Dagmar

1. The "Greenhouse Effect" is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable. 2. Modest Global Warming, at least up until 1998 when a cooling trend began, has been real. 3. CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor. 4. Man's contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn't cause the recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it. 5. Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change, accompanied by complex ocean currents which distribute the heat and control local weather systems. 6. CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population. 7. CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets. The cart is not pulling the donkey, and the future cannot influence the past. 8. Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future. 9. The UN IPCC has corrupted the "reporting process" so badly, it makes the oil-for-food scandal look like someone stole some kid's lunch money. They do not follow the Scientific Method, and modify the science as needed to fit their predetermined conclusions. In empirical science, one does NOT write the conclusion first, then solicit "opinion" on the report, ignoring any opinion which does not fit their predetermined conclusion while falsifying data to support unrealistic models. 10. Polar Bear populations are not endangered, in fact current populations are healthy and at almost historic highs. The push to list them as endangered is an effort to gain political control of their habitat... particularly the North Slope oil fields. 11. There is no demonstrated causal relationship between hurricanes and/or tornadoes and global warming. This is sheer conjecture totally unsupported by any material science. 12. Observed glacial retreats in certain select areas have been going on for hundreds of years, and show no serious correlation to short-term swings in global temperatures. 13. Greenland is shown to be an island completely surrounded by water, not ice, in maps dating to the 14th century. There is active geothermal activity in the currently "melting" sections of Greenland. 14. The Antarctic Ice cover is currently the largest ever observed by satellite, and periodic ice shelf breakups are normal and correlate well with localized tectonic and geothermal activity along the Antarctic Peninsula. 15. The Global Warming Panic was triggered by an artifact of poor mathematics which has been thoroughly disproved. The panic is being deliberately nurtured by those who stand to gain both financially and politically from perpetuation of the hoax. 16. Scientists who "deny" the hoax are often threatened with loss of funding or even their jobs. 17. The correlation between solar activity and climate is now so strong that solar physicists are now seriously discussing the much greater danger of pending global cooling. 18. Biofuel hysteria is already having a disastrous effect on world food supplies and prices, and current technologies for biofuel production consume more energy than the fuels produce. 19. Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder. 20. In short, there is no "climate crisis" of any kind at work on our planet. Read how these statements were established at; http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

I refers to Gores film as a fantasy because he draws conclusions that cannot be logically justified, and cannot be scientifically verified. He has used selected data that suited the required result and ignored anything that that disagreed the results that he required. Why would a warmer climate be a bad thing? Global warming lengthens growing seasons. Carbon dioxide, the cause of (part of the) warming (dormant for 11 years now) clearly improves crop yields in a world where stupid global warming policies (like burning our food supply in cars) are increasing food scarcity. Even the EU, never the most switched on of organisations, are rethinking their devotion to the addition of bio-fuels to forecourt supplies in the face of the evidence of the damage it can do. This is both to eco-systems and humans. More CO2 does not mean that we will get warmer!!! Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today. The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming. Today, at 380 ppm our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished................................................. http://floatingleaf.rediffiland.com/blogs/2008/08/30/Global-Warming-Geologist-s-point-of-view-II.html ................... the debate continues over the Science paper which suggested that North America naturally absorbs perhaps all of its human emissions of CO2 (human emissions of CO2 in the US are estimated to be around 1.7 to 2.0 billion tons annually- 1.87 billion tons in 2004. See here). Pieter Tans is quoted as stating, "The North American land surface appears to be absorbing possibly as much as between one and two billion tons of carbon annually, or a sizable fraction of global emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning". This appears to further weaken the ecological footprint arguments for fully one half of the human footprint to be allocated to CO2 sequestration. Bill Rees dismisses this evidence.http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/pr98/oct98/noaa98-67.html

Gore make millions from this piece of fantasy, both directly from the film and from the companies he is involved in to attempt to assuage the conciences of the gullible. Gores film has little truth in it! His mangling of research, misinterpratation of statistics, ignoring evidence and use of discredited science makes his film as credible on the subject of climate change as 'Finding Nemo' is to oceanography. "On the impact of carbon dioxide on global temperature, United Kingdom astrophysicist Piers Corbyn said, "There is no evidence that carbon dioxide has ever driven or will ever drive world temperatures and climate change. Worrying about carbon dioxide is irrelevant." There is so much evidence that we, as humans, have no real influence on the climate system that it is a wonder that anyone bothers to watch this drivel , let alone think that it could be true.

