Pure bullshit.

All those e-mails proved it.

Global Warming is a myth and Al Gore is the most successful con man ever.

Too bad he didn't get appointed president.

-All those e-mails proved it.

Conservative media hype misleading report suggesting CRU destroyed raw climate data

December 01, 2009 2:50 pm ET 48 Comments

Conservative media have recently suggested that scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia intentionally "threw out" or "destroyed" the raw temperature data "underpinning the man-made-warming theory," in the words of the New York Post, echoing a recent London Times article that said it is "now impossible" to examine how the CRU made its conclusions. In fact, according to the scientists, the raw data is still available at the meteorological services where they obtained it -- director Phil Jones said the CRU simply did not keep copies for "less than 5 percent of its original station data" in its database because those "stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends."

Sure Dave, and the Northwest Passage didn't open up for the first time in human history in 2007, either.

Happy extinction stupid, you deserve it.

"Happy extinction stupid, you deserve it."

I was being facetious.

So how much money does Your University stand to gain by spreading this Global Warming BULLSHIT propaganda Zatoichi??

Larry

"Sure Dave, and the Northwest Passage didn't open up for the first time in human history in 2007, either.
Happy extinction stupid, you deserve it."
#3 | Posted by Zatoichi

Sorry to rain on your parade Zat:

"Reports and other papers relating to the two voyages of the R.C.M. Police schooner "St. Roch" through the North West Passage from (1) Vancouver, B.C., to Sydney, N.S., (1940-42), (2) Dartmouth, N.S., to Vancouver, B.C., (1944)"

Whatever you believe in terms of "climategate" you have to admit this is poor timing for the headline. Maybe they could have sat on this story for another month or so?

"Maybe they could have sat on this story for another month or so?"

Yes.

Idiotic public opinion should always determine when news stories are released.

Idiotic public opinion should always determine when news stories are released.

From the standpoint that you are trying to push an agenda (which the scientists are, they believe that something needs to be done about AGW) then yes, it should be determined by idiotic public opinion. This story would be a lot more potent either before the scandal (which it is, believe it or not) or after the dust has settled. You disagree with that?

Ever wonder why gov officials release bad news on a Wednesday night of Thanksgiving weekend?

Timing is everything.

You are rocking the sarcasm today, Dave.

Idiotic public opinion should always determine when news stories are released.

God forbid your precious scientists should live in the real world like the rest of us.

They can deal with public scrutiny like everyone else. It doesn't change their importance or contributions.

"They can deal with public scrutiny like everyone else."

That is, of course, unless you're a half-term governess from Alaska. Then it's just mean-spirited.

Frankly, I don't care WHAT the "scientists" say. What does Zatoitchy's scientific, peer-reviewed swimming pool say? THAT'S the bona fide skinny right there!

"Frankly, I don't care WHAT the "scientists" say."

#13 | Posted by jestgettinstupider

This comes as no surprise.

Sure Dave, and the Northwest Passage didn't open up for the first time in human history in 2007, either.

Happy extinction stupid, you deserve it.

How long have we been recording history?

How long have we been recording the history of that area of the world?

Fill in your pool and kill all your cows.

Does this really warrant top of the page large print? I mean ebay and Craigslist are battling it out:

"How long have we been recording history?"

The Inuit have been there since the last ice age.
You might want to check with them, Edison.

The fraud and attempts to bypass Congress is already in full tilt:

Obama will not wait for the outcome of Copenhagen or the passage of the Waxman-Markey climate bill, predicted for 2010 at the earliest. Obama will declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant this week. Obama will trek to Copenhagen on December 18 and attempt to convince the one-worlders and their cult of green that he is serious about the climate change agenda.

The Environmental Protection Agency has declared carbon dioxide dangerous and this will probably result in the government requiring businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other "greenhouse gases" to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions. Congress need not be consulted and no law need be enacted.

An EPA "endangerment finding" would allow the federal agency to use the federal Clean Air Act to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions

The EPA ruling and enforcement "could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project," U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue said in a statement. "The devil will be in the details, and we look forward to working with the government to ensure we don't stifle our economic recovery."

"EPA action to regulate emissions could affect the U.S. economy more directly, and more quickly, than any global deal inked in the Danish capital, where no binding agreement is expected," opines The Wall Street Journal.

Sure Dave, and the Northwest Passage didn't open up for the first time in human history in 2007, either.

