#linearifolius

Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis var. linearifolius)

http://5to1.com

http://jobsonline.net

http://bravotv.com

Global warming must be real! After all, we have top scientists and even failed presidential candidate who says so. With 86% of Europeans surveyed stating that they "[felt] that the people [are] a direct cause of climate change, and 45 percent believed it could be a threat to them and their families in their lives. Sixty-eight percent said they would either strongly or somewhat support restrictions on their purchase behavior and to support the fight against global warming "is to fall only a matter of time for the skeptical Americans to sacrifice more government control. Respondents said it all, they would "either strongly or somewhat support [ing] restrictions on ... Behavior "(Rohinsky) to halt a climate threat stop. This statistic is pretty scary, do not have because of the climate threat, but because of the vulnerability of such beliefs on freedoms. By analyzing the nature of scientific studies, past theories and current evidence for global warming, it is obvious that global warming is not a final theory, or legitimate, is to that, and that the only purpose of such a theory is to enable government to regulate and control every aspect of our lives. In order to understand clearly that the only purpose to the idea of global warming, control us, we should look some of the basic history of the theory. On 24 June 1972 Time magazine ran an article titled "Another Ice Age." This article tells the story of the top scientists of the day including Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory said that the next Ice Age was on its way. With reports of 12% increases in ice and snow in the northern hemisphere, Fahrenheit temperature decreases by 2.4 degrees since 1940, droughts, cold winters and a whole range of climate anomalies, the conclusion was that a global cooling. If we jump forward a few decades, almost nobody has heard also of global cooling and global warming is the latest idea. All of a sudden, global temperatures rose, melting the polar ice caps and the ozone is nothing less destroyed. Once again lack the evidence, much of it is questionable, and the only solution is to provide for the fearful citizens of the planet, some liberties to the pollution, CO2 emissions, destruction of resources that can fight global warming fight. .. The list is endless. Since the theory of global warming has some challenges from a growing number of scientists see, the name changed again. Now, as the EPA Web site lists it, it is called "Global Climate Change." Global cooling was proved wrong when we were not all realized temperatures remain cool, global warming was proven wrong when science is do not add up (as will be further explored in this paper) to find the only solution to the agencies and the Government was the same false theories of the past to rename with a vague, all names, the "Global Climate Change." Although it global climate change is not proven, it is vague enough for any climate pattern, seem to cover irregular or unexpected, it can really be coincidence or if timing is responsible, rather than the tragedy of climate change. As the global cooling was released now it is not needed to expose fully the form of climate change, but also for global warming, an alarming number of citizens around the world believe. In 2007 82% of Americans believe global warming, surprising given the fact that a growing number of scientists voicing opposition to the theory. In 1998, Dr. Arthur Robinson, Director launched the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine petition for those who sign the credentials and qualifications of science, if they have the idea of global warming skeptics. 32,000 persons with backgrounds in science signed the petition, including more than 9,000 with a PhD, much more than the 2,500 scientific expert of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate was change in claim there is a scientific consensus that global warming is used in real terms. With such a consensus, as does the opposition was 12 times larger? The consensus that all the faithful say global warming activists and government officials always have just not there. They want us to believe that the debate is over and now is the time for action, rather than more research to prove it actually exists. With such a growing opposition, perhaps it is important to look at the actual facts, to understand how the theory has come to be not as-attacked plausible and to see to what not to cause such disbelief. To start with, we should raise the question of whether the planet is actually warming to meet. Warming is pretty much as an increase in temperature is defined, and the global mean, of course, that all around the globe. For global warming to be real, then we certainly need a warming globe. Common sense really, but then again, common sense would suggest also that the planet is cooling, not warming. For a decade now, 10 years, has the planet experienced cooling (Carter). 