Instead of watching TV ads or the latest clips on you tube and believing everything you hear from critics, do something the critics haven’t done… READ. You know, that outdated thing called books, magazines, trade articles, and reports, yeah that… with those big words and all.

I am a bit irritated with all the buzz about climate change not happening. Tell that to the people across the seas suffering who think we are a bunch of arrogant idiots. Tell that to the thousands of people whose homes are being destroyed by weather patterns being perpetuated by human being’s and their 142% increase in methane over the last decade.

Before you decide to among the illierate, read these links…all of them .

For anyone who even pondered on the idea that the critics may be correct, here is some resources for you, read them

ALL before you decide to
follow the masses without thinking.

A key element is what could be called “conspiracism” — a quasi-religious (if perhaps subconscious) belief system
that is prejudiced toward — and even relies upon — belief in the existence of shadowy, globe-curdling conspiracies
in order to try and make sense of a complex and confusing world.
As Richard Hofstadter in 1964 described in “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” (http://bit.ly/3XvRob), a
significant element of society for centuries has ceaselessly searched for bogeymen to demonize, and to link to what
they see as the ultimate evils of the world — such as taxation, state control, and world government (all of which
may, of course, equal Communism or the Anti-Christ, or both…).
The internet, especially the comments sections on blogs and newspaper websites, allows for the rapid spread of such
memes, and for new information to confirm what is already “known to be true”. Thus, before most people had ever even
heard that climate-related emails had been hacked, many thousands of people were convinced — as convinced as any
human being could ever be convinced of anything — that climate change was the greatest hoax of all time, motivated
through a cabal led by Al Gore and Barack Obama as a pretext to tax, control, and enslave America/humanity, etc.
At least that is what I have witnessed.

Thanks for your interesting response!! I think that is vey sad when the appearance of overlapping groups of
skeptical is a results from an organized attempt to replace scientific analysis with political ideology. Science
inevitably intervene with politics. – AnaDP 1 hour ago

Some replys to my blog…
1

Why should anyone believe this global warming hoax now? The data has been tampered with and the massive fraud has
been exposed. There news is all over the place.
•http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/20/global-warming-fraud-exposed-t
•conservativehideout.com/wordpress/?p=2184
•discussglobalwarming.com
•dancingfromgenesis.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/un-global-warming-climate-change-data-fraud-british-professor-phil-
jones-east-anglia-climatic-research-unit-global-warming-scientists-emails-hacked-russian-ip-name-foia-international
-climate-change-tr/
•greenhellblog.com/2009/11/25/must-see-video-hide-the-decline/
and in hundreds of other sites all over the place.
Why would anyone give this the time of day anymore is beyond me. I refuse to pay a dime to anyone, in the name of
global warming.
Sorry, but there no more denying the hoax.

Well, his comment starts with a question. “Why should anyone believe this global warming hoax now?” It is true; it
is up to you to believe is hoax and it is up to you to believe that global warming exist.
It is up to you to believe that one single research center has the entire dataset of ALL the meteoroogical stations
of the world, for ALL the timeframe covered by measurements with instruments. The fact is that the Climate Research
Unit, at the University of East Anglia, has an exntesive dataset with climatic data. However, it is naive to think
that no one else in the world has a copy of the data, either electronically or in paper. As you mentioned, the news
on hackers and emails exchanged between Phil Jones (University of East Anglia, Director Climate Research Unit [CRU])
and other scientists (or as you want to call them) are everywhere and took every one by surprise. But to attribute a
“global” hoax to a small group of people is misleading. The CRU has an extensive database with land surface
temperatures which is used for climate modelling. THE CRU exists since 1972. If Mr. Jones (who, by the way, has been
involved as CRU’s director since 1998) and his group altered, deleted or manipulated in some way their data is just
them to blame. Assuming that it happened. The CRU is not the only research center with climatic data, nor are they
the only scientists working on climate and meteorology.
Meterological stations are distributed over the territory of many countries, and are operated and maitained by their
respective national meterological offices. Each one has its own dataset and performs quality control on it. Part of
this data may have been shared with CRU but the fact that CRU did something with it, does not mean that the rest of
the world opted to delete its own data and “secretly” created a global hoax. For instance, check the historical
dataset by the NOAA, in the United States: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php Also, you
could check the measurements made with satellites, or the results from the analysis of the content of dissolved
gases on ice samples collected from the Poles. Also you could check the measurements done on the sea level.
True. It is up to you to believe in both, the problem of global warming and the current news that they (CRU)
cheated.
The other issue, on you paying a dime in the name of global warming, is also up to you. You can vote and ask your
President, Prime Minister, Congress, Parliament or similar about which position your country should assume on the
issue; that includes the discussion and decision of putting public money from your country into the hands of others,
“in the name of global warming”. The same could be said for HIV/AIDS, assistance for development, or other problems
whose consequences may be international.
Thanks for sharing your stance. Have a nice day.
link|flag answered Dec 3 at 0:10
Juan Carlos Arredondo
375

