New EU President Anti-Lisbon Treaty, Says Climate Change a 'Myth'!

[Knightskye]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5430362.ece

Vaclav Klaus.

The European Union's new figurehead believes that climate change is a dangerous myth and has compared the union to a Communist state.

I think I like this guy.

[Zolah]

Wow, I didn't think good people still existed in politics, especially in Europe, but these few lines I've read look very promising, I will read up on for myself later but I'm impressed. Go Czechs!

[Imperial]

Glad my Czech roots are worth something. Interestingly, I saw an article from the WSJ written by the director of the Czech head of their central bank or president that also was against a huge stimulus.

Good countries in Europe:
Ireland
Czech Republic
Switzerland

I have roots in two of those...I am feeling pretty good.

[emazur]

Here's an article from last month in the NY Times if you're interested:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/wo...s.html?_r=3&hp
http://digg.com/world_news/Libertari...resident_of_EU
In the digg comments there's a link to a Klaus interview w/ Glenn Beck

[Ex Post Facto]

There is such a thing as global warming. The spin put on it though is that we are 100% responsible for it. I'm all for developing new technologies so that our kids grow up on a clean planet, but carbon taxes to solve the problem? We give our government billions of dollars...and they promote democracy in far off countries...they could be planting trees with it, or doing research on new fuels, or energy sources. We can't save the whole planet but we can develop things and methods for making sure there is a balance to earth/humanity.

[nate895]

I sense a European version of the Civil War brewing. When will the EU somehow claim it has complete sovereignty and power over the member states? I feel sometime in the near future is the answer. I just hope we are not forced to be involved.

[Knightskye]

He spoke with Barry Goldwater Jr. at the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix in October I believe.

McCain's second largest rally?

Just kidding.

[Pepsi]

I sense a European version of the Civil War brewing. When will the EU somehow claim it has complete sovereignty and power over the member states? I feel sometime in the near future is the answer. I just hope we are not forced to be involved.

The EU is going to break down, thow it won't happen untill around 2038...

[canadian4ronpaul]

The EU is going to break down, thow it won't happen untill around 2038...

...why in 2038?

[Pepsi]

It's just a prophecy I have that the EU well be unable to unite by rejection of a central goverment, and that the break down well lead to Wold War IV between 2038-2042..

[JAlli41]

First off, its a little funny that anthroprogenic global warming is still being questioned, as the science community is already beyond it and now debating what the results of it will be. (And when you call me an idiot for believing in the "global warming myth," please don't bring up arguments raised by Michael Crichton). And even more odd is the fact that Europeans are questioning it at all and Europe is quickly becoming the home of "enviro-terrorism" and is leading the charge towards trying to police away pollution. But the global warming debate should be focused on what can be/should be done about it. If global warming is completely destructive, it may be unstoppable, you can push a car down a hill, but once its rolling it gets very hard to stop. On the environmental front the important issues that should be focused on, but seem to be skipped over are those of sustainability, how do we make sure we have fresh water to drink? plenty of fish swimming in the ocean to eat? clean air to breath? I believe that the answers come from a mix of personal repsonsibilty for each person to keep their own environment clean, strict property rights, as well as enterprise and innovation in areas such as water purification, arificial reproduction medications for endangered species, and renewable energies.
As for the EU, I am in college studying international relations and I've found that the longest lasting, and most powerful international bodies, UN, NATO, ect, are the ones who ironically, have the least power. As long as the EU stays what it was originally meant to be, a weak, peacekeeping body which promotes open borders and free travel of economic resources through Europe, it probably wont disolve. However as history has told us, glimpses of power often lead to pushes for more power and corruption, which will end up turning Europeans against it and cause them to believe that it is an illigitimate body that has no sovereignty over their nation (as Europe hold no collective ethnicity, languge, or religion). As for stopping war the EU has been a complete failure, the EU has existed through ideological wars in Vietnam, ethnic wars in the Balkans, wars of territory in the Falklands, and wars of economic commodities in Iraq an Kuwait. Major wars have only been averted because of the presence of Nuclear weapons in France, Russia, China, and the UK's strong alliance with the US.

