Post by DrGadget on Jan 23, 2008 12:57:20 GMT -5
Global warming is not scientifically proven, at least not to the extent we are often led to believe. The current culmination of global warming “science” is the Kyoto Treaty. We are told that unless we adhere to this treaty, and the treaties to follow, the Earth is doomed.
Key assumptions.
1. Global warming is real.
2. Scientists agree that global warming is real.
3. Global warming is a bad thing.
4. Global warming will lead to catastrophic events.
5. Global warming is caused by man.
6. The United States of America (and the "West") is the primary culprit.
7. The Earth’s natural cycles are unable to correct global warming without our help.
8. Global warming can be reversed by man.
9. It is worth whatever price we must pay to reverse global warming.
10. Ratifying the Kyoto Treaty will solve the problem.
11. It’s not already too late to reverse global warming.
12. The Law of Unintended Consequences will not result in worse problems.
Let’s look at each of these.
1. Is global warming real?
Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t. In the last few years, the temperature has risen, but before that it has fallen. In the 1970’s these same scientists told everyone we were heading into a new Ice Age. Was that true? If you base your projections on a short period of time, anything looks real. If you base it on a 6-month timeline, from January to July, you could get an increase of temperature of 80 degrees or more. At that rate, the oceans will boil in just a year and a half. But that assumes the temperature will keep on rising, which it doesn’t. Anything looks alarming if you concentrate on the differences found after a short period of time.
2. Do scientists agree that global warming is real?
Certainly the ones who are being paid to reach that conclusion believe it is real, or at least they SAY they believe it is real. To say otherwise would put their jobs in danger. Most of the “research” centers and agencies have already concluded that global warming is real and are paying their scientists to prove it. Any scientist who maintains that global warming is not the great threat that everyone says it is, will be unable to be hired for one of these high-paying “research” jobs. I put the word research in quotes because a real research scientist does not start with a conclusion and then find ways to prove it regardless of evidence. They may work at the Department of Scientific Research but that title alone does not make it actual research any more than the German Democratic Republic (Communist East Germany during the Cold War) was actually a Democratic Republic. It was a Soviet-controlled puppet Communist dictatorship with an intentionally misleading title and nothing more.
And just for the record, all of the “scientific experts” in the 1970’s agreed that we were quickly headed into an Ice Age, based on a very short sampling of yearly temperatures. They had “scientific consensus” back then. Did that make them right? Clearly, we can’t be headed into an Ice Age AND a global meltdown simultaneously. But “scientific consensus” points to both of them in the near future. This is a prime example of why we should dismiss scientific consensus and demand scientific proof instead.
3. Is global warming bad?
It all depends on your situation. In the 1970’s, when scientists all declared we were entering another Ice Age, people would have welcomed global warming. If the Earth is too hot or two cold, then naturally that is a bad thing. But what is “too hot”? What is “too cold”? If the temperature rises by 1 degree Celsius, is that too hot? What if in the previous 50 years the temperature dropped by 1 degree Celsius, is it still too hot? Warming is good when it’s too cold. Cooling is good when it’s too hot. If it warms up after it cooled down, that is a renewal of normalcy and indicates things are as they should be.
4. Will global warming lead to catastrophic events?
Nobody knows. When Leif Erikson went to Greenland, it was a land with lots of green grass and plants (thus the name GREENland). Now it has frozen over. If the ice on Greenland melts, we would presumably return to the conditions of 1000 years ago. There weren’t any cataclysmic events then, so why should there be any now? The so-called scientists offer no distinction to explain how higher temperatures today will be cataclysmic, even though they weren’t cataclysmic 1000 years ago.
5. Is global warming caused by man?
Surely mankind contributes to the climate, but he can’t control it. The extent to which mankind controls the climate is unknown. Do greenhouse gasses generated by man account for 50% of the problem (if it really is a problem)? Or does man account for only 20%? Maybe it’s 2%. Maybe it’s less than 1%. There is no way to tell for certain because the scientific test environment is the entire Earth. We can’t repeat tests under similar conditions outside the Earth.
Or can we? Mars appears to have been undergoing its own version of global warming lately. The polar ice caps (mostly frozen CO2) are shrinking. Was this caused by Americans driving SUV’s? Of course not. Mars is outside the test environment of Earth. Therefore, any recent temperature fluctuations are more likely caused by solar activity than by humans burning hydrocarbon fuel.