Pulled this off the internet.................... The Trouble with Trees Take, for example, carbon sequestration programs, which account for approximately 20% of the carbon offset market. Based on the idea that trees absorb carbon, these programs sponsor the planting of large forests designed to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. For over a decade, governments and non-profit foundations in the developing world have been offering large sums of money to developing countries in exchange for tree plantations, also known as "carbon sinks". However scientists point out that there is a major difference between the kind of carbon emitted from the burning of fossil fuels and the kind of carbon stored by trees. "Carbon emissions from burned oil, gas or coal cannot be considered as equal to the same amount of biological carbon in a tree," write scientists at the Forests and the European Union Resource Network (FERN 2005). Whereas in nature, carbon moves freely between forests, oceans and air, the fossil carbon pool is inert. Once out of the ground and into the air via cars, coal extraction, etc., fossil carbon joins the active carbon pool. It will not return to the fossil carbon pool for millennia. So, the carbon absorbed by trees does not zero out the carbon emitted by airplanes. Even if the carbon were equivalent, trees are not necessarily reliable carbon storehouses. First, scientists point out that when trees burn, rot, or are chopped down, they release any carbon they have stored (Kill 2003). Second, according to ecologist Ram Oren, principal investigator on Duke University's ongoing Free Air Carbon Enrichment project, if trees do not receive enough water or nutrients, any extra carbon they store very quickly goes back into the atmosphere (Cropping 2007). For instance, in 2002, the band Coldplay announced it would offset the environmental impact caused by the release of its second album by planting 10,000 mango trees in southern India. More precisely, Coldplay worked with CarbonNeutral, an offset company, which in turn contracted with Women for Sustainable Development, an NGO. Eventually funds went to local farmers who were supposed to plant and care for the trees. However, four years after the album's release, many of the trees had died - a drought dried the soil, and many villagers never received funding to help them maintain their trees (Dhillon and Harnden 2006).

The equipment comes with the premises - so I am trying to get a tractor that I can use it with. But I may need a complete rethink. Might make more sense to sell on what I have got then start from scratch with what I want.

The main implements that need the HP are; 2M Flail Mower Requires 45HP+ Mist Blower and sprayers Disk Plough 3 furrow 65-80HP Vacuum Seeder 45HP + a PTO rotovator and some other odd kit. Budget needs to be under £5000, but if needed could add a couple more,

I've used the nicotine spray but never garlic or rhubarb, but rhubarb leave are extremely toxic so maybe give that a try.

I need the tractor to be manoeuverable in a coldhouse as well as being able to do some field and orchard work. Also need the HP to power the implements that I've 'aquired'. This style fits the bill, but does seem had to find. Maybe need to rethink?

Seen very few wasps this year, I know there's still time, but still, hardly any at all.

This is a D2. I'm not sure they would. This type of thing would suit a little side project but I think these things are very old. I can't find a modern equivelent though.

I need at least 60hp and preferably 70hp, it also has to be low - these units are ideal for me, but seem few and far between. I could buy from France, that is where the machine in the picture is from, I found it on a french site. They want nearly £4000.00 for it.

Yes, I think I might have to go that route.

I've also aquired with the farm a load of implements for a David Brown D2. But I do not have the actual tractor. Anyone know where one might be, I can get it fixed so any condition would be OK.

My father never pruned plums other than to remove dead or diesed wood, he maintained that it was pointless as the tree did what it wanted anyway. We had some huge plum trees that all needed supporting when they had a heavy crop, but they were a terrible mess to look at!

It looks like my plans to get my own place are going to work out. But of course I will need some machinery etc, So................. does anyone know where i can get some thing like this? Not this particular machine but similar, (must be cheap).

Well done that man!!!!!

Looks like a great crop for this year, mine are rather sparse but were heavy croppers last year. Plum trees are erratic in producing fruit - one year they produce too little and the next year they produce too much. How you prune has little effect on the production – unless you prune after the blossom! It's more likely that you will need to thin fruit to prevent branches breaking under the weight. It's not unusal to use branch supports on Plums to make the most of a particularly good year. If you need to thin the fruit do it in two stages May/July. Leave approx 3” between plums – they do not like to touch each other You have only two considerations when pruning plum trees. Getting the shape that you want and to avoid any infection with silver leaf disease. Avoid silver leaf disease by pruning in June , do not prune in the winter. Burn any diseased or dead wood. Pruning of the trees will depend on the form , whether it is pyramid, bush, standard or half standard. Pyramids are pruned differently to the others.