[paulitics]

]First off, its a little funny that anthroprogenic global warming is still being questioned, as the science community is already beyond it and now debating what the results of it will be

Not true. Countless scientists believe it is bunk. Maybe they aren't in the media spotlight, or getting funding from the IPCC, etc to voice their opinion, but to say the scores of scientists who disagree with the IPCC do NOT exist is dishonest, and is a lie propagated by Al Gore and parroted by people who do not research the other side. Remember, sacchrine was good for you, then aspartame was good for you, gmo foods are good for you, and cloned meat is now good for you.
You can buy "scienctific consensus", with the right money no matter how anti-scientific the political agenda, or $financial agenda may be.

The earth stopped warming 10 years ago. Isn't that scientifically significant enough to re-evaluate?

Besides, truth does not depend on a consensus of opinion.

UN, NATO, ect, are the ones who ironically, have the least power. As long as the EU stays what it was originally meant to be, a weak, peacekeeping body which promotes open borders and free travel of economic resources through Europe, it probably wont disolve. However as history has told us, glimpses of power often lead to pushes for more power and corruption, which will end up turning Europeans against it and cause them to believe that it is an illigitimate body that has no sovereignty over their nation (as Europe hold no collective ethnicity, languge, or religion). As for stopping war the EU has been a complete failure, the EU has existed through ideological wars in Vietnam, ethnic wars in the Balkans, wars of territory in the Falklands, and wars of economic commodities in Iraq an Kuwait. Major wars have only been averted because of the presence of Nuclear weapons in France, Russia, China, and the UK's strong alliance with the US

I don't think the U.N, EU, etc won't do anything less than seek greater power as already has been proven. If the world cedes power to these organizations through gloabal warming, aka climate change since the earth is no longer warming, than the world will likely never get that power back, as the framework for one world government will be firmly in place. The money will be flowing to these entities, and they will use it to subvert the people to their will as is already the case.

[JAlli41]

Not true. Countless scientists believe it is bunk. Maybe they aren't in the media spotlight, or getting funding from the IPCC, etc to voice their opinion, but to say the scores of scientists who disagree with the IPCC do NOT exist is dishonest, and is a lie propagated by Al Gore and parroted by people who do not research the other side. Remember, sacchrine was good for you, then aspartame was good for you, gmo foods are good for you, and cloned meat is now good for you.
You can buy "scienctific consensus", with the right money no matter how anti-scientific the political agenda, or $financial agenda may be.

The earth stopped warming 10 years ago. Isn't that scientifically significant enough to re-evaluate?

Besides, truth does not depend on a consensus of opinion.

First, to believe or not to believe in something just because of where the funding is coming from is asinine. Just because you believe someone is compromised does not mean the science is. Second I would love to know the scientists who are debunking this, what Universities/Think Tanks they are teaching or working at, and any papers they have written to debunk global warming. If global warming is garbage, fantastic, it is one less thing we have to worry about, but I have yet to see the evidence that it is bunk. Third the general consensus is not that global warming is a recent phenomenon which we no longer have to worry about due to recent cooling. In actuality the argument is that global temperature fluctuation has been occuring since the begining of time, but that the anthropogenic version of it (which has been accompanied by steady warming trends) has been ocuring for about 100 years, begining in about the Industrial Revolution. Any argument that it is natural and not due to human activity is argued against here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/289/5477/270

Next, if the earth is cooling, it is doing nothing to curb the melting of earth's glaciers a history of 169 of the earth's glaciers, which is the HUGE concern, can be found here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/308/5722/675

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...urcetype=HWCIT

http://ppg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/3/285

I don't think the U.N, EU, etc won't do anything less than seek greater power as already has been proven. If the world cedes power to these organizations through gloabal warming, aka climate change since the earth is no longer warming, than the world will likely never get that power back, as the framework for one world government will be firmly in place. The money will be flowing to these entities, and they will use it to subvert the people to their will as is already the case.

The one difference that Europe has is that is is a historically volatile place, in Europe the masses fight back, whereas in the US the masses take what is given to them.

[t0rnado]

This guy is the president of the Czech Republic, not the EU.

Some German guy and Nicholas Sarkozy insulted the Czech President a few months ago. This guy even refused to fly the EU flag in his capitol. Nigel Farage an MEP, who is a libertarian and anti-EU, pwned Sarkozy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMZbs6zu5PU

[nate895]

This guy is the president of the Czech Republic, not the EU.

Some German guy and Nicholas Sarkozy insulted the Czech President a few months ago. This guy even refused to fly the EU flag in his capitol. Nigel Farage an MEP, who is a libertarian and anti-EU, pwned Sarkozy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMZbs6zu5PU

The EU has a rotating presidency, and the Czech Republic is the new holder of the Presidency, and their head of state is now the head of the European Union.