Happy extinction stupid, you deserve it.

#3 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-12-07 10:16 AM

The Inuit have been there since the last ice age.
You might want to check with them, Edison.

I didn't ask how long people have been there. I asked how long we've been recording history of the area.

You're the one claiming that the northwest passage has never been open in recorded history. Who's history? Ours? The Inuits?

Where are the historical reference books, scrolls are parchments detailing Inuit history?

Looks like Zat is a hot head today. Maybe there is something to this shit.

Sure Dave, and the Northwest Passage didn't open up for the first time in human history in 2007, either.

Happy extinction stupid, you deserve it.

#3 | Posted by Zatoichi

Question. If this was the first time in human history that the Passage opened, how did it get named? Why would someone name something that didn't exist?

Conservatives.......why are they called that? What do they conserve?

The environment, nope. Do they conserve money, nope. Do they conserve resources, hell no.

So far the only thing I can tell that they consistently conserve is freedom. No, that doesn't mean your champions of freedom, but in fact limit the true freedoms Americans should enjoy.

LM

"Question. If this was the first time in human history that the Passage opened, how did it get named? Why would someone name something that didn't exist?"

I believe he is meaning in reference to there being actually no sea ice to impede the trip. In the previous trip (44) several weeks/months were spent trapped in ice, once it weakened the ship was freed and able to make it through. In 2007, there was no ice to rap teh ships attempting this. At least that is how I understand it.

LM

There once were some Ho's in Copenhagen
Who peddled free coochie: booty was shakin'
They said with a laugh
"don't send us your hacks"
Bring us Bill Clinton's famous bacon

Last Sept. it was in the 60s, this Sept. it was in the 50s. That proves that we are cooling. Makes about as much sense as the GW nazis.

The Global Climate Change Evangelicals for Global Redistribution of Global Wealth Summit begins.

If you don't agree with their myths you will be strung up on a cross

threatening to unlock vast amounts of methane, a global-warming gas.

Damn, don't light that match or we all will blow up.

Good thing all thoes buffalo back in the early 1800s never farted. It would have been over then.

Happy extinction stupid, you deserve it.

#3 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-12-07 10:16 AM | Reply | Flag: APPARENTLY THE POOL THAWED

What do they conserve?

The environment, nope.

#23 | Posted by Liberal_Mongrel at 2009-12-07 12:38 PM

There once was a zealot named Zat
Who worshipped the sun and a cat

Said his pool gave him news
To fuel his skewed views

And thinks there's no God, imagine that.

Zat is proud of living out in the country, which is fine, but shows that his commute is rather long. In other words, he's bad for the environment.

#29 | Posted by Sniper

It'll put Moose Fart, AK on the map for sure.

The world's population has increased 7 fold since the early 1800's from 1 billion to nearly 7 billion, going to 10 billion 40 years from now. We can't continue on an unsustainable trajectory of CO2 atmospheric increases and CO2 reduction means (forests, permafrost) decreases.

Now, they say, it's time for the United States, Europe and other developed countries to pay up. The World Bank estimates developing countries will need $75 billion to $100 billion per year over the next 40 years to adapt to climate change.

how far will this go when they find out america is as broke as a third world country and can we now get in line for some of these billions?

i cant wait to see the foreign papers after obama accepts his nobel peace prize after they have been hammering him over the past month.

how far will this go when they find out america is as broke as a third world country and can we now get in line for some of these billions?

#37 | Posted by semtex111

We're not broke, we're economically challenged.

Global precession takes about 25000 years to make a full cycle. That is 99.9999% why the climate changes and why the ice ages expand and retreat. These leftwing champions of redistributon of wealth hold up "climate change" as ther flag to justify global socialism. Does anyone really think that cap and trade money will ever go to poor countries?

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes

Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.

Shouldn't the headline be:

CLIMATE FRAUD CONTINUES

The EPA has now officially declared that water vapor is hazardous to human health.

"...water vapor is hazardous to human health"

If you SO hasn't brushed their teeth, yes.

Blazing a trail for renewable energy, Gov. Deval Patrick is alienating Martha's Vineyard's liberal rich and famous by pushing a plan to lease state waters for 166 450-foot-high wind turbines between the pristine vacation spots of Gay Head cliffs and Cuttyhunk Island.