I think your'e right! Any finance deals taken out for the next few months will need to be thought through carefully.

Or, has the seller simply added value to a low cost item and filled a customer need. We all like that little extra something.even if it costs more

Can you give this statement more substance?

My point is that the loony elements in the green movement have a wholly negative view of the human race and would have living in flea infested yurts dining on vegan food like dark age peasants! We will not need to turn the clock back, plenty of innovation is being undrtaken and results are being reported - but not widely. For instance; Fuel cell improvements raise hopes for clean, cheap energy By John Timmer | Published: July 31, 2008 - 07:30PM CT With pressure mounting to transition away from fossil fuels, fuel cell research has grown significantly in the last several years. In the simplest sense, fuel cells are a battery that you refuel slowly, regulating a chemical reaction and harvesting that energy in the form of usable electrical current. Current solutions use exotic materials to regulate the reactions and often require fossil fuels to generate the chemicals, defeating the purpose of the exercise. Today's release from Science includes three articles that detail methods that may help us overcome the problems with current-generation fuel cells. Cheap catalyst splits water Widespread use of fuel cells will rely on cheap sources of hydrogen and oxygen. Researchers at MIT have now made an oxygen-producing catalyst that operates on water in a neutral environment (pH 7 at atmospheric pressure) and can be coupled with solar cells; it's essentially a man-made equivalent to photosynthesis. Platinum has been used as a catalyst for this reaction in the past, but the costs associated with platinum (it closed today at over $1,730 per ounce) have prompted efforts to eliminate its use. The new research describes the formation of a catalyst composed of a combination of cobalt, potassium, and phosphorous—all cheap and easy to obtain. The researchers found that two different inert electrodes would, when placed into a dilute solution containing cobalt and buffered with potassium phosphate, spontaneously form a coating of the catalyst. When provided with relatively low electrical potentials, such as those obtained from a solar cell, the catalyst would liberate oxygen gas by splitting the water that was acting as a solvent. The key breakthroughs here are the elimination of precious metals from the catalyst, the in situ formation of the catalyst, and the benign operating conditions of the reaction. All of this adds up to big cost savings in splitting water into is component gasses. Platinum's cost is all too apparent to anybody that has ever been to a jewelry store, but less apparent is the costs associated with producing catalyst materials, a process all but eliminated in this research. Using less metal Another use of platinum may go to the wayside in favor of an organic alternative, courtesy of Australian researchers. The metal is often used as a cathode that forms the interface between air and an electrolyte, used in both fuel cell and air/metal battery applications. This electrode's job is to reduce oxygen from the air and diffuse it into the electrolyte, so that it can be put to work in further chemical reactions that generate electricity. Here, platinum has issues beyond its exorbitant cost. It suffers from inactivity in the presence of carbon monoxide gas and diffusion of the platinum particles in the carbon substrate to form agglomerates that harm performance. Electrically conductive polymers have been tested, but the performance simply wasn't sufficient to justify replacing platinum. But developments in gas-phase deposition techniques have now allowed for higher-quality electrically conductive thin-film polymers to be produced, opening the door for fuel cell applications. In this case, the researchers focused on a conductive polymer called poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene), or PEDOT. The need for both a high surface area in contact with the incoming gas and to avoid moisture ingression led scientists to coat the PEDOT on every hiker's best friend: Gortex fabric. To further enhance conductivity, a 40nm gold coating was added. The PEDOT electrode is homogeneous, eliminating catalyst agglomerations that plagued the long-term reliability of platinum based electrodes. It's also insensitive to carbon monoxide poisoning, another performance-robbing problem with platinum. The optimal PEDOT coating thickness was found to be 400nm, and performance was on par with that of the standard platinum-based electrodes. Researchers ran the electrode for 1,500 hours with no loss in performance. With the cost of the platinum in a fuel cell being equal to the total cost of an equivalent gasoline engine, this breakthrough has huge potential to drive down the cost of fuel cells, although researchers were quick to point out that similar breakthroughs are needed to get rid of platinum at the anode side. Solid oxides get to chill Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) represent a completely different approach to the problem. They're one of the leading options because, compared to many other green technologies, they have relatively high efficiency, high energy storage density, and produce only water as a byproduct. While SOFCs have not made substantial in-roads in the consumer space, they are being adopted as emergency power systems for hospitals, 911 dispatch centers, and other critical entities. The primary limitation of SOFCs is high operating temperature. SOFCs operate by diffusing O2- across a ceramic electrolyte. Current generation systems use Y2O3 doped ZrO2 (YSZ) electrolytes that require operating temperatures above 700°C because the diffusion is a thermally activated process. A variety of alternatives to YSZ have been suggested, but they offer only modest improvements in operating temperature. In this week's Science, researchers from Madrid and Oak Ridge National Lab describe a novel SOFC membrane that operates at room temperature. In these ceramics, solid state diffusion of the oxygen can be thought of as occurring through a series of atomic jumps, where ions leap from one lattice site to the next provided the next site is vacant. The easiest way to increase ionic conduction is to increase the number of vacancies—raising the temperature is typically the easiest way to do that. This temperature effect gives rise to the high operating temperatures in conventional SOFCs. The materials in this study are unique because they stabilize incredibly high fractions of vacancies at room temperature. Instead of using monolithic YSZ, the authors used thin-film growth techniques (molecular beam epitaxy) to grow 5-60 nanometer thick, alternating layers of YSZ and SrTiO3 (STO). They found that these two materials form an interface where the anions (O2-) become highly disordered, causing an anomalously high numbers of vacancies. These unique interfaces form a superhighway of O2- conduction. Electrical measurements showed that the primary conduction pathway in the materials went through the YSZ/STO interface, but the YSZ layers showed some conduction as well. This work conclusively shows that the conductivity is thermally activated and thus is a result of ionic motion, rather than charge migration. This data is incredibly important because previous reports of high ionic conductivity ultimately turned out to be a result of electronic conduction through defective membranes, making the materials useless as fuel cells. Despite the substantial promise of these materials, it is probably premature to start placing orders for your room-temperature SOFC; drawbacks include processing that is not amenable to mass production, fast conduction in only two dimensions, and a lack of long-term stability information. Despite these concerns, this work is likely to represent a major step in the march towards wider SOFC commercialization. The same general note of caution applies to all of these developments, as it's possible that some of these techniques won't scale, or will only find a home in some specific applications. Still, they highlight how focused research and development can produce significant improvements in clean energy technology. Nobel Intent writers Todd Morton and Adam Stevenson produced this report. Sciencexpress, 2008. DOI: 10.1126/science/1162018 Science, 2008. DOI: 10.1126/science.1159267 Science, 2008 DOI: 10.1126/science.1156393