[Mattsa]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5430362.ece

Vaclav Klaus.



I think I like this guy.

Interesting guy

He believes global warming is a 'communist conspiracy'

I agree with him

Place your bets now on how long it is before he is assassinated. That seems to be the usual method. Walking in the countryside seems to be a favourite. Dr Kelly, the scientist who spoke out about WMDs died whilst out walking in the countryside. Apparently he cut his wrists, which is physically impossible. You can only cut one wrist, not both

The other notable suicide was Anti Iraq War ex cabinet minister Robin Cook, the Labour MP who died whilst out walking accompamnied by his girlfriend, (an MI5 agent).

We've had a few senior police officers euthenize themselves too.

And 25 teenage suicides in one single small town in Wales in the space of 4 years, victims it is alleged, of NuLabour's Marxist leadership programmme 'Common Purpose'.

So I reckon this guys lifespan is limited. Watch this space

Watch also the 2nd Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. If Ireland votes against it a second time, the European Central bank will close down their economy. They'll simply shut down the supply of Euros that services Ireland's economy. It'll be a repeat of what is happening in Iceland right now (mass civil disorder) which is being conveniently ignored by the mainstream media

WATCH THIS SPACE!

[paulitics]

First, to believe or not to believe in something just because of where the funding is coming from is asinine

That's a distortion of what I said. Most of what I wrote was to illustrate to you is how there can be another side that is not getting the funding to express their viewpoints equally. This other side you seem to think is not there, may not be part of the Al Gore scientific community and garner the media or educational attention, but they are sizeable segment of the overall community.

One should not diregard where the money is coming from. If a scientist can not receive funding, unless he or she accepts global warming as fact, than this becomes politics and not science.

Just because you believe someone is compromised does not mean the science is.

No it doesn't, but politics and science don't belong together, and if you have a scientific mindset, I would hope you agree. The theory for anthropogenic global warming is overblown, one sided, and exaggerated. The political hysteria surrounding it is simply disgusting.

Second I would love to know the scientists who are debunking this, what Universities/Think Tanks they are teaching or working at, and any papers they have written to debunk global warming.

There are countless numbers of scientists who think it is a sham. However, the proportion of those who receive a paycheck from Exxon or some think tank is probably infinitesimal next to the billions upon billions from the federal gvt and the UN spent to promote the hysteria. I acknowledge that it exists, but one is like an ant next to an elephant. I also thought this sort of thing didn't matter to you, but now it does, when you want to make a point.

If global warming is garbage, fantastic, it is one less thing we have to worry about, but I have yet to see the evidence that it is bunk. Third the general consensus is not that global warming is a recent phenomenon which we no longer have to worry about due to recent cooling. In actuality the argument is that global temperature fluctuation has been occuring since the begining of time, but that the anthropogenic version of it (which has been accompanied by steady warming trends) has been ocuring for about 100 years, begining in about the Industrial Revolution. Any argument that it is natural and not due to human activity is argued against here:

We were still coming out of the mini ice age, and the temperature was natrually rising prior to industrial revolution. The earth has been warmer without catostrophic events in the past. The last 10 years was not predicted by the so called experts. These same guys were calling for global cooling in the 70s. Lets moderate the rhetoric of irrational hysteria, and not hand over the control to an international body who is propagating this.

The one difference that Europe has is that is is a historically volatile place, in Europe the masses fight back, whereas in the US the masses take what is given to them.

The Europeans have submitted to a higher power, largely gave up their guns, and have in general been emasculated. They have little to fight back with. America is quickly going the same route as the EU, but our ancestors were a rebellious people, and in general are more cynical of big government. I do believe the American people have been incredibly dumbed down to accept government propaganda such as the war on terror, and Global Warming, aka Climate Change, subsequently leading to an erosion of civil liberties, sovereignty, and wealth.

[JAlli41]

That's a distortion of what I said. Most of what I wrote was to illustrate to you is how there can be another side that is not getting the funding to express their viewpoints equally. This other side you seem to think is not there, may not be part of the Al Gore scientific community and garner the media or educational attention, but they are sizeable segment of the overall community.

One should not diregard where the money is coming from. If a scientist can not receive funding, unless he or she accepts global warming as fact, than this becomes politics and not science.

