Here is a good one… (john Coleman started The Weather Channel)
(I heard elsewhere that Gore got a D in the class. lol)
It is crazy how nut jobs like Gore seem to get power and success, it happens all of the time, weird.
Al Gore is now canceling Copenhagen $1200 a handshake event.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342404574576280330992114.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The biggest con artist in history is going down!
There is no way at this point Obama can sign the Copenhagen (NWO) treaty.
Watch him
For one study that “proves” CO2 doesn’t affect global warming, there are 100 that prove it does, have already proven it does, through real observable data.
FACT: global temperatures fluctuate right along with CO2 levels, and have done so as far back as CO2 data is obtainable through core samples. It’s a fact that cannot be disputed by one politically backed study of suspect data.
And most of the comments in this thread are so uninformed and ignorant it’s embarrasing, nothing pisses me off more than ignorant people debating science, go back to talking about cars, video games, or the latest fad.
Did you read the thread? Have you been living in a cave for the past few weeks?
News Flash: The well respected scientisits lied.
Oh and co2 follows higher temps which is the exact opposite of what Al Gore and his lying friends are trying to say.
What the fuck are you talking about? Al Gore claims that as CO2 levels rise, so do temp levels. WHICH IS TRUE.
And how many scientists were caught in this “lie?” The amount of solid data that supports global warming is still overwhelmingly more trustworthy than the politics who are arguing it.
This wasn’t a study saying that Carbon Dioxide didn’t increase the temp of the planet, only that the effects are marginal - not the dramatic “OMG we’re all going to die levels” that some computer models have shown. You can’t debate the fact that Carbon Dioxide is a green-house gas, but the planet and forces acting on it are much more complex than the limitations of computer models can interpret.
One of the foundations of science is to question everything, even your own findings and preconceived notions.
That said, Obama is still going to sign this thing in Copenhagen IMO.
The arguments made by climate change sceptics
Yeah he just “accidently” reversed them on his graph to show temps following co2.:roll2:
He also thinks the core of the Earth is millions of degrees. Maybe that is why the ice is melting Al.:lol:
On NBC this morning(NBC is owned by GE which has made billions of dollars off this scam) they dedicated about 20 seconds of Michael Mann explaining away the word “trick”. Great comprehesive coverage NBC. Now six months from now they can say they have been covering this story.:cjerk:
Then of course they went on to the real news with a story about Tiger Wood’s private life.
‘Fourteen days to seal history’s judgment on this generation’
Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.
Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.
Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.
The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.
Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so.
But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June’s UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: “We can go into extra time but we can’t afford a replay.”
At the deal’s heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.
Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.
Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world’s biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.
Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of “exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.
The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.
Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.
But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.
Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.
Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature”.
It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.
The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history’s judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.
This editorial will be published tomorrow by 56 newspapers around the world in 20 languages including Chinese, Arabic and Russian. The text was drafted by a Guardian team during more than a month of consultations with editors from more than 20 of the papers involved. Like the Guardian most of the newspapers have taken the unusual step of featuring the editorial on their front page.
WHICH IS TRUE. Historically this may not have been, but our current situation is like none other in the history of the planet. Temps can effect CO2 levels, why can’t it work the other way around?
Personally, I think all this arguing about CO2 is counter-productive; the real issue isn’t global warming, it’s global sustainability.
At some point, we will run out of food, materials for clothing and shelter, etc. if the human population continues to increase as it does. Our “natural balance” is off - fewer (despite more destructive) wars and diseases have allowed humankind to grow unchecked.
So eventually, we will “outgrow” the Earth. Question is, what can we do to change that?
Personally, I’m up for a straight-up carbon tax & refund scheme to stimulate new renewable-energy resources, rather than this “cap-and-trade” business. All the C&T will do is create another boondoggle market to be manipulated - much like the oil commodities speculation a couple years ago.
^Is Eugenics the answer? :tinfoilhat: lol
Welcome to global governance aka The New World Order.
Hahaha that Telegraph blog post is so full of shit…
Please tell me you posted that for the sake of lampooning it. It was a good laugh.
It would be helpful if you could point what part of that article is shit.
“Gerald Warner is an author, broadcaster, columnist and polemical commentator…”
The byline of the article already tells you this guy is a wacko.
The entire personality of the article is so ridiculous it seems tongue-in-cheek.
Lets see… the part where he likens our president to a tyrannical king holding dictatorial sway over an impotent congress. That sentence alone flies in the face of everything that has been happening in American politics since Obama took office.
How about the part where he skewers an entire science on the basis of some rhetoric pulled from private emails and laid out in public, completely out of context. Rhetoric which says nothing of the actual science behind the argument of anthropological global warming.
I especially enjoy the part where he makes use of four word quotations from vaguely cited sources, but then as this is clearly a work of parody, I can’t really hold him to the fire over that.
Here are a couple interesting opinions on our friendly author, Gerald Warner. The guy also wears a monocle for christsake…
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/always_click_on_the_links_1.php
http://www.layscience.net/node/443
OK watch this and tell me why Lord Monckton is wrong. lol
I was waiting for her to say “But, but, but being a member of greenpeace makes me feel all warm and fuzzy regardless of fact or science.” LMAO.
Any updates on those missing Iraqi artifacts?
Ignorance looks bad whichever side you land on.