why should i Google it when the evidence has been posted here and in other threads on this site. all of which you ignored claiming that the either the company that owned the site was financed by the oil company (not always) or of the wrong political party (obviously from your post on that, if they had political leanings different than you they were wrong about everything) or something along these line, rather than discussing the subject of the articles themselves.

its not from laziness, because if i were lazy, id simply follow the pack and claim the earth is doomed. no, the fact that i found evidence is evidence of the fact that i have already done the search. why not get off you lazy duff and read some of the things other people post, rather than simply discard them, or discuss the finding rather than ignore it because you don't like the owners of the site.

it does not take much work to simply say "I'm not discussing this because the site owners are ....". show a little initiative and find something wrong with the evidence we show you. If you cant, don't try the arrogant "I'm so great i don't need to explain, your to lazy (or childish, ignorant, or just plain was taught by the wrong school as you used to say) to understand it" routine.

let me list some of the evidence that has recently been put out on this forum.

1) the IPCC has recently changed their act to put all (including natural) warming under the category of man made and only let people know in very fine print hidden away on the back page.

2) the year that AL Gore used as the book mark for the evidence that the great melt off, was the year that Mount Pinatubo erupted, dropping temperature world wide by .9 degrees. temperature in Greenland was 4 degrees colder than normal that year. of course there was less melt off that year than normal, but this is the book mark that Al Little, i mean Gore wants to use proof of global warming.

3) IPCC did not use the summaries that the scientist gave them, and none of the scientist that was consulted about it agree with the political motivated summery that IPCC came up with.

4) IPCC use the tree rings from northwest us to prove that there was global warming, instead of all the other evidence. tree rings do not show temperatures let alone what was going on in the rest of the world. other evidence shows that area had a different growing patterns than other areas of the world, but IPCC went only with these to show that the world was warmer during the little ice age and cooler during the global warming of the middle ages.

5) they have had to constantly juggle the readings to reconcile them with the models to prove that the global warming is still happening.

6) they recently discovered that the snow fall pattern of the last century was not as stable as the people that made the global warming scare claimed it to be. it varies way to much for them to say that there has been much if any change in the last few years.

7) I posted a link to a site that had a graph that showed that while the global temperature has gone up in the last century, it has also fallen, and there were more than one period of time during the last century that the temperature world wide was higher than it is now. It also showed that the temperature has fallen in the last 5 years.

I'm sure there was more, but these are part of what was there. Yet you still claim there is no evidence of rigging of the temperature for political power. what would it take for you to acknowledge that there is evidence of political motive for the global warming scare rather than actual evidence of it.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.