Should we have listened to the The Eco-Nazis in 1922?

Question

D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt." Were all gonna DIE!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070814/NATION02/108140063

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/246027

Further, It turns out that the hottest year on record for the US is not 1998, but 1934.

That's right, we are no warmer now than we were almost three quarters of century ago, while CO2 levels have increased how much?

The Eco-Nazis will do anything to advance their fraud to scare the US into allowing the third world to plunder the US economy.

LIBS: Please turn off the Leftist Propaganda on CNN & MSNBC!

"I am certain that people have an impact on ecology but to the extent of changing the weather, that I'm not so sure of."

My sentiments also.

LIBS want you to believe that we need to get rid our cars and start riding bikes to work if we want to live another day!

"Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins"

this is FICTION. I read it and he offers NO proof of anything. None.

Fiction!

Union of Concerned Scientist - ROFLO

Who's pocket are they in?

Answer 1

Please stop with your 'conservative propaganda' the liberals can't take the truthful criticism anymore. lol

Answer 2

The planet is pretty big and there are so many variables when you consider the weather. It's really a lot to expect the same temperature year in and year out. I am certain that people have an impact on ecology but to the extent of changing the weather, that I'm not so sure of.
A lot of these people just want to feel important on a greater scale. They do not need to consider they might be wrong, thats like telling a child not to have dreams, I guess.
I suggest that people who refer to scientific evidence for their position also refer to scientific evidence that does not support their position. To be honest and critical.
When are people going to be a little more self critical anyway? Seems like that has been gone for awhile now.

Answer 3

Sorry, I read the magazines instead. They say the same thing. But with actual data to support it, and reasons. Hey, they got the fancy toys to get the job done. CNN just reads off it.

Here's a magazine off the top of my drawer:
"Arctic sea ice has shrunk to record low levels, and an ice shelf larger than Manhattan, which abruptly broke away from Canada's northernmost shore, could endanger ships and oil platforms this spring. To investigate these and other unprecedented changes occurring around the poles, more than 30 nations are initiating a global study the Arctic and Antarctic: an International Polar Year (IPY)."
-Charles Q. Choi. Pole Positions. Scientific American, March 2007

No fiction there. I've got two whole drawers more full of them.



Eldude, I've got one coming for you:
"What do you do as a scientist when you discover something that clearly contradicts the textbooks? The two of us faced this problem head-on when experiments we were running in 2005 showed that living vegetation produces the greenhouse gas methane. The established view held that only microbes that thrive without oxygen (anaerobic bacteria) can manufacture this gas. But our tests unexpecteldy revealed that green plants also make methane - and quite a lot of it. The first thing we did was look for errors in our experimental design and for evey concievable senario that could have led us astray. Once we satisfied ourselves that our results were valid, though, we realized we had come across something very special, and we began to think about the consequences of our findings and how to present them to other researchers."
-Frank Keppler and Thomas Rockmann. Methane, Plants, and Climate Change. Scientific American, February 2007

Answer 4

they're eco-nazis! Makes me think of of an editorial I study; over in Spain or France, they could't use the BBQ grills on particular days because of the fact they enable off to lots eco-friendly homestead gases. So, they deliver out helicopters that enable off far extra eco-friendly homestead gases in seek of human beings BBQ'ing whilst they are not assume too......Yea...is smart eh......Eco nazis! i'm occupied with attempting to make a wide awake attempt to preserve right here and there, recycle extra, rigidity much less often, reuse issues....in spite of; yet we don't ought to alter our finished way of existence and monetary equipment to accommodate this panic inducing, guy made, end of the worldwide worldwide warming BS! that's gonna improve our taxes, harm organizations making them decrease jobs and raise costs for products and amenities, plus we get much less useful fuels like ethanol; which has a pair of one/3 of the performance of petrol. additionally ethanol is taxed two times, because of the fact the government subsidizes farms, all coming from tax funds, after which the ethanol is taxed lower back on the pumps! We additionally get much less useful power assets in wind and image voltaic. Wind farms produce this way of small volume of entire power output, yet soak up distinctive acres of land, threatens all flying animal species, and that they must be close down whilst winds exceed something like 50mi/hr.

Answer 5

Thanks for the information. I distinctly remember the mini ice age that was going to freeze us all to death. The worlds scientists were so sure of that one back in the 70's. Man caused global warming is BS propaganda to advance a leftist agenda that won't fly on it's own.

Answer 6

You've got it exactly backwards. It is the U.S. that plunders the third world nations. You might want to read Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins.

The science community is in concensus that global warming is real and it is caused by the activities of man. There is a plethora of proof which the right-wing chooses to ignore only because any real solutions to global warming would cut into corporate profits.

Answer 7

No one ever said 1998 was the warmest in the United States...It was the warmest for the Earth.

Don't you understand what the word GLOBAL means?

1998 was the warmest for the GLOBE, 1934, while it was the warmest in the US, was NOT the warmest according to GLOBAL records.

Global warming is the threat, not US warming.

Get a clue.

Answer 8

lol, this has nothing to do with the modern AGW argument. why can't people refute that? the only argument they have against it is "one time people believed in global warming and it didn't happen" and "one time a couple people believe in a future ice age and it didn't happen". this has absolutely nothing to do with the scientists evidence to support their case. why don't you attack their case? after all, by implication, it sounds as if you're saying "oh, well, science was wrong once so they'll never be right again, and this is how i attack any other predictions they make". a little naive for one, but by they way, one more thing: WAS THERE ANY CONSENSUS ON THE MATTER IN 1922?. from what the post says, NO.

Answer 9

Wanna know something else that is funny?


After Hurricane Katrina meteorologists upgraded tornado and hurricane classes. Now weaker storms are considered stronger than they would have been 20 years ago.

Answer 10

2003 was the third hottest year on record:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/17/1071336989374.html
2004 was th hottest year on record:
http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive2005/december/2005_hottest_year_on_record_north.htm
2005 Was the hottest year on record:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/recordtemp2005.html
2006 Was the hottest year on record:
http://weather.about.com/od/climatechange/a/HottestYears.htm

It's getting hot, huh?

Answer 11

Republicans, please turn off the mushroom cloud propaganda trying to scare America into submission of the President's will.