"For them to run a band (of turbines) from Cuttyhunk to Nomans Land is idiotic," Feiner said. "It would have impacted the whole water view of (my client's) property."

Liberal hipocrisy at its best.

put a wind turbine inside the kennedy compound.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., lead author of the Senate bill, has argued that if Congress doesn't act, the EPA will regulate greenhouse gas emissions. He has called EPA regulation a "blunt instrument" that would pose a bigger problem for industry than legislation crafted to mitigate some of the costs of shifting away from carbon emitting fossil fuels.

does this sound like blackmail? if congress fails to pass legislation that obama wants then the private sector is going to get hammered.

An EPA regulation will be easier to rescind when the new administration takes office on January 20, 2013.

Some 40,000 tons of carbon will be spewed getting this crowd together and keeping them in comfort.

That is the daily amount of carbon dioxide produced by 30 of the world's smaller countries, according to UN statistics.

"Please tell me again how conservatives are evil. What a fucking joke. ALGORE has invented the internet..."

It's always nice when they answer their own questions....

Wrong title. Should be:

Climate Scam Begins

Who cares. They can't even prove the temperature of the earth has even changed a fraction of a degree.

It has decreased in the past couple of years depending on your time period

The Environmental Protection Agency has declared carbon dioxide dangerous and this will probably result in the government requiring businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other "greenhouse gases" to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions. Congress need not be consulted and no law need be enacted.

This is just an opinion piece by a notable conservative rag, the WSJ and as such suspect as to the power of the EPA, but it is a monumental decision that is long over due. Had it not been for a conservative supreme court, it could have been put off for years more. Thank God for the third branch of government and the principle of checks and balances when the nation is under siege by corporate interests and opinion is being swayed by dead heads and their lackey lobbyists.

The EPA has a stellar record in doing it's job as a watch guard for this country's environment. If you don't like that assessment, look into the pollution problems in China and Russia and then ask yourself where would you prefer you children to live?

Any new EPA regulations can be appealed to the courts until they are rescinded when the new administration takes office on January 20, 2013.

This is a lesson learned from watching environmentalists and the nuclear industry over the years. Just find one judge to issue an injunction barring implementation of a regulation and it can be tied up in court for years.

Some 40,000 tons of carbon will be spewed getting this crowd together and keeping them in comfort.

That is the daily amount of carbon dioxide produced by 30 of the world's smaller countries, according to UN statistics.

...and some of you fools buy this shit? I find that typical of the pubbies mind set, but equally hilarious. Fools the lot.

These convention centers and hotels are burning energy whether it is a climate summit or not. Just more skewed statistics thought up by stupid lackey lobbyists.

Scientists: Dim Outlook for Climate Summit

Jeanna Bryner
Senior Writer
LiveScience.com jeanna Bryner
senior Writer
livescience.com

Mon Dec 7, 10:02 am ET

As world leaders gear up for what is being billed as an historic climate meeting in Copenhagen, scientists offer a grimmer outlook on the outcome that is supposed to replace the last major global climate deal, drawn up in 1997.

With any luck at all this conference will end up being a massive failure.......
.

#50 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-12-07 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag: Thinks Al Gore is over 113 years old.

"On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground"

Arrhenius, Svante, 1896.

#40 | Posted by Bph320 at 2009-12-07 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag: Thinks ice ages had a 25,000 year period

Just for shits and giggles I looked up the meteorologist who started all the BS about U.S. meteorological stations getting hotter (As if the United States were the whole planet. LOL!) and he references an observatory in Northern Ireland, only the plots he published in no way resemble the data in the records there (surprise) so I plotted it up and compared it to NASA's data for the whole planet.

Yup, 2007's still the hottest year on record, which correlates with the Northwest Passage opening up that year for the first time in since human have been in North America (Over 10,000 years.)

The Environmental Protection Agency has declared carbon dioxide dangerous and this will probably result in the government requiring businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other "greenhouse gases" to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions. Congress need not be consulted and no law need be enacted.

This is just an opinion piece by a notable conservative rag, the WSJ and as such suspect as to the power of the EPA, but it is a monumental decision that is long over due. Had it not been for a conservative supreme court, it could have been put off for years more. Thank God for the third branch of government and the principle of checks and balances when the nation is under siege by corporate interests and opinion is being swayed by dead heads and their lackey lobbyists.

