Wednesday, July 9, 2008

I've seen some bat-shit insane global warming denials, but I think this posting at the NY times dotearth blog takes the cake:

It strikes me as “smelly” that, in a cooling world, CO2 has morphed into “greenhouse gas emissions”, just as “global warming” transmogrified itself into “climate change”.

This fiasco needs to be exposed for the dark and spiteful tax and control exercise it so obviously is. Soon. Before it gets really cold. Are we meant to believe that the leaders of “the world’s major economies” have not been told that the Sun has gone out - and what that means.

— Posted by Terry


Gerry Canavan said...

Alex, how long will you continue to deny the reality of the destruction of the sun?

Anonymous said...


I hope you always keep a objective and scrutinizing view on any scientific theory and policy behind it. Read this

Alex Greenberg said...

The Space and Science research center is a hoax ( and stop calling be "boy."

Alex Greenberg said...

If you want more information on the role of sunspots in climate change, go here:

Yes, NASA has predicted a slowdown in the sunspot cycle. No, it won't mean an end to global warming.

Anonymous said...


I am not against global warming by mother nature, and I am feeling the warmer winter than 20~30 years ago of my childhood, what I am against is the man-made global warming propaganda, especially single out the CO2, carbon, the backbone and nutrition of life cycle on earth and 400 PPM level to dominate the heat radiation transfer of sun light in atmosphere just does not add up to frame work of physics. The science is not yet completed in understanding the physics of mother nature yet politics is already adopting the preliminary scientific prediction, it is very dangerous and bad. That's all

Alex Greenberg said...

You sound very much like a physicist. "That's all." For good laymen's summaries of why CO2 is the prime contributor to global warming, go here:, and here:
and here:
and here:

I'd say that the science has pretty accurately developed ways for measuring human impact on global warming; what is in question at this point is projected impact, which will be significant, if not catastrophic. When you hear scientists talking about the weakness of models, they are not talking about the descriptions of present phenomena but the projection of those phenomena into the future. See here:
That's all.