Thanks. Left you a trackback to help your readers improve eye vision naturally….

[...]Sites of interest we have a link to[...]……

YouTomb is a tool that tracks videos that have been pulled from YouTube for copyright complaints. I haven’t had much time to look at it yet, but it looks like it might provide some interesting insights into how often some conservative videos are pull…

Thanks

James Greenidge
Queens NY

The sad part of it all is so many have chugged too much of the GW coolaid that not even a screaming sermon by Rev Wright about how GW is all the US’s creation would cause many to pause in their rush to embrace this hoax.

The various studies out there note that man made carbon dioxide contributes anywhere from .11% to .2% to total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That is not only less than 1%, it is one tenth to two tenths of one percent.

And the hysteria over the models that show an increase to 350 parts per million of carbon dixide in the atmosphere is based largely on prehistoric times when the carbon concentration was roughly the same. The theory goes that if we see our atmosphere with the same carbon level as seen in the time of the dinosaurs, our Earth will look roughly the same in the future as it did then. Again, was it the warmer earth that generated higher levels of carbon, or was it the higher levels of carbon that warmed the Earth?

One significant factor that the warming crowd does not really account for is the effect of water vapor on warming. A higher level of water vapor in the atmosphere is by far a more significant cause of warming.

The other significant factor that the warming mongers do not account for is the impact of the sun on the Earth’s temperatures. The sun is not a static power source, and goes through minimum and maximum periods of activity. During increased periods of solar activity, historic record shows, remarkably, that the Earth’s temperature rises (as do the temperatures on Mars and other planets). And when the sun’s heat increases on earth, the atmosphere shows a higher level of water vapor.

One recent revelation scientists have had is that the earth seems to compensate for increased warming by cooling itself. The models used by the warming alchemists never accounted for this and always assumed that the Earth would remain static.

There are a couple of recent and good articles pointing out the major issues with the global warming hysteria. Unfortunately, they were not widely distributed or seen in the US.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

If you ask why the other side is not being heard, it may have to do with the fact that global warming has become global big business. Al Gore is Chairman if a company that makes its money by advising other companies on warming friendly investments. They also manage a fund called the Global Equity fund which includes a good bit of pension fund money in its $5 billion portfolio.

Wall Street is also in on the act. Bank of America announced that they are setting aside tens of billions of dollars for warming friendly investments, as have other wall Street firms.

Nations are enacting laws aimed at reducing CO2 emissions that will cost their countries trillions of dollars.

So many people have gone so far down the global warming path in so short a time that the momentum of deniability is strong for any evidence that refutes global warming and the impact of CO2.

In the Australian article linked above, it would appear that warming stopped 10 years ago, and since that time we have experienced global cooling. That view is supported by data we are now getting back from a NASA satellite launched in 2002. And data coming from research on the sun’s impact on warming.

But no one is listening. There have been too many Oscars, Nobel Prizes, laws and careers staked at the global warming altar.

Al Gore is a Mayan King, telling his people that he controls the sun and the moon. To prove it, he periodically makes the sun disappear by having the moon move in front of it. And after hearing the cries of his frightened subjects, he makes the sun reappear. And he will make the earth cooler, if only we make the appropriate sacrifices of slain carbon credits at his green altar. He is an amazing guy!

Just for kicks what would be the blowback if YouTube decided to make the hostess of this site “persona non grata”?

Following is my layman’s understanding of how the DMCA works:

To be fair, when a Internet Service Provider or Internet Application Provider gets a Digital Millennium Copyright Act Notice from a copyright owner, the ISP/IAP must
disable access to the noticed work to avoid potential infringement liability.

The entity which posts the alleged infringing work can contest the DMCA Notice at which point the ISP can restore access to the disputed work;
at this point the copyright owner can seek a court order/temporary restraining order to get the alleged infringing work taken down.

Thus YouTube has no choice but to take down the video described here even if the copyright owner is grossly over-reaching with regards to their rights.

Now some ISPs may take a conservative approach to DMCA drama where once something posted gets taken down under the DMCA, they will not allow it to be re-posted even if the poster challenges under Fair Use and may cancel service (even if there’s a contract involved) to anyone whose activities generate 3 or more DMCA Notices.
This too appears to me to be required under DMCA (discontinuing service to repeat infringers).