The EPA has a stellar record in doing it's job as a watch guard for this country's environment. If you don't like that assessment, look into the pollution problems in China and Russia and then ask yourself where would you prefer you children to live?

#55 | Posted by RingMaster at 2009-12-07 03:49 PM

Only a fool or a liar would try to link the terms "pollution" and "greenhouse gasses". They are not at all the same, nor are their effects. The principle "greenhouse gas" to which the EPA refers is CO2, which, along with water and oxygen, happens to be one of the substances without which life on Earth would cease to exist. One could not possibly call CO2 a pollutant, unless, as I pointed out, that person was either a fool or a liar. Which are you, ringmaster?

"in since human" => "since humans"

hreatening to unlock vast amounts of methane, a global-warming gas.

Damn, don't light that match or we all will blow up.

Good thing all thoes buffalo back in the early 1800s never farted. It would have been over then.

FF for sniper even though he's not the brightest penny in the roll.

#62 | Posted by economista at 2009-12-07 04:33 PM | Reply | Flag: Needs to try breathing 5% CO2 for a while. Please.

This section allows you to select, from the databank, an image from the original record book containing the raw meteorological data for any given month between December 1794 and June 2000 but excluding April 1795 to June 1795 and June 1825 to December 1832.

Data from July 2000 until November 2009 is available in digital format rather than as a scanned image.

Oops, meant to post this here:

My proposal for reducing C02, a revenue nuetral direct tax on all users

-Tax carbon users directly. When you get your electric bill there will be a line item showing your direct tax. When you fill up your car, there will be a line item showing your direct tax, and so on.

-Refund that taxes collected. Do this by either reducing the payroll tax dollar for dollar, or set up a dividend pool where every taxpaying US citizen gets an equal amount in the form of a dividend. Thus, if you will have net payers and net receivers.

One could not possibly call CO2 a pollutant, unless, as I pointed out, that person was either a fool or a liar. Which are you, ringmaster?

"Needs to try breathing 5% CO2 for a while"

Typical lib showing their complete misunderstanding of CO2. CO2 is a "trace gas," stilling around 380 ppm. That's about a normal percentage of about 0.038% of the atmosphere. Statistically pretty much irrelevant as far as how much is there. Of course this doesn't make any difference to GW freaks since it doesn't help their argument. Instead, we should be banning water vapor, it's by far the most abundant greenhouse gas.

#59 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-12-07 04:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well ZAT, if you don't know by now that computer modeling is only as good as the data input - your diploma is not worth wiping my ass with. But please, by all means continue to worship at the temple of ALGORE. Continue to believe scientists who could and would manipulate data so that they could continue to be funded. But leave the hard work to the engineers - the ones who design in the "real world". Not the computer/laboratory world that you seem to slum in. Please continue on with your intellectual snobbery. Please continue to tell us about your fucking pool temperature like it is some sort of scientific instrument. Please continue to commute 4 hours per day from work and back and proceed to talk about the extinction of the rest of us. And please continue to shut the fuck up with your cut and paste ideology about global warming and telling the rest of us what to do with our energy.

Einstein was a genius with only one tie. Common sense does not run deep in the scientific community as you have shown throughout your posting history here. Your mother was a hampster and your father smelt of elderberries. You silly english kniggit.

And the biggest lie in the history of the world is christianity.

#61 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-12-07 04:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

And yet another theory ZAT can provide no untainted peer reviewed proof of. Two for two today ZAT!

"My proposal for reducing C02, a revenue nuetral direct tax on all users"

I agree, Taxman. Revenue neutral taxes on non-renewable resources are almost always a good idea, whether you believe in AGW or not. It internalizes the externalities.

My proposal for reducing C02 - have those that believe ALGORE stop breathing for 3 minutes.

AND BARRY decides to SWOOP in at the end to SAVE the day for the world govt takeover of american soverignty..

and he will now fly across the atlantic TWICE now instead of once...

nice carbon footprint there barry buddy

BARRY will sort of fly across 4 times, since he always has to have the second AF1 on standby nearby. Why not catch a ride with one of the many Hollywood greenies whoe are also taking private jets to the big shindig?

Instead, we should be banning water vapor, it's by far the most abundant greenhouse gas.

Typical knee jerk reaction. The problem is that as the Earth warms up the air holds even more water too. Look into negative feedback and global warming some day if you can follow science articles for more then a few lines.

Why not catch a ride with one of the many Hollywood greenies whoe are also taking private jets to the big shindig?

