

Answer 3

While man is not responsible for the global warming, man has contributed to the current situation by depleting the ozone layer, which helps to block the harmful rays of the sun. The earth was once covered by water. That will happen again, but not in our life time.



The link below deals with the facts

the second link - the controversy

Answer 4

In 1000 AD there were vineyards in England, a country considered too cold for grapes now. When the Norse first attempted to colonize Greenland in 1400, they were not prepared for the mini Ice Age from about 1350 to 1850; the colony failed. Reasons given for the "Little Ice Age" are low solar activity and increased volcanism.



In any case, the evidence suggests that we are naturally returning to the temps that prevailed before 1350, not ruining our planet through the burning of fossil fuels and the raising of flatulent livestock. As for Al Gore's film, the methods used to measure CO2 in the atmosphere are invalid. Its a comparison of apples to oranges because taking CO2 samples from compressed ice deep within glaciers and comparing them to recent CO2 measurements in uncompressed shallow ice replete with arctic bacteria and ice worms (look it up - there is CO2 producing stuff living in the ice) cannot yield any reliable data which can be scientifically compared. To do so is by definition Unscientific. All of his other "data" can be expressed in ways that either support or refute the existence of global warming - which oddly enough isn't in much dispute. As for the cause being CO2; the relationship is anecdotal and scientists aren't convinced which is the cause and which is the effect. In other words if CO2 levels have changed - no proof of this, and if the earth is warming unusually fast - no proof of this either, that does not mean that the two things are related; coincidence doesn't "prove" causal relationship.



What's most concerning to me is that the new "science" of climatology is under constant attack by more established scientific disciplines like geology and engineering. I for one have studied paleontology. The fossil record dating back millions of years clearly show that the earth would warm and cool long before man showed up on the scene.



Did T Rex kill themselves off by hunting all of the CO2 producing herbivores thereby leaving only O2 producing vegetation causing a sharp decline in greenhouse gasses resulting in global cooling and a mass extinction? Whew! That's a long way to go to get from A to B. But if it gets you elected...

Answer 5

You can listen to people in a classroom who don't know anything or to scientists who have extensive education and state of the art technology. Within the past few years almost all scientists have concluded that global warming is caused by humans. Anyone who still believes global warming is a hoax is not caught up on the news.

Answer 6

It seems to be a little bit of both. Although there are warming/cooling cycles there seems to be an acceleration of warming. No one can deny, regardless of your beliefs, that measures being implemented to combat global warming are not helpful in some way. Is recycling bad for the environment? Is conservation somehow damaging the planet? Is a greater reliance on solar and wind power somehow causing more, not less children, to breathe healthier air? Do you really need to drive a car that wastes more gas as opposed to no gas? Regardless of what you believe is causing the current warming trend of the planet, does going "green" really harm anyone? Less drilling for oil, less damming of rivers, less children with asthma? I do not see the negatives in living a less wasteful existence.

Answer 7

I think it has to be both. Throughout the history of earth there have been different types of environments/climates. Eventually it changes, whether we like it or not. Lets not forget that there were actually Dinosaurs roaming the earth once. I don't think us as human beings are any help though. I am sure humans were the cause of a lot of the damage done to the earth.

Answer 8

I personally think it is man made. We have become very wasteful as the century's have gone on. The more advance we become the worse global warming has become. The simplest way I can put it is that most people just don't care and live for the moment, and are not really concerned with their children's future.

This is a great question. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall of that class room.

Answer 9

regardless of the answer I think we should all agree the life on earth isn't so healthy. All I see around me are squirrels and pet dogs, dont even see bugs any more. Although we do have a new kind of misquito around the East Coast now. and all the bees are dying around the whole country I hear. Does the cause of global warming have to be the deciding issue on whether we SLIGHTLY change our unhealthy lifestyles?

Answer 10

This is man made.



The earth naturally goes through cycles, but the rate it is heating now, compared to in the past (we can accurately see temperatures based on 600,000 years of ice core samples with frozen and trapped gasses) is way too fast.