The problem with conseratives and libertarians accepting the science seems to be the fact the Al Gore's name is constantly thrown around when the topic comes us. The sad part of the matter is that it was a real science before Al Gore got involved. While the company you keep is often a mark of your character, climate science can not and should not be a victim of its advocates.

Again you mention scientists who are not receiving adequate media attention, again I would ask who these people are as I would find their work on the subject highly informative. If they are such a sizable segment of the overall community I am sure they have are some books/articles published by them, major book companies, universities, scholarly journals?

No it doesn't, but politics and science don't belong together, and if you have a scientific mindset, I would hope you agree. The theory for anthropogenic global warming is overblown, one sided, and exaggerated. The political hysteria surrounding it is simply disgusting.

I thought this was why we were followers of Ron Paul. That politics should be kept small and local. Once again, beliefs in small government and global warming are not anathema, it all depends on what solutions you believe in.

There are countless numbers of scientists who think it is a sham. However, the proportion of those who receive a paycheck from Exxon or some think tank is probably infinitesimal next to the billions upon billions from the federal gvt and the UN spent to promote the hysteria. I acknowledge that it exists, but one is like an ant next to an elephant. I also thought this sort of thing didn't matter to you, but now it does, when you want to make a point.

Its interesting that you once again refer to countless (and apparently anonymous) scientists. Sort of like when Fox News uses the old standard "people are saying..." What people?
"However, the proportion of those who receive a paycheck from Exxon or some think tank is probably infinitesimal next to the billions upon billions from the federal gvt and the UN spent to promote the hysteria."
Your point about the US government is unfounded, and uncited, in fact until 2006 it was completely untrue as the Bush Administration stopped every effort to have the matter looked into, read here:
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071210101633.pdf

"I also thought this sort of thing didn't matter to you, but now it does, when you want to make a point."
Of course it matters, if an economist at the Cato Institute is writing an article stating that global warming is a sham, its a lot different from a zoologist from the University of Alaska writing a paper on the effects of global warming on Caribou migration.

For further readings on the effects of Conservative think tanks on public opinion I urge this article : http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...44010802055576
of which I have in entirety on pdf and would be more than willing to send to you.

Further climate scientists have continually been smeared by contrarians in mainstream media read here:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/worldwatch_nov2006.pdf

For more on scientific consensus I urge you to read here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

We were still coming out of the mini ice age, and the temperature was natrually rising prior to industrial revolution. The earth has been warmer without catostrophic events in the past. The last 10 years was not predicted by the so called experts. These same guys were calling for global cooling in the 70s. Lets moderate the rhetoric of irrational hysteria, and not hand over the control to an international body who is propagating this.

I see we're going back to primordial soup days. The argument is not that the earth has never been warmer. As I said earlier the earth has been on a warming trend for 1000 years, the belief is that human actions have caused unnatural fluctuation in temperature in the past 100 years and that any unnatural changes to the environment are cause for concern.

You state that "these are the same guys," is this a general statement about all scientists? If it is, than the unnamed scientists who back the "its not happening" arguments are just as untrustworthy as mine.

Again, to believe in global warming is not a reason to give away your rights of sovereignty, a belief in anthropogenic global warming is also a belief that the cause is due to the tragedy of the commons, if the commons were held as property, individuals would have no right to pollute them. Unfortunately government has allowed special interests steal the commons away from the people.

The Europeans have submitted to a higher power, largely gave up their guns, and have in general been emasculated. They have little to fight back with. America is quickly going the same route as the EU, but our ancestors were a rebellious people, and in general are more cynical of big government. I do believe the American people have been incredibly dumbed down to accept government propaganda such as the war on terror, and Global Warming, aka Climate Change, subsequently leading to an erosion of civil liberties, sovereignty, and wealth.

they also riot at the drop of a hat.

[Standing Like A Rock]

It's just a prophecy I have that the EU well be unable to unite by rejection of a central goverment, and that the break down well lead to Wold War IV between 2038-2042..

what about wwIII?

