Saturday, March 24, 2007

How About Some Troll Qoutes! A Conservative symposium on Global Warming.

FOX News Covers Gore’s Testimony By Trying To Paint Him As A Hypocrite


“The portion that was played was selectively edited to reflect poorly on Gore”
Reported by Ellen - Thu 4:03 AM

Ahh yes. Once again, the pot calls the kettle black.

Isn't that what News Hounds are all about as well?

Of course it is.

Love that projection.
Yes, and at one time 100 percent of the people on earth believed the world was flat. That didn't quite work out either. Not only is Al Gore a hypocrite, but he is a greedy phoney. He is making crazy dollars off of the global warming scam at $150,000 per appearance. Hey, let's buy some Carbon Credits from Al Gore!

Beef, it's what's for dinner!
When Al Gore lost his bid to become the country’s first “Environment President,” many of us thought the “global warming” scare would finally come to a well-deserved end. That hasn’t happened, despite eight good reasons this scam should finally be put to rest.


It’s B-a-a-ck!

Similar scares orchestrated by radical environmentalists in the past--such as Alar, global cooling, the “population bomb,” and electromagnetic fields--were eventually debunked by scientists and no longer appear in the speeches or platforms of public officials. The New York Times recently endorsed more widespread use of DDT to combat malaria, proving Rachel Carson’s anti-pesticide gospel is no longer sacrosanct even with the liberal elite.

The scientific case against catastrophic global warming is at least as strong as the case for DDT, but the global warming scare hasn’t gone away. President Bush is waffling on the issue, rightly opposing the Kyoto Protocol and focusing on research and voluntary projects, but wrongly allowing his administration to support calls for creating “transferrable emission credits” for greenhouse gas reductions. Such credits would build political and economic support for a Kyoto-like cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

At the state level, some 23 states have already adopted caps on greenhouse gas emissions or goals for replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy sources. These efforts are doomed to be costly failures, as a new Heartland Policy Study by Dr. Jay Lehr and James Taylor documents. Instead of concentrating on balancing state budgets, some legislators will be working to pass their own “mini-Kyotos.”


Eight Reasons to End the Scam

Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.

1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”

6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.

7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.

8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.

This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.


Time for Common Sense

The global warming scare has enabled environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in contributions and government grants. It has given politicians (from Al Gore down) opportunities to pose as prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations. And it has given bureaucrats at all levels of government, from the United Nations to city councils, powers that threaten our jobs and individual liberty.

It is time for common sense to return to the debate over protecting the environment. An excellent first step would be to end the “global warming” scam.


-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------

Joseph L. Bast is president of The Heartland Institute

Al Gore is a Greedy Phoney!
Nothing hypocritical about Gore, nosiree!

Just a huge, energy-consuming mansion (twenty times the energy usage of the average home). Why does Gore need to burn up so much of our precious, non-renewable resources?

Oh, forgot, he's a fatcat, energy wasting, holier-than-thou, do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do, home-state-losing hypocrite.
Oooo, Ooooo, Ooooo, I will!!!

How about them Martians in their SUVs melting the polar ice caps on Mars, Muddog?

How come that can be explained by the wobble of Mars' orbit but Earths' warming trend can't be explained by the wobble of Earths' orbit or by increased solar activity?

What good does it to reduce the carbon footprint of the US when India and China plan to have 775 new coal-fired plants online within the next 8 years?
These movies were all made in 1998, Just about two years before a presidential election.
An Inconvenient Truth comes out on 2007 just about 20 months before election. The idea is for the left to pry everyone's attention away from the real threat of terroeism and cast your attention to SciFi. There is no positive proof that Global Warming is caused by humans. Al Gore looked like an over weight loon yesterday.
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

The Geologic Record and Climate Change
The following remarks were delivered at the Risk: Regulation and Reality Conference by Dr. Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology at Carleton University. The conference was co-hosted by Tech Central Station and was held on October 7, 2004 in Toronto, ON.


I am a Quaternary geologist by profession. That is to say that my research interests are focused primarily on about the last 2 million years of Earth's history. An important aspect of my research is assessing past climate conditions. Thus I am also a paleoclimatologist. Earth's climate has varied considerably during the past 2 million years or so as indicated by the more than 33 glacial major advances and retreats that have occurred through this interval. Based on geologic paleoclimatic data it is obvious that climate is and has been very variable. Thus the only real constant about climate is change. It changes continually.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article

This should never have been a hearing. Where was Gore during the Roman ages when the earth was warmer than now and for a mush longer period, what about the Middle ages, warmer than the average... Damn horses and cows. Gore should have been there to have them all slaughtered and we all have be eating fish now...