The heating that has occured in the last 30 years should have taken 10,000 years to do so. This rate is because of humans, cars and pollution (CO2) from industry and power plants.



Don't believe anyone that tells you this is normal. I guarantee they aren't a scientist. 2000 of the worlds greatest climate scientists in Jan 2007 agree it is man made. The people that say it's not are businessmen and politians. Should answer your question completely right there.



The guy above that provided a link. His data is 10 years old! His article was printed in February 1998, meaning his data is from much earlier.



I wish you naysayers would get a clue.

Answer 11

Man's contribution to global warming is on par with man's ability to affect its change. Nature will deal with this round of warming as it has in the past....just fine, thank you

Answer 12

It doesn't matter.



If your house is on fire, would you sit there and try to figure out whether it's caused by faulty electric work, arson, or lightening, or others? No.



If we believe our future is potentially in danger, we need to take action. It simply doesn't matter what caused it. We don't have to be 100% sure to do take precautionary measures.

Answer 13

Irrsponsible Agriculture ,

and expanding populations and its effects are the planets biggest enemies



some still believe that nothing is wrong ,they will also be convinced when the price of food and beer hits the roof ,because of third world problems in food production and Global potable water shortage



are We responsible ?is it the Sun?

or is it God who wants to punish?

or is it Gaia who wants to clean some parasitic infestation?

who cares ? that is not important any more



WHAT IS -is that we are gonna be in trouble



The Earth has many problems because of man

this is undeniable ,how much we are responsible for Global warming is debateble ,But there is a definate change in Global temperatures that is affecting nature in a bad way.



this text only covers some aspects of Climate change ,i.e.effects of deforestation and subsequent man made desertification ,because of irresponsible farming using chemicals ,over pumping carbon aquifers,over grazing ,wild fires (because of slash and burn gone out of control)



water and air polution such as caused by

industrial contamination ,the contaminating effects of the cities(the internal combustion engine) ,are other stories,



and all of these are also man made ,such as the high industrial chimneys pumping contamination into the clouds and the burning of tires,some of this polution has been found in the ice in the polar regions



there are natural cycles in the planets life

but a lot is influenced by mans existance ,and this is increasing with overpopulation,putting strains on Natural resources and increasing contaminations as well as destructions of essential componants the ensure living conditions for all life forms



the thinner ozone layer helps to speed this up.and this is caused mainly by air polution ,also as a result of mans actions



in North Africa,India,Mexico ,millions of people are effected by land loss and desertification and some have died as a result,



And now many animals are becoming sick because of changes in temperature ,

vital links in the food chains are disapearing affecting other species further along in the chain



90% of the feral (wild) bee population in the United States has died out.



In the Netherlands bee diversity is down 80 percent in the sites researched, and "bee species are declining or have become extinct in Britain."



wildflowers that depend on pollination have dropped by 70 percent



we are witness to a mass exstinction ,for the first time since the dinosaurs, of the earth's estimated 10 million species, 300,000 have vanished in the past 50 years. each years, 3,000 to 30,000 species become extinct.



everything is happening so fast it is not possible to monitor things any more.



,the Sahara is growing by 7 kilometers a year

and most of the desserts we know are a results of mans actions ,and they are increasing ,not getting less ,in the dinosaurs days ,there were few desserts.



collectively this planet is drying up ,



each degree rise in temperature means 10%crop loss



and there is less and less water (because of deforestation),to irrigate this production ,

and there are less and less farmers to do it..

Arable lands and their farms are lost all over the globe. Many farmers sons abandon farming and head for the cities.



Northern China is drying up, what once were millions of food producing people, are now hungry refugees ,running for their lives from the all consuming dust storms.

This will have a great effect on world food prices when they start buying at what ever cost, to feed their people.



The farmers that are left have to feed some 70 million more people than the year before but with less topsoil.



Over the last half century,

Population growth & rising incomes have tripled world grain demand from 640 million tons to 1,855 million



In the near future the global farming community will not be able to feed every body ,food prices will continue to rise. .