[dannno]

First off, its a little funny that anthroprogenic global warming is still being questioned, as the science community is already beyond it and now debating what the results of it will be. (And when you call me an idiot for believing in the "global warming myth," please don't bring up arguments raised by Michael Crichton). And even more odd is the fact that Europeans are questioning it at all and Europe is quickly becoming the home of "enviro-terrorism" and is leading the charge towards trying to police away pollution. But the global warming debate should be focused on what can be/should be done about it. If global warming is completely destructive, it may be unstoppable, you can push a car down a hill, but once its rolling it gets very hard to stop. On the environmental front the important issues that should be focused on, but seem to be skipped over are those of sustainability, how do we make sure we have fresh water to drink? plenty of fish swimming in the ocean to eat? clean air to breath? I believe that the answers come from a mix of personal repsonsibilty for each person to keep their own environment clean, strict property rights, as well as enterprise and innovation in areas such as water purification, arificial reproduction medications for endangered species, and renewable energies.
As for the EU, I am in college studying international relations and I've found that the longest lasting, and most powerful international bodies, UN, NATO, ect, are the ones who ironically, have the least power. As long as the EU stays what it was originally meant to be, a weak, peacekeeping body which promotes open borders and free travel of economic resources through Europe, it probably wont disolve. However as history has told us, glimpses of power often lead to pushes for more power and corruption, which will end up turning Europeans against it and cause them to believe that it is an illigitimate body that has no sovereignty over their nation (as Europe hold no collective ethnicity, languge, or religion). As for stopping war the EU has been a complete failure, the EU has existed through ideological wars in Vietnam, ethnic wars in the Balkans, wars of territory in the Falklands, and wars of economic commodities in Iraq an Kuwait. Major wars have only been averted because of the presence of Nuclear weapons in France, Russia, China, and the UK's strong alliance with the US.

Your University is brainwashing you. Trust me, I was there.

Nearly everything you know is wrong. The EU is destroying England and other European countries as we speak. Don't take my word for it, find out what is REALLY going on over there and how their governments are being run. Global warming is a myth (how about the creator of the Weather Channel, John Coleman as a source? There are plenty of others, the fact is Global Warming is being used to push global governance and promote global corporations owned by the elite)

[JAlli41]

Nearly everything you know is wrong.

I was going to go to bed and respond fully in the morning, but the ridiculousness of this statement had to be pointed out. I no longer have wonders about why RP did so poorly in the election, its because rather than respond to rational arguments with backed up debate, some of his supporters respond with comments like, "you are brainwashed", "trust me I know", and "you are being lied to." At least when RP was up against it in debates he referenced people like Scheuer and Pape. I dont remember him telling Giuliani, "everything you know is wrong."

BTW you named the one guy who is hugely famous for his global warming skepticism, name someone who doesn't regularly appear on tv shows as "the skeptic," maybe someone whose argument isnt "lets sue Al Gore," and is closer to "as you can see on this model the projection for the next 20 years at the current rate of carbon emissions holds steady with few changes expected," ect.


PS. Ive yet to see an explanation for the melting of glaciers or thermal expansion of oceans, does John Coleman have an answer for this?

[paulitics]

The problem with conseratives and libertarians accepting the science seems to be the fact the Al Gore's name is constantly thrown around when the topic comes us. The sad part of the matter is that it was a real science before Al Gore got involved. While the company you keep is often a mark of your character, climate science can not and should not be a victim of its advocates.

The reason why Al Gore's name is brought up is because he is the one who declared the debate is over. Whenever, I read pro global warming/ climate change in a forum, I often hear this same intellectual dishonesty regurgitated. He is also the face of the movement, and I associate this one sidedness with his viewpoint.

Again you mention scientists who are not receiving adequate media attention, again I would ask who these people are as I would find their work on the subject highly informative. If they are such a sizable segment of the overall community I am sure they have are some books/articles published by them, major book companies, universities, scholarly journals?

I'm not going to spend much time doing something a quick google search will yield.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...arming_consenu
Here is an article on 31,000 scientists who reject it.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=64734

Go to Amazon, and you will find many books about how scientists are pressured into keeping quiet for fear of losing their jobs. Here's one of many who has researched this topic. http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renown...1124476&sr=8-6
The debate is not over unless you exclude all these scientist's opinions. Even if you do, consensus does not equate to truth in science. Read a book on the earth, weather patterns, and climatology written in the 80s, and you will read a different perspective despite decades of carbon emissions. That is what initially woke me up.

I thought this was why we were followers of Ron Paul. That politics should be kept small and local. Once again, beliefs in small government and global warming are not anathema, it all depends on what solutions you believe in.

I'm not sure I understand. The issue, which is political more than scientific, will be decided not by local governments, but more than likely an international body at the expense of national sovereignty. I would say this philosophy is anathema to Ron Paul's beliefs , not your belief in global warming. You can believe in the tooth fairy if you want.