This question is at the origin of the debate that has gone for a while but that in the past two years has concluded
that the current changes in our climate are mainly due to anthropogenic emissions.
Everyone can agree that the earth cycle has gone through some periods of ice age but what it is also very obvious is
that we humans have affected the emissions of carbon dioxide since the european industrial revolution. These
emissions have a direct impact in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which has a direct impact
on the earth’s greenhouse gas effect resulting in an increase in the temperature. In my opinion these are direct
relations to conclude that human kind has had an impact on the climate.
I would recommend to read the new IPCC report where details on the reasoning can be found: IPCC REPORT
link|flag answered Nov 16 at 23:32
Isha Lara
136
3

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change has been actively following the climate change debate taking place at the
US Senate.
There are two important bills:
The American Clean Energy and Security Act (Waxman-Markey bill) , and the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act
(Kerry-Boxer bill) .
I will post two answers, each one with a link to the corresponding summary.
link|flag answered Nov 9 at 18:34
Juan Carlos Arredondo
375

pewclimate.org/acesa – Juan Carlos Arredondo Nov 9 at 18:35
1
Kerry-Boxer pewclimate.org/short-summary/… – Juan Carlos Arredondo Nov 9 at 18:35
Thanks Juan, very useful links. Cheers – Karl Nov 12 at 23:12

2

I would recommend you to read the following summary, they will give you an quick overview of the Waxman-Markey bill
submitted to the senate:
http://www.edf.org/documents/10440_ACES_international_provisions_sum.pdf
link|flag answered Nov 5 at 23:47
Stephanie
111

2

Karl also take a look at the following one, it provides an excellent brief of the main bullet points:
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-03-waxman-markey-bill-breakdown/
link|flag answered Nov 5 at 23:55
Adriana
51

2

The National Wildlife Federation did a thorough analysis which can be found at http://blogs.nwf.org/files/nwf-aces
-toolbox-final-8-14-09.pdf
link|flag answered Nov 9 at 11:23
Hans
21

This is a great toolkit! thanks so much Hans – Laura Smith Nov 11 at 21:55

This question is at the origin of the debate that has gone for a while but that in the past two years has concluded
that the current changes in our climate are mainly due to anthropogenic emissions.
Everyone can agree that the earth cycle has gone through some periods of ice age but what it is also very obvious is
that we humans have affected the emissions of carbon dioxide since the european industrial revolution. These
emissions have a direct impact in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which has a direct impact
on the earth’s greenhouse gas effect resulting in an increase in the temperature. In my opinion these are direct
relations to conclude that human kind has had an impact on the climate.
I would recommend to read the new IPCC report where details on the reasoning can be found: IPCC REPORT
link|flag answered Nov 16 at 23:32
Isha Lara

Question 1: the 2°C increase is versus the average recorded for the planet over the last (at least) 30 years.
According to the World Meterological Organizatio (WMO) if you take weather measurements very single day and several
times during the day, for at least 30 years, you can obtain a description of the climate in that place. [Climate is
what you expect, weather is what you get in a single day].
Question 2: I may be wrong, but is around 14°C, considering the mean temperature of the ocean and the mean
temperature of the land. Maybe the Global Carbon Project, the NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html, or the NASA (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)
have the most updated number about it. The mean has increased by about half a degree in the 20th century.
Question 3: Scientists consider the +2°C as the temperature increase where climate may not reach an irreversible
change point. That is based in probabilities with a certain degree of confidence. Take a look at the work done by
the Joint Programe on the Science and Policy of Global Change, at MIT (http://globalchange.mit.edu/) They have the
“Greenhouse Gamble” to explain some aspects of the 2°C. (http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/gamble/)