Gee, let me think now. Maybe security reasons? Nah, too easy.

The problem is that as the Earth warms up the air holds even more water too.

Which will eventually result in less solar radiation reaching the ground, which in turn will provide a cooling trend with increased rainfall. Nice self-regulating system we live in.

Revenue neutral taxes on non-renewable resources are almost always a good idea, whether you believe in AGW or not.

Cap and trade is a much better solution. It is not a tax if the company takes the initiative to make their process more efficient. It is the only real commonsense capitalist approach. A carbon tax is not, it's just another tax on the consumer. Let big business pay the expense, they created the problem. If they can't compete fairly they go bankrupt and a competitor that can takes over. It's a win win situation for everyone. In the long run, it may even be very profitable to go green. It looks like it's working for Al Gore to me.

Divisions run deep in Copenhagen

climate talks have opened with a declaration that the 12 days of negotiations represent an historic opportunity for the world, but deep divisions between delegates have already emerged.

The representative of the developing world says the amount of money set aside to help poor nations adapt to climate change is an insult, and Saudi Arabia's chief negotiator has raised issues about the validity of the scientific research used to justify claims that global warming is man-made.

Which will eventually result in less solar radiation reaching the ground, which in turn will provide a cooling trend with increased rainfall. Nice self-regulating system we live in.

Not if water vapor is a green house gas as SJ claims, and he is right there. Ever notice how cloud cover hold in heat at night? It does the same thing in the day time. Now soot from massive volcanic explosions have been proved to cause global cooling effects. When Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991 it caused a temporary two year drop in global temps. Check the charts. Oh wait, forget that. You don't believe the weather data anymore because of some hacked emails! There is no data now, so the discussion is over, yea?

Saudi Arabia's chief negotiator has raised issues about the validity of the scientific research used to justify claims that global warming is man-made.

Gee, imagine that! Can't imagine why.

Ever notice how cloud cover hold in heat at night?

Yes, and I also notice how it gets cooler during the day after a couple of days of cloud cover.

When there is cloud cover in the winter, it is generally much warmer than when it is clear.

"In the long run, it may even be very profitable to go green. It looks like it's working for Al Gore to me."

Ringmaster

Hell yeah their going to make money on it! Wind farm leases on some property in the panhandle is going to quadruple our yearly income from that land!

But is that right? Hell don't know.

I do know this much for sure, overpopulation by the human race will for sure cause far more destruction and devastation of our environment than a rise by 100% in atmospheric CO2 content and the rise of temperature by a degree or 2.

Interesting studies have shown that Israel is gaining a microclimate that is wetter and cooler than the surrounding middle east due to the agressive reforestation measures and urban planting going on there.

Of course, if the Palestinians get the land back they cut everything down and use it for fire wood, but for the moment we have an area that in 60 years has been transformed.

It is not a tax if the company takes the initiative to make their process more efficient

It's a tax no matter how you slice it. All you are saying is a company can reduce their tax burden by lowering their emissions, the same applies in my proposal.

Falsified data. Who cares. The ends justify the means.

the decade of the 2000s will end as the warmest ever on global temperature charts

The Earth's climate has been cooling since 2000. What has been warming are the microclimate bubbles around large metropolitan centers, like Tokyo and London, which the climate databases have increasingly used for their models.

Urban microclimates are warming, not because of greenhouse gases, but because of the heat released from building heating systems, vehicles, aircraft, air conditioners, and us. Except for a small fraction directly radiated into space, every kilowatt-hr of electricity consumed, BTU of fuel burnt, or calorie of food consumed is converted into heat. And where human activity concentrates, local temperature rises--as the weather stations at airports inside these bubbles record.

The climate models are microclimate models, not global models, and the Earth's climate as a whole is cooling naturally as solar flux wanes.

Climate change = (big lie) x (bad data) x (junk science)

The Earth's climate has been cooling since 2000.

Riiiiiggghhhhtttt.

"Lib_Mutt thought this up while stuck in traffic in his heated car with brand new tires, on his way to work where the heater will be keeping him warm, while sipping water from a plastic bottle, with a stack of old newspapers in the back seat."

Little D couldn't come up with an answer to what conservatives conserve, so this was the most clever thing he could come up with. The funny thing is, first it's libs who are lazy and on welfare, now we're all rich rolling around in Escalades, buying minks, and reading plastic books, screw paper. All this from a douche who has never voluntered, never donated, never graduated from highschool.....thanks lil D!!

