The lack of respect for ancient historical landmarks has angered the Peruvian government along with researchers and others who have a deep respect for the history of the cultures of our planet.

One of the world's foremost mysteries, the Nazca Lines, was disrespectfully defaced and disturbed by extremist Greenpeace protestors whose very act on a natural artifact betrays their hypocrisy for their message.For an organization concerned with the environment, they sure did not show it when they trampled the Nazca Lines in Peru and defaced them with a message about renewable energy. The despicable act defiled a pristine environment in a nationally protected area near the giant line drawing of a hummingbird that was not disturbed in a thousand years, officials estimated.Why did they do this? They wanted to draw attention to the carbon footprint of the people on this planet, which is debatable at best by everyone except those entrenched in the belief that a couple decades of questionable statistics proves man-made climate change is occurring. There is no control against which to measure the temperatures they use since record keeping was not started until AFTER the Industrial Revolution.Furthermore from a mathematical standpoint climactic cycles span tens of thousands of years, not a few centuries. From that strictly statistical point of view, 100 years of records in a 10,000-year cycle is about 1/100 of 1 percent of the temperatures in that cycle, and that tiny span is not statistically significant enough to firmly state anything.Scientific theory is meant to be debated and discussed and tested repeatedly before a consensus is made. It took centuries to convince the world's scientific leaders the Earth was not the center of the universe. Physicists, while respecting Einstein's theory of relativity, still test it and have found places where, oh my goodness, Einstein may have erred.Man-made climate change is not a fact, it is a theory, and its main proponents are a former vice president who had no scientific background and made a questionable documentary with footage that ABC exposed as being computer generated as his "proof" the ice shelf was disappearing. It was a Hollywood special effects.Climate scientists trying to prove this stance have been caught on at least two occasions falsifying records. And yet in 30 years we are supposed to accept this theory as fact when we have not done so that quickly with most other scientific principles. Where is the natural skepticism and experimentation?Why would they do this? Money. This all distills down to money. The ex-vice president owns "green" companies that sell carbon offsets. These scientists are funded by environmentalists who stand to benefit from climate change taking hold and creating guilt in the American public to buy their products and assuage their consciences. Yet people turn a blind eye to the corruption and continue to swallow what they are being told.One has to wonder where these temperatures are being taken for these readings. I researched this and found that there are 1,100 stations throughout the world that take these weather readings. What is suspect is that there are admissions that scientists routinely "adjust" the temperatures of many because of the area in which they sit and do not use actual readings. They weight the temperatures. Doesn't this adjustment violate the idea that the data is raw and untouched?There is an interesting discussion on this very subject on the website Skeptical Science,

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm. The article takes the perspective that these corrections are negligible so they do not mean much to the warming trend, but the discussion that follows takes issue with how negligible the corrections are and whether the data is compromised or not.Whether one supports climate change and the idea of man-made global warming being detrimental or are what these supporters called "climate deniers," the fact is the data used to base these trends is not raw. It is refined and weighted because many of these weather stations are not in pristine or natural environments.Scientists would argue these temperatures in urban areas are irrelevant because they reflect a trend, but again I would point out what is a "control" temperature? Nowhere in any of the writings supporting climate change have I ever read of any control, which is a necessity for an experiment, and should we not be proving this important scientific debate by experimentation?Simply recording temperatures while industrialization is occurring with no pre-industrialization baseline and having no solid documentation violates the scientific method, about which I learned in school.Regardless, last weekend the Greenpeace terrorists who claim to want to preserve nature and our environment trespassed on a pristine fragile environment in the name of left-wing politics to draw the attention of a conference in Peru.In the process, they vandalized one of the largest, most fascinating enigmas in modern history for a childish, stupid prank, and the Peruvian government should arrest all of them for damaging a national landmark. For once these fringe groups should be held accountable for their ignorant behavior.They have managed to damage their credibility and bring further disdain down on top of the lies of Al Gore and the climate change peddlers.Who is right remains to be seen, but I was always told to follow the money to find the truth, and those who support this are not exactly objective observers of this debate. If it smells like a rat, then maybe ...Till next time ...