6. Is the United States (and the "West") the primary culprit in producing greenhouse gasses?
Yes and no. Overall volume of such gasses is higher in the USA than most of the rest of the world, but it is very low per capita. To manufacture a pair of jeans in America requires the burning of X amount of fuel. To manufacture the same pair of jeans in China would require about 8X amount of fuel. So moving manufacturing jobs to China actually causes seven times more carbon emissions than it eliminates. Western countries including the USA, Japan, and Europe are MUCH more energy efficient than the developing countries exempted by Kyoto.
www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=11798
In the Kyoto Treaty, it is conveniently assumed that the United States is a wasteful culprit that likes to generate carbon emissions all day. Therefore, limiting the manufacturing power of the United States will reduce carbon emissions. But then it places no such restrictions on nations like China and India because they are “developing countries” and can’t afford the financial impact. Because of this glaring logic flaw the Kyoto Treaty, if enforced, would drastically increase the amount of carbon emissions generated worldwide.
7. Can the Earth’s natural cycles correct for global warming?
The environment likes to seek a balance. Of course the Earth can’t correct for everything, but it does have a vast ability to correct for many things. Of particular note is CO2 gas. This is one of the primary gasses thought to cause global warming. Also, too much CO2 in the air is deadly poison! Surely this is a bad thing, right? Actually, no. Trees breathe CO2 gas and produce fresh oxygen. What is poison to you is life to a tree. With more CO2 in the air, plants should grow better. This will generate more oxygen. Eventually, we should reach a balance. In fact, the more out of balance the CO2 levels become, the more it should stimulate plant growth. All we have to do is plant a few trees every now and then, especially when we cut them down. No problem.
8. Can global warming be reversed by man?
It takes a certain degree of arrogance to assume that we have the power to destroy the Earth, but it takes an even higher level of arrogance to believe we can fix it once broken. To destroy is much easier than to create. I can burn the Mona Lisa in less than a minute if allowed to do so, but I couldn’t paint another. If we do destroy the Earth, it will most likely be irreversible given our current knowledge. And our cumulative knowledge is unlikely to rise significantly if we can’t differentiate between scientific consensus and scientific proof. Real science is a boon to mankind. Junkscience is a club used to silence opposition and circumvent the will of the people. After all, no sane American would vote to destroy the American manufacturing base. But if we had some “scientists” to “consent” then the ones against such action must be ignorant redneck SUV drivers who want to destroy the planet and should therefore be ignored. Thus the great majority of voters are written off as part of the problem and their will is thwarted unconstitutionally in the name of “science”.
9. Is it worth any price to reverse global warming?
Of course not. They make the argument that there will not be a world worth living in for your children to inherit. OK, that’s a possibility. So what if they require that you and your family, including your children, need to die in order to reverse global warming. Clearly that price is too high. Having a world for my children assumes that I have children. So that is just one price of many that is too high. But nobody is really talking about sacrificing your children in the name of global warming (yet). However, they do want to sacrifice your children for other reasons, some linked to global warming. One of them is Zero Population Growth. This has been enforced in China for several decades already. A couple can only have one child. If you have two kids, you have a choice. Kill it or be taxed very heavily. As a result, millions of Chinese babies are killed every year in the hopes of stopping their population growth. This is directly related to global warming, because fewer people means lower carbon emissions. What happens if we accept Kyoto and the follow-on treaty, and then they start enforcing Zero Population Growth like they already do in China? Then we have just sacrificed our children in an attempt to make the world better for our children. Watch for the United Nations or the extreme leftists to use the word “unsustainable” and you will get a small taste of what they plan to do. It’s only a small taste because they try to keep their true goals hidden.
For instance, I’ve seen the UN declare many times that there are currently “too many people” on the Earth and that the current population is unsustainable, so we need to correct the problem immediately to reduce “man’s footprint” on the planet. I just searched the internet for “united nations sustainable two billion population” and found this.