The scare: An article in the New York Times in late July 2008 by an author promoting a forthcoming book about "global warming" calls the Greenland ice-sheet "one of `global warming's' most disturbing threats". The article says: "The vast expanses of glaciers - massed, on average, 1.6 miles deep - contain enough water to raise sea levels worldwide by 23 feet. Should they melt or otherwise slip into the ocean, they would flood coastal capitals, submerge tropical islands and generally redraw the world's atlases. The infusion of fresh water could slow or shut down the ocean's currents, plunging Europe into bitter winter." The article continues that ocean warming eats the ice sheet from beneath, causing glaciers to calve and melt faster, changing patterns of migration and hence of hunting, which, it says, has a positive effect: warm-water cod have returned, and shops can now offer locally-grown vegetables. Recession of ice along the shore has exposed pockets of lead, zinc, and bauxite. More than 30 billion barrels of oil may also be reachable if there is further melting. Yet the thrust of the article is Apocalyptic. The truth: The "Greenland is melting" scare is an old one, and long discredited. It was first given widespread currency by Al Gore, not a climatologist, in his sci-fi comedy horror movie about the climate - a movie that is now an international joke for serious, serial, scientific inaccuracy. In October 2007, a UK High Court Judge ordered the Department of Education to issue a disclaimer about several inaccuracies in the movie before innocent schoolchildren could be exposed to it. The learned Judge's finding about Gore's claim that sea level would imminently rise by 20 ft was blunt: "This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr. Gore's `wake-up call'. It is common ground that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he depicts is not based on any scientific view." The UN's climate panel, the IPCC, also fueled the scare when its bureaucrats, after the scientists had submitted the final draft of its 2007 report, inserted a table that had not been in the scientists' draft, in which they had ingeniously right-shifted four decimal points so as to exaggerate tenfold the supposed contribution of melting ice-sheets and glaciers to sea-level rise: Metres per century 1961-2003 1993-2003 1. Thermosteric expansion 0.042 0.160 2. Glaciers and ice-caps 0.050 0.077 3. Greenland ice-sheets 0.050 0.210 4. Antarctic ice-sheets 0.140 0.210 5. IPCC's sum of lines 1-4: 0.110 0.280 The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley earned his share of the Nobel Peace Prize by writing to the IPCC on the morning of publication, demanding - and getting - a correction of this maladroit and unscientific attempt to lend support to the unscientific fantasies of Gore. Gore's movie said - Gore: "Two canaries in the coal mine. The first one is in the Arctic. Of course the Arctic Ocean has a floating ice cap, Greenland on its side there. I say canary in the coal mine because the Arctic is one part of the world that is experiencing faster impact from global warming. This is the largest ice shelf in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf. It just cracked in half a year ago. The scientists were astonished." But what do the scientific studies and the peer-reviewed scientific literature (as opposed to the layman Gore or the error-prone IPCC) have to say about Greenland, and about sea level generally? Temperature records show that the Arctic was in fact warmer in the 1930s and 1940s than it is today - Northern Hemisphere snow cover reached a new record in 2001 - A new record in 2001 for Northern Hemisphere winter snow cover But this new record was easily surpassed in 2007, when, for the first time since satellite records began 30 years ago, winter sea ice extent at both Poles reached record highs. Somehow most of the media that had mentioned the record loss of summer sea-ice in the Arctic in 2007 failed to mention the record growth of winter sea ice at both Poles that very winter. The ice cap at the North Pole has certainly been thinning ever since US nuclear submarines took the first measurements in the 1950s. However, a paper by NASA scientists last year says the reason has nothing to do with "global warming". The warmer Arctic has been caused by the current warming phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, driving warm tropical waters poleward and also causing winds to take a more southerly direction. Also, a very recent paper has shown considerable and hitherto-unsuspected undersea volcanic activity at 73 degrees North latitude on the mid-Atlantic ridge in the Greenland-Iceland gap, with temperatures at the outlets of the volcanic vents at 570 degrees F. Among the many facts that the article in the New York Times is careful not to mention is one central fact: that in the early 1940s it was warmer in the Arctic than it is today. Chylek et al. (2004) confirm that temperatures along Greenland's coasts are about 1 degree Celsius below their 1940 levels, despite half a century of "global warming". They say - "Current coastal temperatures are about 1øC below their 1940 values." Furthermore, "at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet the summer average temperature has decreased at the rate of 2.2øC per decade since the beginning of the measurements in 1987." Ocean currents and volcanic activity are not the only natural influences on Arctic temperatures. The apparently random fluctuations in Arctic temperatures in the past 125 years are more closely correlated with changes in solar activity than with the ever-upward increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It is scientifically perverse to make an unqualified attribution of the observed thinning of the Arctic ice-cap to anthropogenic "global warming" when, compared with the early 20th century, the Arctic has been cooling. One story that did not make it into the New York Times article - sealers were trapped in Arctic ice in April 2007 Source:http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/scarewatch/nyt_sea_level_rise.html