RISING SEAS

The northpole is melting ,and we will know it without ice in our life times.

this does not affect the sea level because it is ice that is already in the water.but the melting ice from Green land and the south pole ,are another matter



here are a 100 ways to help

http://www.eco-gaia.net/forum-pt/index.p... Source(s) http://www.greenpeace.org/international/...



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur... Source(s) Lester E Brown is the director and founder of the global institute of Environment in the United states .he has compiled a report based on all the satalite information available from NASA,and all the information that has

come from Universities and American embassies WORLD WIDE ,

his little book--a planet under stress , Plan B has been trans lated into many languages and won the best book award in 2003

Answer 14

It is casued by the sun not people

Answer 15

I dont think its man-made and im still not buying it

Answer 16

Global Warmingis a myth!





Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.” . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at [e-mail]

Answer 17

The theory of man-made global warming is false. Anyone who believes otherwise has not investigated the evidence or is purposely remaining ignorant to the legitimate opposition to global warming. I have given up an one and a half hours to watch “An Inconvenient Truth” so I ask you to do the same and watch the movie detailing the opposition.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=great+global+warming+swindle.

And another video for those of you short on time: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

Some more general resources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4

http://www.john-daly.com/



CO2 is not causing the globe to warm the opposite is true, the warming is increasing the atmospheric CO2. When the world heats it gradually increases the temperature of the oceans which serve as the largest CO2 sink. As the oceans heat up they release CO2 which is stored in them. The information comes from the same data Al Gore uses, the temperature always goes up before the concentration of CO2 goes up.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/ninelieslaunch.pdf#search=%22vostok%20figure%20125%22

This is the entire record of temperature verses CO2 record. This is the same data used by Al Gore but anyone with a fifth grade education can see that temperature rises before CO2:

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yearslarge.gif

The global warming crowd tends to hind this graph, they will only show graphs of the last 20 or so years in which CO2 appears to cause a temperature increase. However when you look at the full data set you see that the current warming trend is not the result of CO2, CO2 rises after temperature. The global warming crowd uses the zoomed in graph to mislead you also they tend to use thick lines on the graph so you can’t make out what rises first. As you can see the temperature rises first and then CO2 starts to skyrocket, that’s why graphs of only 20 years seem to show CO2 leading temperature.





CO2 makes up only .03% of our atmosphere. Water vapor, another greenhouse gas, makes up 1-4% of our atmosphere, this gas is acknowledged to be the main greenhouse gas. All human activities combined contribute only 6 Gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year. Animals, through respiration, decomposition, etc contribute 150 Gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere. So humans contribute only a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere which is already in very small concentrations in the atmosphere.

http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science.html This is where my data came from, it is an interesting site, it displays the same graphics as Al Gore in his movie but it tells how low the human contribution is. So Al Gore is using the same data but coming to a different conclusion, who do you want to believe a politician with no scientific training or the NASA CO2 laboratory, a group of scientists who spend their entire careers studying CO2.



We know the greenhouse effect is real it is a necessary effect to keep our planet at a habitable temperature. However if our current warming is due to greenhouse gasses it would cause warming in the troposphere , but the troposphere is actually getting cooler.

http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/. That points to other explanations to our current warming.



So what is causing our current warming, it is the sun.

http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/642-2.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060926_solar_activity.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040803093903.htm

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/17jan_solcon.htm

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=900

The fact that only the earth’s surface is warming points to direct heating from the sun rather than heating due to greenhouse gasses. Also other planets in our solar system are warming pointing to a common cause of warming, that common cause being the sun.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mgs-092005.html

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mgs-092005-images.html

Another theory is that ocean currents play a role

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2000-03/UoCS-Nrol-1903100.php



The global warming crowd says our glaciers are melting and animals will suffer this is another false claim.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N46/EDIT.jsp

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA235.html

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/



The global warming crowd also insists our seas are rising due to global warming, however this is not entirely correct. Seas in certain areas are rising, there is no global sea rise. The seas have been rising ever since the last ice age: http://globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Sea_Level_png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