1998 was the last year occurred in the heating and since in the past year, global temperatures have cooled and show no sign of warming this year. The temperatures since 2005 so drastically that all the warming that began in the 1980s has been reversed dropped. When a devotee, the global warming cause these facts, they usually say: "How silly to climate change in such a short period of time judges' listened. But in the next breath, the same person to assure you that the 28-year period of warming that has occurred is a 1970-1998 (and man) dangerous warming "(Carter). They also mention that some cooling would occur naturally if you start after 1998 vote count, since 1998 was a record year. Now they have forgotten to mention that 1998 was such a record year because it was an El Nino year, which is a natural cycle that leads to higher temperatures. When she forgot to mention that we also ignore the fact that the cooling in 1965 as its baseline. Otherwise it should be noted that the warmest year in recent history in North America in 1934. Weather has never been consistently rising, so natural and lower temperatures over the years. We should remember that "the warming has occurred 1918-1940, occurred even before the greatest period of industrialization the world, and the cooling of 1940-1965." Periods of warming and cooling occur naturally, it is not global climate change or global warming, it is called "weather". As we are deceived and told that the planet warms, we are deceived by evidence to support it as well. The most common myth is that the ice caps melt and sea levels will increase our. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reported that an increase of 9.4% or 390 000 square kilometers of ice cover in 2008 compared to 2007. Despite these facts, we always see pictures of ice caps is split down the middle, suggesting the ice caps disappear completely broken up and. Pictures like these mislead the public. It proposes that the center of the ice caps, the point is that his is the thickest apart due to global warming should be ripped. However, the fact that the ice caps increases in size. If you notice, photographs of the property never the coordinates where longitude and latitude, where it was taken. If this had happened we would know the truth. Most of the images we see are actually the ice caps are breaking apart near the outer edge of the shelf. By the thickening of the caps at the poles, ice is north or south, pushing closer to the equator, where the planet warmer. When the ice approaches warmer oceans heated as well and it obviously begin to accelerate the molecules, the melting of the ice. Ice is due to the fact that the poles melt thickening. As a "scientist" parade with their false facts of warming and melting ice caps, they can not help but say how we are destroying the coral reefs die, polar bears, and after a 2003 study published in the journal Nature, several colleagues studies with wild plants and animals for changes due to global warming analyzed. examined from the nearly 1,500 species, the researchers found that about 1,200 exhibited temperature changes in line with what scientists would expect if they affected by global warming "(a). Given the fact that scientists in the study went on to conjecture what were the effects (almost as if they wanted the results they wanted, no matter what they saw to get), they could not prove scientifically what the cause of the so-called effects. All we can hear about global warming to do with doom and gloom. Ice melts, the sea level rises, the animals will die, and life changing, is the only thing we do to end the chaos can take action to stop global warming. Although there is no consensus and no real evidence that this warming exists, what would be the effect if it existed, or whether it even be reversed, governments and authorities appear to have any ideas to our liberties in the name of saving the world stop to command. Why is it that every aspect of our lives must be controlled? Not a single thing goes unreported if global warming is. The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) that the Environmental Protection Agency (APA) released earlier this year would give them the right to a price tag on greenhouse gas emissions place. Not excluded from this taxation of natural processes is our cattle. In New York "tax milk cows could be $ 175 per cow and $ 87.50 per head of cattle. The tax on pork would be upwards of $ 20 per pig, "said the release. "Any company with more than 25 milk cows, 50 cattle and 200 pigs would need to obtain permits" (Poor). This massive tax cost to farmers would New York farmers alone $ 110,000,000 dollars per year, effectively harming the American industry farm, which pay up to global competition will prevail and leaving American consumers with the costs (Gregg). Common sense will show that economy is rising as the price, demand falls, effectively regulating how many animals have farmers, and regulate what consumers buy. The livestock tax would not be the only new regulations we see. A popular idea of them within the global warming hoax proposed introduction of carbon tax. "A carbon tax would be paid if a molecule of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. Utilities would pay based on their smokestack emissions and pass the costs to consumers in their monthly electricity bill. Each of us would pay when we fill it with gasoline, based on the content of carbon in fossil fuel "(Schlesinger). Back in the name of the fight against global warming, we have a tax that force companies to increase their prices to consumers if they continue to choose current fiscal, as it were would. Since the company mainly in their money to invest in "green technologies" to