Yet more invcontrovertible evidence
But wait. Let's read the first line of the article.
January 2007 was the warmest on record in Britain since 1921, giving further evidence of a warming climate, forecasters said.That's right, 2007 was the second warmest January. And the warmest January wasn't in the last 10 or even 20 years. No, the warmest January was in 1921. But wait. I thought global warming didn't really begin until the last 20-30 years. Let's read on, shall we?
The temperature pushes 2007 into the top five warmest Januarys in the region since records began in the seventeenth century. Only 1796, 1834, 1916 and 1921 saw milder January temperatures.You read that right. While this January in the land of Blake and Bacon was warm, it wasn't as warm as it was in 1796. And we all know how many cars were on the road burning those evil hydrocarbons back then.
Michael Dukes, a forecaster at MeteoGroup UK, said: "It's more evidence - not proof - but more evidence towards a warming climate. It follows on from a very warm December as well."Ah, there we go. Let's just think about that for a minute. The meteorologist says that because we had a couple of warm months it MUST be because of MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. Run for your lives!
That's right. A meteorologist. One of the same group of "scientists" who can't accurately predict the temperature two weeks out, tells us that not only is the world definitely heating up now, but it's going to continue to heat up in the future. Maybe for as long as one thousand years.
Now, why don't we all just take a deep breath and try to summon something that's quite clearly in short supply - a little perspective. Anecdotal evidence DOES NOT indicate a verifiable trend. Just because you you're stung by a bee doesn't mean that we're being invaded by Africanized killer bees. What is it that allows people like this to overlook those four previous Januarys that were no less than 86 years ago and as much as 211 years ago? There were, of course, many others before that but they happened before thermometers were invented.
But none of that matters to the GW acolytes. They don't even want to debate the issue. In the old Soviet style, they portray dissent from their view as evidence of either corruption or mental imbalance.
Some are emotionally invested in the theory. Many see it as a way to tax the more productive societies of the world and transfer wealth to third worlders. The self-loathers among us are perpetually guilt-ridden that we're as rich, advanced and successful as we are and see the prescibed "remedies" to global warming as ways to take us down a peg or two.
The entire hysterical global warming culture and their proposals need to be opposed at every turn. They represent a real and present danger to the economic health an sovereignty of the world's industrial democracies.