|
1. In spite of a whole bunch of reasons; due diligence, astute observations and sound research why is it that officials in academia, science and politics flatly condemn climate change sceptics without talking 'nuts and bolts' as to why they should not be taken seriously? 2. Following on from 1, and for some this question could mean thinking the unthinkable, could the above be because the establishment is afraid of being exposed; that human caused climate change is a lie used to control the masses for power, profit and political gain? 3. What would supporters of human caused climate change have to say about the data to show that the 'Greenhouse Effect' produces only 0.28% CO2 and if water vapour is factored in then it's around 5.53% in total which would be quite significant but however, water vapour is 99.999% naturally produced. Was the latter deliberately factored in (bad science?) to exaggerate the claims of global warming? To summarize: Through his research atmospheric scientist Professor S. Fred Singer said in so many words that CO2 global warming would only contribute to about 1/20th of a degree rise in temperature by 2050. There are other researchers to support / confirm this with similar data. I would encourage you to discover this through your own research. 4. What would supporters of human caused climate change say to whistle blowers who claim that it's a lie; as stated by former insider scientist and engineer David Evans, who said in so many words that overlooking, filtering and misrepresenting of evidence was used as a vehicle for global governance and world domination by the ruling elite..? 5. Consistent with 4, for example, there are graphs to show historically that during medieval times the Earth's Northern Hemisphere temperature was higher than later centuries which has been ignored in mainstream science. Had this medieval period been factored in retrospectively it would have shown that the rise and fall of the Earth's temperatures over long time periods are just natural cycles. -So how about this as an 'inconvenient truth' for supporters of human caused climate change (if you pardon the pun): where was the man-made CO2 to cause this temperature rise during medieval times?! 6. Graphical data shows that there has been no overall change in the Earth's temperature for 5 years (such as the records 1997 - 2002). Is this why 'global warming' has been altered to 'climate change' in the propaganda? 7. In 2008 it was predicted that the Arctic polar ice cap would be gone by 2014 due to climate change. How can anyone take this and climate change seriously when today this has not happened because the Arctic polar ice cap has increased by a whopping great 43%? 8. Following on some scientists now say that the greater ice was caused by global warming! Is this another case of bad science or deliberately misrepresenting data? (What if the polar ice grows wings then flies off our planet into the midst of deep and dark outer space.., would that be explained by global warning too?!) 9. Research from CERN found that cosmic rays penetrating into our planet's atmosphere correlated almost perfectly with climate change over the centuries. Was this left out fact another case of gagging the truth? 10. How come it's never mentioned: the glaringly obvious that temperature change is due to the sun and its cycles, how it invariably affects the Earth's and other planets' temperatures..? 11. So, in reflection, is the whole thing nothing more than another ruse propagated by billionaire power players acting under the pretence of 'philanthropy?' If you liked reading this article then go to http://www.NewParadigm.ws for more related articles, blogs and videos... including a free download PDF entitled 'The Greater Way and the New Paradigm Experience'. Hosted by Paul A Philips. One again the link is: http://www.newparadigm.ws/
Related Articles -
climate change, global warming, bad science, al gore, new world order, alternative science,
| 