be finding ways to reduce emissions of blackmail, the consumer is left to foot the bill. This tax has nothing to say other than to invest in companies which, to tell them, or they need to raise the price to the consumer. It is a regulatory policy that strips away freedom of investors, consumers and businesses allegedly control carbon dioxide emissions, leading to a warming that has not even been shown to exist. The global warming but never proven, is already on the rise in the taxation of regulation. The regulation is not the end but. In California, all new vehicle models from 2009 show a caption that their countries' global warming score. "While lawmakers claim it is well to the public consciousness," a law by Parliament in the Committee on Environment, 'd Public Health and Food Safety adopted a monetary cost governments rely on the emissions of vehicles they plan to acquire and add to the cost calculations (GreenBiz). The car control is not ending just labeling of the Company and the addition of expenses in 2002 in California to force the way for companies to produce certain cars. Assembly Bill 1493 currently before legal challenges from auto manufacturers that are fully open, not completely removed with the freedom to cars making their choice satisfaction. Instead of cars that consumers demand as determined on the open market, they are now compelled by law, cars, the "reduce global warming emissions," to make (California Clean Car campaign). The free market decide how cars should be useful to the people want it, they demand it. California decided, together with other countries now face of such laws, stripping, from the open market and is now the scheme, what type of car we drive. For many, a few dollars extra pay or driving a particular car is no big deal as long as we fight global warming. Those ones usually unaware of the extent to which regulation can go though. If the planet is in danger of ecosystems out of order, air irregular food supply cut off and entire cities disappear under the water, there is nothing said to could prevent the government and its agencies from other parts of the scheme of our lives to save us from ourselves. Karen Coshof, producer of "The Great Warming", in an interview with Cybercast News Service said, "population is the underlying problem - the catalyst for [global warming]" (Randall). What then is the way to fight "underlying problem?" The answer would be to control the population. Most are offended when they heard from the Chinese laws setting limits for children for families, with heavy taxes and fines for too many children, but still support segments of the global warming activists in the United States to control population, and we can only ask how fast it is before the legislation to a vote, too. One of the most regulatory policies on global warming is the Kyoto Protocol. "The minutes of the implementation require such heavy-handed regulation, Andrei Illarionov, the senior economic adviser to President Vladimir Putin, the Russian ratification of the Kyoto contrast, sees it as the revival of the planned economy. Pleasant last week of Mr Blair to listen to more informed skeptic, he asked: "Was there any international agreements to limit economic growth and development before Kyoto? Yes, there were two. Communism and National Socialism "In fact, many economists have noted that Kyoto would cost America billions of dollars Japan alone would be from 500 billion U.S. dollars to reduce emissions 12 times (only once) (Johnson) .. By regulatory policy would determine what can and can not be produced, how it can and can not be produced, and what jobs we can not have what business can not succeed and what investors win or lose, it is reassuring to know that Kyoto is only reduced global temperatures by 0.3 degrees Celsius have as much regulatory control of global warming, and how the existence of global warming, the results of Kyoto is not simply exist | .. | We have been raised to believe in global warming. It is committed in from schools, media, movies, and our professors love them. They want us to believe that global warming is indeed a scientific consensus, all while constantly changing names of the climate theory, but speak a growing number of skeptics, the evidence to be simply not to support the so-called global warming there. When you combine that with the fact that everything possible on the theory of global warming, it just happens to be the government and other institutions to control and regulate all aspects of our life, you have the workings of a fraud |. | When the global warming exist in our heads, they can raise our taxes, tell us what to own animals to raise prices on livestock, increasing the prices of consumer goods, tell us what industries succeed or fail, determine to regulate what investments to make money or not, what we drive and take away freedom of companies on the open market based production and even go so far as to regulate our breeding. Not a single aspect of our lives are spared by the regulation in any way. We have already explained as a society, that we would be willing to give up our freedoms to fight global warming if they threatened us. They have convinced us that it exists, now missing only highlighted the threat to the science and history is against global warming, the citizens of the hope that further open up their eyes and see global warming as a regulative fraud ..