It's by far the most likely cause,
Most Likely, that's the measure that you use to determine validity and your telling me to grow up?

So is everyone saying that ANYONE who doesn't buy into the hype about catastrophic global warming - like thosands of scientists - is somehow a tool of the the right wing and everone who believes is right??


You'll see another movie soon about Global Warming to scare people. John Kerry might be in it.

It;s only because Gore a dull democrat is onto it. Al Gore and John Kerry now there's some real life forms.


Democrats are fluid, they flows whcih ever way the tide rolls. FLuid flip flop, the same thing as science. Little minds use primal tactics such as name calling. Your probably a bed wetter.

There's proof in the posts above but proof is not the topic here it's the FAIR & BALANCED reporting by FOX news. While news hound nips at their heels for donation money. Parasites.

Typical Left suck other people dry for money.


Global Gluttons.


If "Algore" lived the lies he believes, he would be skinny!


So tells us New Hounders.....how is it living in this "bubble of unreality" that your Democratic heros have created for you?


Is it pretty warm, fuzzy, and safe in there?


NPR broadcast a debate about global warming. Before the debate they conducted a survey to see what the audience believed. After the debate the poll was taken again. It looks like the debate changed some minds.

The proposition was "Global warming is not a crisis"

Before the debate audience members disagreed by nearly 2 to 1:
57.32% to 29.88%

After the debate a plurality of audience members agreed with the skeptics:
46.22% to 42.22%

Maybe that is why the left doesn't like debates.

http://www.realclimate.org/index...warming-debate/

The rest of the information on the debate. Interesting read from both sides of the story.

Muddog, as I said before I am busy doing other things. This conversation, while interesting, isn't exactly my highest priority.

As to your question, the reason Venus is warmer and has less radiation than Mercury is because Venus has an atmosphere that traps the heat and blocks the radiation and Mercury doesn't. You might be interested to know that theoretical models indicate that about 3 billion years ago, the sun was about 75% as bright as it was today and that the only reason life could be sustained on this planet was due to the large quantities of greenhouse gases that were able to trap more heat(much more gases than exist today).

While that does prove that greenhouse gases can warm the planet, it also proves that the Sun is getting warmer.

The truth is we don't have enough data to prove anything yet. It's all just theories. Have you read the April 28,1975 Newsweek article on global cooling titled "The Cooling World"? The media isn't interested in the truth, they are only interested in ratings and circulation.

BTW, the NY Times is now questioning the science behind Gore's movie. They seem to think that it is as best extreme alarmism.

No, that was an original thought. Unlike you! Who needs a site like this to give you your "thoughts"!

1. Even if Al Gore is the biggest hypocrite on earth, owns a fleet of gas guzzeling SUVs, takes private jets, drinks gas - whatever, it has no bearing what-so-effen-ever that his warnings about global warming are not true!!!

Get it conservative cretins???? Comprehende' Idiots?

If you are going to "talk the talk", you should "walk the walk"!

30 years ago, I was around, they were scaring us into another ice age.

What will be the next big scare?


Ah, maybe you should build yourself a bomb shelter, like in the 50's so you can hide your head underground, and wait for the world to melt!


I don't speak for the right or left. I speak for what I believe. I agree the earth has warmed up. It has increased in temperature by 1 degree in the last 100 years. Who is to say that it will not cool by 1 degree in the next 100 years? We don't know...science doesn't know. In the 70s there was going to be this "next ice age" coming soon. It is the hysteria that comes with these "theories" that get so out of control.

The right wants to scare us with global jihad.
The left wants to scare us with global warming.
The media plays right along with both sides...ignoring truth for content.
This is nothing new, apocalyptic scenarios have been a round since the dawn of civilization.


We really think we as humans are special. Our little bit of whatever we do here on earth has very little impact on the solar system. We can't change the temperature of the sun by driving a hybrid car or "buying" carbon offsets. Sure, we can do better on keeping our air and water cleaner. If the USA stopped producing any pollution would it really make a difference? What about all the other developing countries? How are we going to get them to comply? Military force?

Man, did you guys read what Al Gore thinks of you? How does that make you feel? Al for Prez!!!

If the USA stopped producing any pollution would it really make a difference?

No, China and India plan to have 775 new coal-fired plants online in the next 8 years. "With natural gas prices expected to continue rising, 58 other nations have 340 new coal-fired plants in various stages of development. They are expected to go online in a decade or so. Malaysia, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, and Turkey are all planning significant new coal-fired power additions. Germany also plans to build eight coal plants with 6,000 megawatts capacity.