These two sources show that sea level increase now has actually leveled off from a very steep rise for the past 20 thousand years. For proof of this look here:

http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/markhotd.htm

A mark left by Sir James Clark Ross, an Antarctic explorer, in 1841 is still visible. Not only that but the mark was placed in 1841 to show how high the sea was, not only is the mark visible it is 30cm above current sea levels. Now it is possible that the mark was placed at high tide and the picture taken at low, but even then the mark would still be above current sea levels. The seas have risen dramatically over the past thousand years not due in any part to us. If you want proof of that take a look at one of the dozens of ancient underwater cities that spot the globe. When these cities were built they were on land now they are deep underwater: http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2004/s1107203.htm

This shows a dramatic increase in sea level during human time but long before the world became industrialized.



The global warming crowd also claims a scientific consensus on the issue, this is wrong in two ways. One, there is no consensus, this is a false claim to make you believe in global warming by suppressing the opposition. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Second, even if there was a consensus it would mean nothing, science is not politics, you don’t vote on theories to determine their legitimacy.

Here’s 21 pages of websites that disagree with global warming.

http://www.climatechangedebate.org/documents/CCD_read.pdf

The thought that the only scientists who disagree with global warming are paid by oil companies is simply a stupid statement with no reality. This is the most illogical argument by people in support of global warming. Aside from being completely false it begs another question: Who pays global warming supporters? The answer is big environmental agencies that make millions off of global warming each year by teaching, publishing books, and selling environmentally clean products.



The IPCC is the main supporter of global warming, their statements are defended blindly by people who don’t want to admit that global warming is not real. People will claim that they took into account natural sources of CO2, they didn’t. Take a look for yourself:

http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/srccs/index.htm. That is the latest IPCC report, read the entire report, do a search of the documents, there is absolutely no mention of natural sources of CO2. The natural sources have been completely ignored. Also people will claim that the IPCC took the sun into account in their report, this is not entirely correct, while the sun is mentioned the report it’s effects have not been accurately represented.

http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm. The IPCC did not take into account the Svensmark factor. This would greatly reduce the effect of solar radiation on the earth. Look back up to the solar resources to see the effect of the sun correctly represented.

Also allegations have been by IPCC scientists who disagreed with the IPCC statements. They say that their research was censored or taken out of the IPCC report. This is not the first time the IPCC has lied, they forged the famous “hockey stick” graph, which later resulted in a reissuing of the IPCC report.

Here’s another source that disagrees with the IPCC: http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Sept1004GlobalWarmingPG.pdf

And another: http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/ipccreview.htm

And another: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm



Quotes form politicians, CEO’s, and others are not proof of global warming, they issue these statements to get votes and customers. Scientists are able to get published and get time on the media by supporting global warming. The IPCC continually lies and misrepresents data so they keep their jobs.



In regards to the precautionary principle that says we can only help if we switch over to alternative energy, this idea is not correct. While this may seem legitimate it only helps the first world, third world countries can not afford to switch to the more expensive energy options. Also the US currently spends 4 billion dollars a year on global warming research which could be better spent on research for disease or to fight poverty. For an excellent example of how the precautionary principle is harmful you do not need to look further than DDT. This pesticide was cheap and incredibly effective but it was banned because of it harmful effects on egg shells. Now thousands of people die every year in third world countries because of malaria, a disease that could be easily controlled with DDT.



I hope anyone who believes in global warming they will take a look at the resources I provided. These resources should convince you that global warming is not man-made, it is caused by cycles in the earths climate. If you are not convinced I hope you at least take a new look at global warming as an unproven idea. Remember that global warming is big business for anyone who aligns themselves with it.



I could not go this entire post without mentioning global cooling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

http://www.michaelkubacki.com/cooling.htm

In the 1970’s it was claimed that there was a consensus on the fact that the world was headed into an ice age. We have seen once before how damaging a false claim about our climate change can be to our world. Most of the global warming crowd does not want you to know about this scare because it is so similar to the scare today. Government panels were formed and claimed the world was headed to an ice age, evidence poured in supporting the claim, a consensus was claimed, then the whole issue just faded away. That is what will happen with the false scare of global warming.