We May Want Global Warming

According to this article in Milenio, the IPCC used only mathematics and did not include the Sun in their scenarios.

Auguring brief era of ice in 2010

Researchers from the UNAM considers erroneous reports on global climate change

An expert from the National Autonomous University of Mexico predicted that in about ten years the Earth will enter a "little ice age" which will last from 60 to 80 years and may be caused by the decrease in solar activity.

Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the UNAM, as argued earlier during a conference that teaches at the Centre for Applied Sciences and Technological Development.

...

Velasco Herrera [Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the UNAM] described as erroneous predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), pursuant to which the planet is experiencing a gradual increase in temperature, the so-called global warming.

The models and forecasts of the IPCC "is incorrect because only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity," said the specialist also in image processing and signs and prevention of natural disasters.

If Herrera is correct, then the IPCC is woefully incompetent to make any sort of predictive claims at all. To ignore the Sun's contribution to the temperature of the Earth is sheer ignorance.

It may be that we need to INCREASE our carbon footprints, rather than reduce them.

Consensus Might Be The Problem

Because it is being used as a club to beat down - or up - dissenting views;

========================
Scientists
threatened for 'climate denial'

By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 11/03/2007

Scientists who questioned
mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have
been shunned by the scientific community.

They say the debate on global
warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists
and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true
environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former
climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five
deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was
affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued
to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

"Western
governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they
feel threatened," said the professor.

"I can tolerate being called a
sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling
us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It
has got really nasty and personal."

Last week, Professor Ball appeared
in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several
scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a
"religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard
Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed:
"Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their
work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they
fly in the face of the science."

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University,
agreed. He said: "The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change.
It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start
micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."
Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are
trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein
could not have got funding under the present system."
========================

Death threats?
Loss of funding?
Derision?
Insults?

Is this the cost of "consensus?"

"Consensus" is feeding us BS because many scientists would have their bread and butter snatched away if they dare dissent - or, they might even be killed. What sort of "consensus" is that and how is it a good thing?

A Turncoat In The Ranks!

Braving the potential consequences, Dr. Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, a former promoter and supporter of Anthropogenic Global Warming, has had a change of heart and mind.

From the article;

[T]he many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming.

Failed dismally.

The religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming is slowly being exposed for the facade that it is.

Unfortunately, the fanatic believers have their own Inquisitions to ridicule, denigrate and oppress any view that opposes their credo. Many follow this creed not out of any scientific foundation, but out of sheer faith. They believe that Man causes Global Warming, therefore it is so.

Despite scientific evidence to the contrary.

Faith is wonderful when it comes to exploring the Beginning of All Things or to provide insight as to why we are here, but it is a poor substitute for science when trying to explain the scientific.

Faith has no place in scientific inquiry. Yet, the anthropogenic global warmers have replaced science with faith in order to justify and rationalize their oppressive "answers" to a warming climate.