Even those who still cling to the belief that carbon will destroy us are in for a shock: Wind power is responsible for a LOT of CO2 emissions! The Brits have a goal of getting 30% of their electricity from the wind in 12 years. But the wind is not reliable. A backup will be needed. Which led to a study headed by James Oswald, an engineering consultant and former head of research and development at Rolls Royce Turbines. He said: "Wind power does not obviate the need for fossil fuel plants, which will continue to be indispensable. The problem is that wind power volatility requires fossil fuel plant to be switched on and off, which damages them and means that even more plants will have to be built. Carbon savings will be less than expected, because cheaper, less efficient plant will be used to support these wind power fluctuations. Neither these extra costs nor the increased carbon production are being taken into account in the government figures for wind power." Lewis Page of the Register interviewed Oswald. Page wrote: "The trouble is, according to Oswald, that human demand variance is predictable and smooth compared to wind output variance. Coping with the sudden ups and downs of wind is going to mean a lot more gas turbines - ones which will be thrashed especially hard as wind output surges up and down, and which will be fired up for less of the time." Every generation wants to save the world from some calamity, usually depicted as karma for man's sin. The nature of the sin varies - Sodom and Gomorrah had no SUVs - but the call is the same: Repent and sin no more and save the world. Source: http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2008/07/25/ill-wind-blows/ Via The Register

