Text 17179, 118 rader
Skriven 2014-07-28 09:53:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av BILL MCGARRITY
Ärende: Re: Global Warming Scam
===============================
On 07-28-14, BILL MCGARRITY said to TIM RICHARDSON:

-=> On 07-27-14 23:08, TIM RICHARDSON wrote to BILL MCGARRITY <=-

TR> On 07-27-14, BILL MCGARRITY said to TIM RICHARDSON:


BM>Yadda Yadda Yadda..... Tim, WHERE IS THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION REGARDING
BM>JASON BOX!!!


TR> Here's some more....


TR> Box seems to be making a big deal over ice melt on Greenland.


TR> He made several claims about it's `disappearing'!


TR> It was found that the Greenland Ice Sheet is actually melting at
TR> half the rate claimed by the alarmists like Box.


TR> It's melt rate is estimated at about 230 cubic kilometers per
TR> year.


TR> At that rate....in about 90 years Greenland will lose a bit less
TR> than 0.4% of its ice volume.


BM>Thank God for wikipedia... plus this data is from 2006... nice try...


Wikipedia allowed one of its senior administrators *re*-write the papers of
others in order to reflect *his*, and other's notions of `what' should be.


He even attempted to *erase* The Little Ice Age, and the Midieval Warming
Period, so the example of how easily and periodically Earth's climate
patterns change, wouldn't be so obvious.


And then...when objections were raised, Wikipedia curtailed him alright...
but NOT for that reason or anything to DO with that, but for something
else entirely!


So...Wikipedia pretty well debunked itself as an `authority' or `source'
for anything.


Which leaves this question unanswered:


If `global warming', which morphed into `climate change' when info began
to come out that it hadn't `warmed' in over 17 or more years, is so
real....if the science is so `settled'....why the need to *re*-write
other people's material (over 5000 of them!) to be more in line with
your contention that the Earth is warming?


Wikipedia has put sanctions in place for entering material that almost
completely prevents any and all material that is `skeptical' of `global
warming'!


Another question:


If the science is so `settled'...why prevent any and all material that
is counter to the theory, from even being publicized?


If the science is so `settled'...those who advocate it should be out there
inviting criticism, instead of trying to suppress any and all criticism.


The whole thing stinks of a massive fraud, perpetrated on the taxpayers by
academia, and useful idiots in governments the world over go along with
it because it serves their ends: to control massive numbers of the
population, and expand their own role (government) in everybody's lives.


Did you know that, back in the Midieval Warming Period they were growing
grapes in Northern England? The Romans had vineyards there!


The Romans knew how to make wine.


The English know nothing about making wine!


It is said that it took four people to drink wine made by English vintners:


One to do the drinking...two to hold the drinker down...and the fourth to
pour it down the poor guy's throat!


The point is...it was far warmer in that area of the world back then, than
it is now. And there were no gasoline engines or smoke stacks of factories.


So...again:


If the science is so `setteled'...why the fear of allowing publication that
contradicts it? If its so real....you'd think those who advocate for it
would be unafraid of opposing views. The `theory' should be almost self
evident.


---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 bbs.docsnetservices.com (1:123/140)