LM

Dear Mr. President:

I would like to express my concern regarding reports that the Administration may believe it has the unilateral power to commit the government of the United States to certain standards that may be agreed upon at the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties 15 in Copenhagen, Denmark. The phrase "politically binding" has been used.

Although details have not been made available, recent statements by Special Envoy on Climate Change Todd Stern indicate that negotiators may be intending to commit the United States to a nationwide emission reduction program. As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country.

I would very much appreciate having this matter clarified in advance of the Copenhagen meetings.

Sincerely,

Jim Webb (D-Va)
United States Senator

Why do you post this drivel redman? What makes you think a president with a doctorate in constitutional law doesn't know this?

The EPA ruling changes all that. I guess you and Jim Webb are the only two people in the country that haven't read any of the laws the EPA was created to administer.

It's a tax no matter how you slice it. All you are saying is a company can reduce their tax burden by lowering their emissions, the same applies in my proposal.

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't do that to you. Cap and trade is not a tax. It's a regulation that forces industry to clean up their act or pay more for the permit to keep operating. Every legitimate business in the country has to be permitted and regulated. The alternative is anarchy. Environmental laws are the responsibility of our government. Have you ever heard of the Constitution?

Wonder if they'll talk about the record 20" of snow in Flagstaff yesterday?

Cap and trade is not a tax. It's a regulation that forces industry to clean up their act or pay more for the permit to keep operating. Every legitimate business in the country has to be permitted and regulated. The alternative is anarchy.

Horseshit and hyperbole in a beautiful 4 sentence package.

Cap and trade is not a tax.

The reason it isn't a tax, per se, is due to the fact it is administered by the EPA. If the Treasury were regulating this program it would most definitely be called a tax. The Obama administration realized this and that is why the outsourced it to Waxman and not Rangel.

Happy extinction stupid, you deserve it.

#3 | Posted by Zatoichi

This is the type of outrageous alarmist claims that serves to keep skeptics of MMGW, like myself, skeptics. GW advocates truly want people to believe that, unless we implement all sorts of regulations and taxes the world itself will be destroyed. Gore has even said that we only have ten years in which to do this. It's about 9 years now.

All the while, the left, along with GW fanatics, ignore the recent email scandal hoping that it will just go away. If anything, they say that it doesn't mean anything. The science remains irrefutable and repeatable. On the other hand, the emails serve to show that scientists will go to great lengths to reach the proper outcome to support man made global warming.

LOL, if you didn't know Dave was being sarcastic, then you're really stupid and probably deserve extinction.

#19 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

It doesn't matter if he is being sarcastic or not. That is a claim that has often been made by global warming advocates. Whether he believes it or not is irrelevant.

"The reason it isn't a tax, per se..." Spoken like a lawyer. Or a politician.

okay so someone tell me...

is one of the first things they did to...add up all of the carbon footprint shit they caused by getting there
saw clips of private plane after private plane landing there......

and of course OUR own is going to the 'continent' TWICE...........on OUR DIME.......

ah but hey..
as long as they make sure that they come out with one attack after another about how bad we are and then make us pay billions to others...what the FA???????????

I think the bottom line at this point is no longer the need to save the world, but to massage ego and prove to everyone that those involved are still in power. Obama doesn't give a rat's ass about the climate, he cares for little more than appearing to be the best president ever, and to push through his stated agenda. He will be seen as a failure, by both the left and right, if he fails at pushing through health care and cap-and-trade. There is clear majority opposition to both, by seriously wide margins, yet a failure to get it done, regardless of whether the citizens want it, will cause his administration to be deemed a failure. This is really the same for Dems in general. It's no longer about what the constituents want, it's about winning, regardless of consequences.

Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leakDeveloping countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol

oopsy

A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:

Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;

Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";

Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;

Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless

It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed."

science, yeah that has a lot of respect now

#57 | Posted by RingMaster
These convention centers and hotels are burning energy whether it is a climate summit or not. Just more skewed statistics thought up by stupid lackey lobbyists.
----------------------
Give me a break.

Using the internet they could have held the conference without any one leaving their office.

Instead they all motored their way over to Copenhagen burning up Co2.

If they really thought the world was coming to an end would they have motored or would they used the internet? We all know the answer.

