They make the stunningly obvious observation that the expectedly cool temperatures of 2008 (not to mention the fact that global temperatures have not risen in a decade) have led some “skeptics” to start questioning the liberal doctrine of man-made global warming. “Skeptics” here is defined as anyone with an intellectual capacity larger than their leftist political agenda.
But this statement is the best. I live for sentences like this. I mean this just says it all:
However, the World Meteorological Organisation insists that this year’s cooling has nothing to do with global climate change.
The mere sight of that sentence makes me want to give up on reading once and for all. But I think we can definitely give up on the World Meteorological Organization.
I love this picture, it’s awesome.
Here’s another piece from Daily Mail that is *definitely* worth reading. If you pay attention to the topic, then some of it will be old news. If you’re a conservative, you’ll probably be frustrated that everyone you now doesn’t understand this basic, easy to understand stuff.
But if you’re a liberal who spends their time talking to liberal friends and sucking up to liberal professors, then you’ll probably be get all emotional and close the window before finishing the whole article. It’s THAT informative! The reason for this is because it is a fair and balanced article that examines both sides of the issue, and tries to discern the non-ideological truth of the matter. And liberals aren’t used to non-ideological truths. They’re only used to having Leonardo DiCaprio and Melissa Ethridge confirm their own version of the story.
Here’s a small excerpt to pique your interest:
First, then, what is happening? Given that nowadays pretty well every adverse development in the natural world is automatically attributed to global warming, perhaps the most surprising fact about it is that it is not, in fact, happening at all. The truth is that there has so far been no recorded global warming at all this century.
The world’s temperature rose about half a degree centigrade during the last quarter of the 20th century; but even the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research – part of Britain’s Met Office and a citadel of the current global warming orthodoxy – has now conceded that recorded temperature figures for the first seven years of the 21st century reveal there has been a standstill.
The centre now officially expects global warming to resume at some point between 2009 and 2014.
Maybe it will. But the fact that the present lull was not predicted by any of the complex computer models upon which the global warming orthodoxy relies is clear evidence that the science of what determines the world’s temperature is distinctly uncertain and far from “settled”.
What I really feel like doing is block-quoting the entire article. But I’ll just trust you to read it on your own. For your benefit, and the world’s. Read. It.
Global Cooling, Global Fooling
The UK’s Daily Mail has more interesting news for us today. Check out their brief piece, “2008: The Year the World Will Cool Down.”
They make the stunningly obvious observation that the expectedly cool temperatures of 2008 (not to mention the fact that global temperatures have not risen in a decade) have led some “skeptics” to start questioning the liberal doctrine of man-made global warming. “Skeptics” here is defined as anyone with an intellectual capacity larger than their leftist political agenda.
But this statement is the best. I live for sentences like this. I mean this just says it all:
The mere sight of that sentence makes me want to give up on reading once and for all. But I think we can definitely give up on the World Meteorological Organization.
I love this picture, it’s awesome.
Here’s another piece from Daily Mail that is *definitely* worth reading. If you pay attention to the topic, then some of it will be old news. If you’re a conservative, you’ll probably be frustrated that everyone you now doesn’t understand this basic, easy to understand stuff.
But if you’re a liberal who spends their time talking to liberal friends and sucking up to liberal professors, then you’ll probably be get all emotional and close the window before finishing the whole article. It’s THAT informative! The reason for this is because it is a fair and balanced article that examines both sides of the issue, and tries to discern the non-ideological truth of the matter. And liberals aren’t used to non-ideological truths. They’re only used to having Leonardo DiCaprio and Melissa Ethridge confirm their own version of the story.
Here’s a small excerpt to pique your interest:
What I really feel like doing is block-quoting the entire article. But I’ll just trust you to read it on your own. For your benefit, and the world’s. Read. It.