(from article)
“A sustainable world economy would be impossible to achieve with a world population of six billion or more people. We believe that a world population in the range of one to two billion might well be sustainable.”
www.npg.org/pospapers/comment_on_un_summit.html
Let’s suppose for a second that the world actually does have 4 or 5 billion too many people making the world population unsustainable. What is the obvious solution? Kill a bunch of people of course. And if you look at that quote carefully, you will see that their target population MIGHT be sustainable. That means there may be a round 2 of mass killings to save the human race from extinction. However, I have not seen them actually come out and say they want to kill billions of people to reach their “sustainable” goal of 1 or 2 billion. But how else can we get there? Limiting birthrates could take years or generations to work, and this is a “crisis” right now (isn’t everything?) so that is unworkable. The thing is, they don’t have to sell the idea of mass killings. First they sell you on the idea of population unsustainability. Once you buy into that, you will automatically conclude that billions of people need to die now, since that is the only way to achieve this noble goal in a short timespan. So who is going to die? Everyone in Asia? That’s a good 4 billion right there. But is that “fair”? Of course not. But then what is? Is killing 5/6 of the population of every country fair and reasonable? You can rest assured that if they ever try to put into practice a mass genocide of this magnitude, the survivors will be the ones with money and power. If I have any political capital at all, I will ensure the survival of myself and my family at the expense of all others. So who deserves to survive, and who deserves to die in order to make the world a nicer place for the survivors? I’ve not seen the United Nations ask these questions let alone provide answers for them.
Another article on this:
www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18501
What about economic costs? If you raise the cost enough, you will destroy the manufacturing base of the targeted country (starting with America). Turning off lights when not in use isn’t a big problem, but forcing companies to limit themselves to unrealistically low energy usage will bankrupt them. Without modern industry, we will be back to burning wood for heat. So what happens when 300 million Americans burn wood for heat? That’s a no-brainer. The amount of smoke (CO2 emissions) will increase and people will have to cut down all the trees. We can’t afford to let that happen. That means we have two choices here. We can either not let this happen, or kill off about 280 million Americans so that burning trees isn’t such an environmental impact.
10. Will ratifying the Kyoto Treaty solve the problem?
No. There are several reasons why Kyoto can’t possibly fix everything. Many of these we’ve already covered.
a. Kyoto is more about destroying American manufacturing than preserving the ecosystem.
b. Kyoto moves industry away from efficient Western countries and to the inefficient Asian countries, thereby increasing carbon emissions.
c. Kyoto has a loophole where developed Western countries can purchase eco “credits” from developing countries. Basically it’s where developed countries pay a yearly kickback to underdeveloped countries for not producing anything, so that they can just keep on emitting CO2 without restraint. Net result: no change.
d. Most importantly, the Kyoto Treaty is not the goal. It is the FIRST OF MANY such treaties, each designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions back further and further. The creators of the Kyoto Treaty are very clear that this is just the first step in fighting global warming, and that other tougher treaties will follow.
11. Is there still time to reverse global warming?
If you believe that global warming is the great problem of our time, and buy into all the “scientific consensus” nonsense, then just listen to what they have to say about it. It is entirely possible that there is a threshold where global warming accelerates wildly. Are we about to hit the point of no return? It’s hard to say. In the movie The Day After Tomorrow, we had hit the point of no return and the Earth’s climate began changing rapidly and catastrophically. This is exactly the sort of thing that the mainstream scientists are warning will happen in the next 20-50 years. If all of the previous assumptions were true, it may already be too late to reverse the effects of global warming. So first and foremost, we need an accurate assessment of where we stand in regards to global warming, without all the political machinations designed to arrive “scientifically” at a pre-determined outcome.
12. Can we solve Global Warming without worrying about the Law of Unintended Consequences?
No. You can't ever do anything without the possibility of causing more and worse problems than your original problem. This is why it is a law.
Remember in 2002 when California had its electricity crisis? In an effort to make California more "green" on energy, Governor Gray Davis pushed to eliminate many of those offensive power plants that dumped so many foul chemicals into the air. He did this at a time when California's energy demand was increasing. In hindsight the result of this action should have been obvious. There were massive blackouts throughout California and energy prices went through the roof. California was forced to buy energy from non-green states at extortion rate prices. The political backlash from this was so severe that Gray Davis was removed from office and replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003. Net result: Higher energy prices, More smoke dumped into the air, New governor. Gray Davis never intended any of this, but it all happened anyway.
++++++++++++++++++++
(more links)
www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html
"Scientists have suspected in recent years that Mars might be undergoing some sort of global warming. New data points to the possibility it is emerging from an ice age."
www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html
""The problem is that Earth's atmosphere is not in thermodynamic equilibrium with the sun," Scafetta said. "The longer the time period the stronger the effect will be on the atmosphere, because it takes time to adapt."