But China is the key. "The Chinese will surpass the coal-fired generating capacity and the CO2 emissions of the US in the next couple of years," Mr. McIlvaine says.

Hit by blackouts and power restrictions for 18 months, China has been scrambling to relieve that pressure. Scores of unauthorized power projects about which little is known have sprouted nationwide - along with hundreds of official projects, McIlvaine says. Because of this, even careful estimates could be low, both he and Bergesen say." - http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/12...01s04- sten.html
Or, if you make up scary information and produce it in a Hollywood film, present it as fact, get awarded for your lies, your voice is GOLD with the liberals. They will hang on your every word and then mandate you to buy carbon offsets from their company!
I don't think I would give a "B" to someone who profits from a strip mining operation that releases millions of pounds of potentially toxic chemicals into the environment, why do you?

How are you going to prove Al Gore's lies? Oh yeah, you don't have to since he admits he lies for the good of those American citizens who live in that bubble of unreality created by who???? Oh yeah, by himself with the help of News Hounds and MoveOn.org.

Aren't you guys even a little bit insulted by what he thinks of Americans? (A question to U.S. citizens who post here, if there are any)

No, it's a free country. Everybody is entitled to their opinion.

If you lived here in America, you might have heard Al Gore's admission of his lies. Now pop out of that bubble and find the link.

Well now that Al Gore has admitted to lying about the seriousness of the problem, how much time and money do you think we should spend trying to find a solution to the problem.

I think I would rather a non-partisan, honest scientist give us a solution.
Try, let's get a group of scientist who agree on a solution that doesn't mandate us to buy carbon offsets from Al Gore.
Yeah, I'd rather we just mandate the poor to buy those carbon offsets from Al Gore so he can continue with the lifestyle that he and his family have become accustom to.
That works, they are both in the entertainment field and need to maintain those posh lifestyles. They should collaberate and Arnold could star in his own epic green film!!!
That works, they are both in the entertainment field and need to maintain those posh lifestyles. They should collaberate and Arnold could star in his own epic green film!!!

Final, The "advantaged?" I don't care if you make 10K or 100K a year you can still do your part to reduce waste. Why does it always have to be seperation between the "disadvantaged" (poor, uneducated, or lazy) and the "advantaged" (educated, wealthy, lucky)?


And I agree with you on it is a global problem. Not something just the republicans or democrates can fix.


Yes, paint a glum picture of how awful we have it here in America. Poor, poor Americans. I wonder if any other country views us in the same light? I don't see them handing us any money to help with this problem you think we have. Oh yeah, that's because we ARE the greatest nation on earth!

Yeah, I'd rather we just mandate the poor to buy those carbon offsets from Al Gore so he can continue with the lifestyle that he and his family have become accustom to.
Anonymous | 03.22.07

fsharp, they are not the ones preaching that we must cut back on emissions. It is owlgore that is doing all of that. Him and his partner Breck Girl Edwards. Both live in huge mansions and spend more each month on ulitities than the average american does in a year. I don't have a problem with that. They earned the money and can afford it; more power to them. What I disagree with is to tell me and other Americans we must cut back when they are not.
Yeah, so I'm thinking people with less money do more to conserve out of pure necessity while the pigs continue to consume and then buy carbon offsets to relieve themselves of those pesky guilty feelings they must have.
fsharp, this is OT but if the republicans are the biggest roadblock and the dems control congress what does that say about the dems? What have they done in the first 100 days? It was touted as being a "new congress" and they would get things done. They are bogged down in pushing scandal after scandal and not getting anything done that they promised.
Troll this johnnyboy. Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."

http://www.canadafreepress.com/ 2...arris061206.htm

Scientific technologies do change and the results are not always the same. There is plenty of evidence that what owlgore spouts is wrong.
We may have more concensus on climate change if the white house would stop censoring and watering down Climate Change reports,
On the other hand Al Gore beefs them up.
Oh yea, the great conspiracy theory again. Bush is good; he can collect and edit all these scientific reports before they are presented to the public. He is good!


Let's all stop driving our SUV's and let the billions of people in other countries watse fossil fuels and pollute the air. Brilliant.

claudo, You don't live in the USA do you? What other country has the opportunities that are offered here? Where do you see people continue to die trying to get into other than America? I am sure there are places, I just don't hear about it on CNN, CBS, NBC, or FOX.



2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Jeez.

They won't recognise the facts until their assholes are roasting.

Anonymous said...

BTW Count,about that "Enrico Fermi".

I guess the ignorant asswipe thinks that by using the name of a real physicist,it somehow makes him smart.

Fuck that little dipshit.

Total Pageviews