Its interesting that you once again refer to countless (and apparently anonymous) scientists. Sort of like when Fox News uses the old standard "people are saying..." What people?

I shouldn't have to do a google search just to rebut your "anonymous" accusation. Now that I did, I bet you will change the argument, and still say they do not count as real scientists., blah, blah , blah. Insert circular argument here. Also, the study of climatology has become so political, that you will not find many Government funded climatologists who will utter a peep about global warming being a sham, just like you won't find any sociology professors who have written textbooks or papers about how we need to cut government programs like SS, medicare, department of education. Their paychecks and social pressure keep them in line.

Your point about the US government is unfounded, and uncited, in fact until 2006 it was completely untrue as the Bush Administration stopped every effort to have the matter looked into, read here:http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071210101633.pdf[/url]

I never mentioned the Bush administration. The democrats may be better on certain things regarding the war on terror, it does not mean that the war on terror is legitamite just because Obama may close down Guantanomo. Both factions use either the war on terror or global warming, and several other issues to overall increase the scope and power of government. If both parties were in lockstep on these issues, there would be more suspicions raised from the public. As long as every 4 to 8 years a new crew is in town, the football inches down the field.



"I also thought this sort of thing didn't matter to you, but now it does, when you want to make a point."

Of course it matters, if an economist at the Cato Institute is writing an article stating that global warming is a sham, its a lot different from a zoologist from the University of Alaska writing a paper on the effects of global warming on Caribou migration.

Ok, so your guys who receive a paycheck for doing a study is different from my guys who receive a paycheck for doing a study? My guys are liars, and have an agenda, and your guys are angels who would never lie, fudge, etc to receive a paycheck. The flaws of human nature only exist on one side of the political spectrum according to you.

For further readings on the effects of Conservative think tanks on public opinion I urge this article : http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...44010802055576
of which I have in entirety on pdf and would be more than willing to send to you.

Further climate scientists have continually been smeared by contrarians in mainstream media read here:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/worldwatch_nov2006.pdf

For more on scientific consensus I urge you to read here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

Your argument is that there is no debate left, and that anyone on the other side is lying and paid for by oil companies, etc. Meanwhile, you can't own up that the vast majority of information that gets out to the mainstream public comes from billions upon billion of dollars from the U.N, and federal government to pay for grants to those who subscribe to the global warming/climate change viewpoint.
Its like comparing an ant to an elephant, and saying look at that ant over there attacking the elephant.

I see we're going back to primordial soup days. The argument is not that the earth has never been warmer. As I said earlier the earth has been on a warming trend for 1000 years, the belief is that human actions have caused unnatural fluctuation in temperature in the past 100 years and that any unnatural changes to the environment are cause for concern.

Primordial soup? No one is talking about eons ago, The earth has not been warming for 1,000 years. There have been dramatic fluctuations of much cooler and warmer than it is today. Look at the middle ages, and then the mini ice age.

You state that "these are the same guys," is this a general statement about all scientists? If it is, than the unnamed scientists who back the "its not happening" arguments are just as untrustworthy as mine.

Again, to believe in global warming is not a reason to give away your rights of sovereignty, a belief in anthropogenic global warming is also a belief that the cause is due to the tragedy of the commons, if the commons were held as property, individuals would have no right to pollute them. Unfortunately government has allowed special interests steal the commons away from the people.

The so called general "consensus" of global cooling fear propaganda is like today's global warming hysteria. But, then a problem occured and the earth started warming, so now it is global warming. But, oh wait, the earth has stopped warming for 10 years, so lets just call it "climate change".

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but I am very green on other issues. I think this is just a diversion and a power grab and there are much worse real pollution, starting with our food supply.

[nate895]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

Here is a small list of skeptics. Remember: numbers do not count.

[libertea]

Its interesting that you once again refer to countless (and apparently anonymous) scientists

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdat...me.php?run=all

[Danke]

The Great Global Warming Swindle

[steph3n]

I am in switzerland now.......it is an interesting place to say the least.

Mods can attest to the fact I am posting from switzerland

I am out in a winter dormant vineyard right now in fact. Nice place.

This area doesn't normally get much snow but 6cm on the ground and has been here for well over a week now.

[Knightskye]

This guy is the president of the Czech Republic, not the EU.

He became the head of the EU recently.

The EU has a rotating presidency, and the Czech Republic is the new holder of the Presidency, and their head of state is now the head of the European Union.

Exactly. Thank you.