The Greens Are Going Crazy It's hard to ignore the fact that the Greens are going crazy, not just in the United States, but around the world. They are increasingly frantic over the opposition being voiced against global warming, one of the greatest hoaxes in modern history. The Greens have bet everything on global warming as the reason for giving up the use of long established sources of energy such as oil, coal and natural gas. The object has been to slow everything the modern world calls progress. In India, a spokesman for that nation of one billion people has flatly refused to accept the global warming hoax. China shows no sign of yielding to the global warming lies. The greatest agricultural and mercantile economy to have ever existed, the United States of America continues to thwart its own growth by yielding to the lies. Recently the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, said that "coal makes us sick. Oil makes us sick. It's global warming. It's ruining our country. It's ruining our world." No, what makes us sick is listening to such preposterous lies. A Rasmussen telephone survey taken after Sen. Reid's absurd statement found that 52% of voters surveyed rejected his views about coal and oil, double the amount of those who agreed. What is troublesome, however, is that the same survey found the voters evenly divided on whether global warming exists or poses a threat. Fully 47% of those surveyed believe that human activity affects the climate. Both candidates for President are publicly committed to the global warming hoax by varying degrees. Despite an intense, decades-long propaganda campaign, coupled with indoctrination in our nation's schools, the truth is beginning to emerge. In March, an international conference on climate change organized by The Heartland Institute brought together over 500 of the world's leading climatologists, meteorologists, economists and others for three days of seminars and presentations that completely refuted the pronouncements of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and disputed the lies of Al Gore's famed "documentary." As recently as July 8th, the Space and Science Research Center held a news conference in which it stated that the warming that has occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850 was completely natural, i.e., had nothing to do with human or industrial activity. More significantly, the Center went on record saying that, "After an exhaustive review of a substantial body of climate research, and in conjunction with the obvious and compelling new evidence that exists, it is time that the world community acknowledges that the Earth has begun the next climate change." The current warming period is not only at an end, but a distinct cooling cycle has begun and will bring "predominantly colder global temperatures for many years into the future." Just how crazed has the environmental movement become? On July 7th it was announced that Argentine scientists have been strapping plastic tanks to the backs of cows to collect and measure how much methane gas they produce. Methane, like carbon dioxide, is a minor component of the Earth's atmosphere. Methane is also released from swamps, landfills and other sources. If it and CO2 played a significant role in determining the world's climate, it would be a cause for concern, but it is the Sun that primarily drives the Earth's climate cycles. Solar activity has gone quiet in recent years as fewer and fewer sunspots, magnetic storms, have been seen. To maintain the global warming hoax, thousands of events and natural phenomena have been blamed on it. A recent example is the floods in America's mid-West. The National Wildlife Federation released a statement on July 1st blaming global warming. Climate experts at The Heartland Institute were quick to respond. Dr. Joseph D'Aleo, Executive Director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, said, "Alarmists have adopted the can't-lose position that all extremes of weather - cold, warm, wet, or dry - are all due to global warming", adding that, "The record snows, severe weather, and heavy rainfall have been the result of rapid cooling in the northern tier of the United States and Canada, not global warming." Early in July, Bret Stephens, writing in The Wall Street Journal, called global warming "a mass hysteria phenomenon", noting that "NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000 scientific robots in the world's oceans show there has been slight cooling in the past five years." The global warming hoax has never been about the climate. It is about competing economic theories. "Socialism may have failed as an economic theory," wrote Stephens, "but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism." The United States Senate refused to consider the UN Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change that requires massive reductions in carbon dioxide emissions based solely on the global warming hoax, but other nations did sign on. None have ever met their obligation to limit CO2 emissions, nor need they have bothered. At the recent G8 conference an international agreement to cut CO2 emissions was given serious consideration despite the fact that the Earth is now a decade into a cooling cycle likely to last several decades or longer. The impact of this proposal on the lives of ordinary citizens will prove needlessly costly. Proposals in some nations for various taxes based on global warming are a form of fraud. The sensible refusal by leaders in emerging economies such as China and India would make it impossible for any limitations on carbon emissions by Western nations to have any impact, even if such reductions had anything to do with the realities of the Earth's climate. The only thing that can be predicted with certainty is that the Greens will become increasingly unhinged and crazed by the failure of the global warming hoax. Source:http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-greens-are-going-crazy/

By mental I mean anyone who holds onto an unprovable and witless argument then uses it to beat themselves and anyone else with it, this in spite a landslide of evidence to disprove and discredit that very argument. As for anecdotal evidence; this tends to be unreliable and subject to whimsical reminiscence. Put your faith in the scientific record - particularly with regard to temperature fluctuation and you see that there has been no significant (global) warming in the past 100 years. As to asking my elders, my grandfather kept a systymatic record of weather conditions since 1946 which was continued by my father. the Family had maintained this record keeping in Silesia since the 1850's, only stopping in 1945, all irretrievable now of course.