Investors Business Daily yesterday provided a brief but fairly recent catalog of considerations which illustrate the mushy ground upon which the contention of anthropogenic global warming rests.

Against the backdrop of the hysteria from the "mainstream" media last week in response to the prediction from the National Snow and Ice Data Center that the North Pole will be free of ice this summer, the piece points out that a similar prediction was made in 2000...yet the end of the world did not arrive as predicted.

The IBD piece also references the story I mentioned last week about the underwater volcanoes beneath the Arctic pouring lava and belching out greenhouse gasses

Is it possible that it these eruptions, part of an "ongoing process," have played a part in whatever melting there has been of the Greenland and Arctic ice sheets?

Scientists at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory have put together a chart showing Arctic ice relatively stable until a precipitous decline began in 1999 — the very year the Arctic eruptions started.

Imagine that: a natural cause behind warming and ice melting! Say it isn't so!

The IBD article also highlights the hysteria about melting ice and endangered polar bears. It says the data was

based on last September's data, showing Arctic ice has shrunk from 13 million square kilometers to just 3 million.

What the WWF didn't mention was that by March of this year the Arctic ice had recovered to 14 million square kilometers and that ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska was at its highest level ever recorded. Ice freezes. Ice melts. That's what ice does.

According to the article, Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute spoke at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change and said Arctic temperatures were warmer during the 1930s, and that most of Antarctica is actually cooling now.

Anthropogenic global warming apostles would have us believe the planet has never changed in all it's history, and suddenly man and his evil, capitalistic, oil-company fed industry has plunged the planet into an unprecedented warming event.

That simply isn't the case. The planet hasn't been sitting in a glass case all these years (or in a museum, as the IDB article put it). Greenland wasn't so named as a joke; it used to be warm enough for the Vikings to plant vineyards.

But if you're already biased against capitalism and the West, why let an inconvenient truth get in your way of a useful tool for bashing both?  Source

Average user rating