Key assumptions.
1. Global warming is real.
2. Scientists agree that global warming is real.
3. Global warming is a bad thing.
4. Global warming will lead to catastrophic events.
5. Global warming is caused by man.
6. The United States of America (and the "West") is the primary culprit.
7. The Earth’s natural cycles are unable to correct global warming without our help.
8. Global warming can be reversed by man.
9. It is worth whatever price we must pay to reverse global warming.
10. Ratifying the Kyoto Treaty will solve the problem.
11. It’s not already too late to reverse global warming.
12. The Law of Unintended Consequences will not result in worse problems.
Let’s look at each of these.
1. Is global warming real?
Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t. In the last few years, the temperature has risen, but before that it has fallen. In the 1970’s these same scientists told everyone we were heading into a new Ice Age. Was that true? If you base your projections on a short period of time, anything looks real. If you base it on a 6-month timeline, from January to July, you could get an increase of temperature of 80 degrees or more. At that rate, the oceans will boil in just a year and a half. But that assumes the temperature will keep on rising, which it doesn’t. Anything looks alarming if you concentrate on the differences found after a short period of time.
2. Do scientists agree that global warming is real?
Certainly the ones who are being paid to reach that conclusion believe it is real, or at least they SAY they believe it is real. To say otherwise would put their jobs in danger. Most of the “research” centers and agencies have already concluded that global warming is real and are paying their scientists to prove it. Any scientist who maintains that global warming is not the great threat that everyone says it is, will be unable to be hired for one of these high-paying “research” jobs. I put the word research in quotes because a real research scientist does not start with a conclusion and then find ways to prove it regardless of evidence. They may work at the Department of Scientific Research but that title alone does not make it actual research any more than the German Democratic Republic (Communist East Germany during the Cold War) was actually a Democratic Republic. It was a Soviet-controlled puppet Communist dictatorship with an intentionally misleading title and nothing more.
And just for the record, all of the “scientific experts” in the 1970’s agreed that we were quickly headed into an Ice Age, based on a very short sampling of yearly temperatures. They had “scientific consensus” back then. Did that make them right? Clearly, we can’t be headed into an Ice Age AND a global meltdown simultaneously. But “scientific consensus” points to both of them in the near future. This is a prime example of why we should dismiss scientific consensus and demand scientific proof instead.
3. Is global warming bad?
It all depends on your situation. In the 1970’s, when scientists all declared we were entering another Ice Age, people would have welcomed global warming. If the Earth is too hot or two cold, then naturally that is a bad thing. But what is “too hot”? What is “too cold”? If the temperature rises by 1 degree Celsius, is that too hot? What if in the previous 50 years the temperature dropped by 1 degree Celsius, is it still too hot? Warming is good when it’s too cold. Cooling is good when it’s too hot. If it warms up after it cooled down, that is a renewal of normalcy and indicates things are as they should be.
4. Will global warming lead to catastrophic events?
Nobody knows. When Leif Erikson went to Greenland, it was a land with lots of green grass and plants (thus the name GREENland). Now it has frozen over. If the ice on Greenland melts, we would presumably return to the conditions of 1000 years ago. There weren’t any cataclysmic events then, so why should there be any now? The so-called scientists offer no distinction to explain how higher temperatures today will be cataclysmic, even though they weren’t cataclysmic 1000 years ago.
5. Is global warming caused by man?
Surely mankind contributes to the climate, but he can’t control it. The extent to which mankind controls the climate is unknown. Do greenhouse gasses generated by man account for 50% of the problem (if it really is a problem)? Or does man account for only 20%? Maybe it’s 2%. Maybe it’s less than 1%. There is no way to tell for certain because the scientific test environment is the entire Earth. We can’t repeat tests under similar conditions outside the Earth.
Or can we? Mars appears to have been undergoing its own version of global warming lately. The polar ice caps (mostly frozen CO2) are shrinking. Was this caused by Americans driving SUV’s? Of course not. Mars is outside the test environment of Earth. Therefore, any recent temperature fluctuations are more likely caused by solar activity than by humans burning hydrocarbon fuel.
