« Buy Nothing Christmas | Main | FILM: Mankind Is No Island »



31,072 scientists (including over 9,000 Ph.D.s) have signed a strong petition REJECTING the AGW religion. Contact: Audrey Mullen, 703-548-1160, at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine for details. See http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php for lists of signers by name, qualifications, and state.


“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”


The late-Carboniferous and late-Ordovician periods were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of the priests of the global warming religion, the late-Ordovician Period was also an ice age while, at the same time, CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today – approximately 4400 ppm then versus approximately 385 ppm now. According to the priests of the CO2 greenhouse religion, the Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, CO2 proponents do NOT know geology. Moreover, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.


Of 528 total papers on climate change published from 2004 to February 2007, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the “consensus” for the AGW religion. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are NEUTRAL papers, refusing to neither accept nor reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

Accordingly, dear readers, do not buy a pig in a poke from the self-anointed priests of the AGW religion.


What is climate did not change?
Do we not now have enough pollutants and carcinogens in the
environment to justify living "greener" anyway?

What do conservatives want?


How come Dallas has first White Christmas in 80 years?


The comments to this entry are closed.

February 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29