Not for myself, but for the many biased and narrow-minded people who still believe in the global warming hoax. Get out of your safe turtle shell, get your ostrich head out of the sand,; read, study, learn facts, not more fancy slogans and anti-GOP rhetoric. Free your mind and engage your opposition in open dialog, with an open mind. Broaden your number of "intellectual" sources to include those whom you currently disagree with. The truth is out there, more and more everyday, real climatological and meteorological scientists, those not being paid for and paid off by liberals and their institutions, are speaking out louder and louder and publishing factual data, in fact, they are now becoming the majority on this issue. has there ever been "global Warming?" Yes! Has there ever been "global cooling?" Yes! Actually, the planet Earth has still not fully recovered from our last mini-ice-age of 1100-1000 years ago; as an example, Greenland is still covered under ice and snow where it was not in the past. A build-up greenhouse gases? 75% of which is water vapor, which is all natural and good. The same water on Earth today is the exact same water that was here over a million years ago - dinosaur pee? Perhaps, but through millenniums of drought and ice-ages! A build-up of CO2? Scientifically impossible! The rate of photosynthesis is a logarithmic exponential of carbon dioxide. Double the rate of CO2, and nature triples the rate of photosynthesis, on & on & on. More CO2 makes for greener trees and grass everywhere.
But, CO, auto exhaust, etc., is terribly bad !!!!
An appropriate term to use for the Dem-Lib "global warming" fanatics, as I read in a Michael Crichton book is: temporal provincials; - people who are proud of being ignorant of the past. They believe that the present is all that matters, and anything that has happened earlier can be ignored.
The truth is, if you do not know history, of man or of the planet Earth, you will never be able to accurately know what can and may happen in the future.
5 comments on New Year's Resolution
Add a comment
To add comments without entering your email and image verification, you must be logged in. Login or Join Blogster
If people want to conserve CO2 output on their own, that is fine- have at it. But forcing people to buy compact fluorescent bulbs filled with mercury, 50 mpg cars that are unsafe on North American ice and snow covered roads, this is nuts.
The same people who "worry" about a religious president running the country, have no problem allowing an environmental president change laws on unproven science.
I've been thinking lately that the most carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere is from our own lungs. So, if the "greens" want to really reduce CO2 perhaps they should just stop breathing. That in turn would mean fewer people on the planet to drive cars - which means demand on oil would go down and as a result of supply and demand, so would the cost of a gallon of gasoline. Also, noise would be reduced because if you're not breathing you're not talking either.
I don't know, I think my solution makes about as much sense as anything Algore has come up with. Can I have my Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize now?
[SMILE][LOL][TONGUE]