Y'know folks, BS or not we should consider acting as if there is global warming taking place.
Moving society in that direction would result in a cleaner atmosphere and better breathing for all life on the planet.
Of course the day will come when the sun expands and burns our planet to a cinder and eventually the
universe will be gone, so why are we scrambling around like rats on a food frenzy. In the end, nothing we
have done will matter. Of course, to be considered is the possiblity that obama will be elected and we'll be saved
from all that.

>>>>>I thought this was an interesting read.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=3e7564004a5e7c06f0d1ccf77422828b&p=13473#post13473
>>>>
>>>>Just another one of many that will finally realize that Man Made Global Warming is BS.
>>>>
>>>>On another note, his observation that it isn't correct as there is no hot spot at 30,000 feet is also wrong, as the thermal elevator and basic IR exchange properties say it can't happen, remember that if an IR imbalance occurs the atmosphere will dump the IR in about 1 nano second, and it can't go back down as the lower regions of the atmosphere are already saturated, the only way is up out into space, and it happens very quickly.
>>>
>>>That doesn't seem to be a big point. The fact that the earth has been cooling seems to me a much bigger point. Scientists and third world countries are trying to cash in, at our expense.
>>
>>Ohhh yes, there is an adgenda, and it has nothing to do with reality.
>>
>>BTW The redistribution of wealth to the 3rd World has long been one of the UN's objectives, this Global Warming BS was a convenient way for it to achieve its objectives, but guess what, we are on to them.
>>
>>Remember the IPCC was formed by the WMO and the UNEP which are both UN organisations, big brother at work ????
>
>You've probably seen the recent Monckton paper: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
>
>and the resulting controversy: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2048807/posts
>
>Another example of official policy or position stifling the debate?