6. Is the United States (and the "West") the primary culprit in producing greenhouse gasses?
Yes and no. Overall volume of such gasses is higher in the USA than most of the rest of the world, but it is very low per capita. To manufacture a pair of jeans in America requires the burning of X amount of fuel. To manufacture the same pair of jeans in China would require about 8X amount of fuel. So moving manufacturing jobs to China actually causes seven times more carbon emissions than it eliminates. Western countries including the USA, Japan, and Europe are MUCH more energy efficient than the developing countries exempted by Kyoto.
www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=11798
In the Kyoto Treaty, it is conveniently assumed that the United States is a wasteful culprit that likes to generate carbon emissions all day. Therefore, limiting the manufacturing power of the United States will reduce carbon emissions. But then it places no such restrictions on nations like China and India because they are “developing countries” and can’t afford the financial impact. Because of this glaring logic flaw the Kyoto Treaty, if enforced, would drastically increase the amount of carbon emissions generated worldwide.
7. Can the Earth’s natural cycles correct for global warming?
The environment likes to seek a balance. Of course the Earth can’t correct for everything, but it does have a vast ability to correct for many things. Of particular note is CO2 gas. This is one of the primary gasses thought to cause global warming. Also, too much CO2 in the air is deadly poison! Surely this is a bad thing, right? Actually, no. Trees breathe CO2 gas and produce fresh oxygen. What is poison to you is life to a tree. With more CO2 in the air, plants should grow better. This will generate more oxygen. Eventually, we should reach a balance. In fact, the more out of balance the CO2 levels become, the more it should stimulate plant growth. All we have to do is plant a few trees every now and then, especially when we cut them down. No problem.
8. Can global warming be reversed by man?
It takes a certain degree of arrogance to assume that we have the power to destroy the Earth, but it takes an even higher level of arrogance to believe we can fix it once broken. To destroy is much easier than to create. I can burn the Mona Lisa in less than a minute if allowed to do so, but I couldn’t paint another. If we do destroy the Earth, it will most likely be irreversible given our current knowledge. And our cumulative knowledge is unlikely to rise significantly if we can’t differentiate between scientific consensus and scientific proof. Real science is a boon to mankind. Junkscience is a club used to silence opposition and circumvent the will of the people. After all, no sane American would vote to destroy the American manufacturing base. But if we had some “scientists” to “consent” then the ones against such action must be ignorant redneck SUV drivers who want to destroy the planet and should therefore be ignored. Thus the great majority of voters are written off as part of the problem and their will is thwarted unconstitutionally in the name of “science”.
9. Is it worth any price to reverse global warming?
Of course not. They make the argument that there will not be a world worth living in for your children to inherit. OK, that’s a possibility. So what if they require that you and your family, including your children, need to die in order to reverse global warming. Clearly that price is too high. Having a world for my children assumes that I have children. So that is just one price of many that is too high. But nobody is really talking about sacrificing your children in the name of global warming (yet). However, they do want to sacrifice your children for other reasons, some linked to global warming. One of them is Zero Population Growth. This has been enforced in China for several decades already. A couple can only have one child. If you have two kids, you have a choice. Kill it or be taxed very heavily. As a result, millions of Chinese babies are killed every year in the hopes of stopping their population growth. This is directly related to global warming, because fewer people means lower carbon emissions. What happens if we accept Kyoto and the follow-on treaty, and then they start enforcing Zero Population Growth like they already do in China? Then we have just sacrificed our children in an attempt to make the world better for our children. Watch for the United Nations or the extreme leftists to use the word “unsustainable” and you will get a small taste of what they plan to do. It’s only a small taste because they try to keep their true goals hidden.
For instance, I’ve seen the UN declare many times that there are currently “too many people” on the Earth and that the current population is unsustainable, so we need to correct the problem immediately to reduce “man’s footprint” on the planet. I just searched the internet for “united nations sustainable two billion population” and found this.
(from article)
“A sustainable world economy would be impossible to achieve with a world population of six billion or more people. We believe that a world population in the range of one to two billion might well be sustainable.”
www.npg.org/pospapers/comment_on_un_summit.html
Let’s suppose for a second that the world actually does have 4 or 5 billion too many people making the world population unsustainable. What is the obvious solution? Kill a bunch of people of course. And if you look at that quote carefully, you will see that their target population MIGHT be sustainable. That means there may be a round 2 of mass killings to save the human race from extinction. However, I have not seen them actually come out and say they want to kill billions of people to reach their “sustainable” goal of 1 or 2 billion. But how else can we get there? Limiting birthrates could take years or generations to work, and this is a “crisis” right now (isn’t everything?) so that is unworkable. The thing is, they don’t have to sell the idea of mass killings. First they sell you on the idea of population unsustainability. Once you buy into that, you will automatically conclude that billions of people need to die now, since that is the only way to achieve this noble goal in a short timespan. So who is going to die? Everyone in Asia? That’s a good 4 billion right there. But is that “fair”? Of course not. But then what is? Is killing 5/6 of the population of every country fair and reasonable? You can rest assured that if they ever try to put into practice a mass genocide of this magnitude, the survivors will be the ones with money and power. If I have any political capital at all, I will ensure the survival of myself and my family at the expense of all others. So who deserves to survive, and who deserves to die in order to make the world a nicer place for the survivors? I’ve not seen the United Nations ask these questions let alone provide answers for them.
Another article on this:
www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18501
What about economic costs? If you raise the cost enough, you will destroy the manufacturing base of the targeted country (starting with America). Turning off lights when not in use isn’t a big problem, but forcing companies to limit themselves to unrealistically low energy usage will bankrupt them. Without modern industry, we will be back to burning wood for heat. So what happens when 300 million Americans burn wood for heat? That’s a no-brainer. The amount of smoke (CO2 emissions) will increase and people will have to cut down all the trees. We can’t afford to let that happen. That means we have two choices here. We can either not let this happen, or kill off about 280 million Americans so that burning trees isn’t such an environmental impact.
10. Will ratifying the Kyoto Treaty solve the problem?
No. There are several reasons why Kyoto can’t possibly fix everything. Many of these we’ve already covered.
a. Kyoto is more about destroying American manufacturing than preserving the ecosystem.
b. Kyoto moves industry away from efficient Western countries and to the inefficient Asian countries, thereby increasing carbon emissions.
c. Kyoto has a loophole where developed Western countries can purchase eco “credits” from developing countries. Basically it’s where developed countries pay a yearly kickback to underdeveloped countries for not producing anything, so that they can just keep on emitting CO2 without restraint. Net result: no change.
d. Most importantly, the Kyoto Treaty is not the goal. It is the FIRST OF MANY such treaties, each designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions back further and further. The creators of the Kyoto Treaty are very clear that this is just the first step in fighting global warming, and that other tougher treaties will follow.
11. Is there still time to reverse global warming?
If you believe that global warming is the great problem of our time, and buy into all the “scientific consensus” nonsense, then just listen to what they have to say about it. It is entirely possible that there is a threshold where global warming accelerates wildly. Are we about to hit the point of no return? It’s hard to say. In the movie The Day After Tomorrow, we had hit the point of no return and the Earth’s climate began changing rapidly and catastrophically. This is exactly the sort of thing that the mainstream scientists are warning will happen in the next 20-50 years. If all of the previous assumptions were true, it may already be too late to reverse the effects of global warming. So first and foremost, we need an accurate assessment of where we stand in regards to global warming, without all the political machinations designed to arrive “scientifically” at a pre-determined outcome.
12. Can we solve Global Warming without worrying about the Law of Unintended Consequences?
No. You can't ever do anything without the possibility of causing more and worse problems than your original problem. This is why it is a law.
Remember in 2002 when California had its electricity crisis? In an effort to make California more "green" on energy, Governor Gray Davis pushed to eliminate many of those offensive power plants that dumped so many foul chemicals into the air. He did this at a time when California's energy demand was increasing. In hindsight the result of this action should have been obvious. There were massive blackouts throughout California and energy prices went through the roof. California was forced to buy energy from non-green states at extortion rate prices. The political backlash from this was so severe that Gray Davis was removed from office and replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003. Net result: Higher energy prices, More smoke dumped into the air, New governor. Gray Davis never intended any of this, but it all happened anyway.
++++++++++++++++++++
(more links)
www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html
"Scientists have suspected in recent years that Mars might be undergoing some sort of global warming. New data points to the possibility it is emerging from an ice age."
www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html
""The problem is that Earth's atmosphere is not in thermodynamic equilibrium with the sun," Scafetta said. "The longer the time period the stronger the effect will be on the atmosphere, because it takes time to adapt."