Did your parents teach you anything about commonsense..

okay so did anyone else see somewhere last night that BEFORE this shit really hits the fan that we have already hit the halfway mark on some keyoto goals or SOMETHING like that.
got in at the end of it........

OOPs..
should have added..halfway to some keyoto goals without giving away billions and soverignty....

where was that??????

Some more info about the phony conference.

Much of the momentum for Copenhagen is now driven by the alternative fuels industry and its investors, who stand to lose vast sums unless governments artificially raise the price of carbon. These include our friends at Kleiner Perkins, the ecoventure capital fund that includes Al Gore as a partner. And of course that part of the political class congenitally eager to redistribute taxpayer monies also wants to dispense "carbon credits" to friends and political donors.

AND MORe info for the left to 'chew on'

AND MORe info for the left to 'chew on'

townhall.com

I tried but couldn't force my self to look at the hideous pop up.

At any rate there is something fundamentally wrong with looking for scientifically sound articles from a tea baggers propaganda abortion like that site is.

Now that Global Warming.. er, um... Climate Change has truly crossed the line and become a bonafide religion -- i.e., a series of incongruous beliefs unsupported by science or observation -- it will be interesting to see how the Leftoids grapple with the cognitive dissonance of believing in this religious claptrap while at the same time hating all things religious. Mouth-breathing Carbon-hating Jeebus-freaks.

Apparently publictrough as been mistakenly eating in the pissoir.

Ethanol is a joke.

The ethanol you get from one 50 gallon drum of "mash" is not even enough energy to even boil the next 50 gallon drum of mash to distill off the ethanol.

If it werent for government spending ethanol would die out.

Its a big joke. It takes more energy to make the ethanol than you get out of it, they never tell you that.

Concerning: "Now that Global Warming.. er, um... Climate Change has truly crossed the line and become a bonafide religion -- i.e., a series of incongruous beliefs unsupported by science or observation -- "

Well, all the pea brains who believed in evolution for the last 50 years are used to ignoring the science of observation if it doesn't co-incide with their belifs.

Go to a zoo.

the animals there are the same as 5000 years ago.

concerning: "It's a tax no matter how you slice it. All you are saying is a company can reduce their tax burden by lowering their emissions, the same applies in my proposal."

Lowered emissions is BURNING LESS GAS.

Every company who BURNS less gass will pay less taxes, that is a no brainer, cause they will produce less material.

So the carbon tax is an incentive to LOWER PRODUCTION in a civilized country - thinly veiled attempt to destroy what is left of our economy so CHINA can make it all...

Probably the merchants of the earth made up this mess.

CARBON IS GASOLINE
GASOLINE IS CARBON

CARBON TAX is GASOLINE TAX
GASOLINE TAX IS CARBON TAX

YOU CAN ONLY BURN SO MUCH CARBON
translation:
YOU CAN ONLY HAVE SO MUCH GASOLINE

Like sure. uh huh.

They tried that in 1974 when gasoline dropped 2% and we had gas lines up the block.

I abhor Ethanol. You get lower MPG than You do with regular gasoline. Bunch of shit if You ask Me.

Larry

I abhor Ethanol. You get lower MPG than You do with regular gasoline. Bunch of shit if You ask Me.

Larry

Try driving something your grandmother didn't pass down.

RR, when did you start loosing your hearing?

AND MORe info for the left to 'chew on'

townhall.com

I tried but couldn't force my self to look at the hideous pop up.

At any rate there is something fundamentally wrong with looking for scientifically sound articles from a tea baggers propaganda abortion like that site is.

#113 | Posted by RingMaster at 2009-12-08 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

well I just looked again and the pop up on the right was of joe biden so i agree with you there
but as always..as soonas you use the word teabagger, I stop reading as what comes after that doesnt mean shit.

Global Warming is "Mann-made after all"

"Giving discredit where discredit is due, global warming is Mann-made, so named after Michael Mann, creator of the totally debunked "hockey stick" graph."

Oky Doky Aky.

If that site has anything to do with Joe Biden it's a put down. These tea baggers don't know how to support a president or vice president on any matter any more.

Why do you visit these unAmerican sites?

Why is the same people who argue that humans are the cause of global warming are the same people who complain when the US goes to war and kills a few people.

Maybe the "Department of Defense" should be rebranded the "Department of Environment Defense". That way we can kill two birds with one stone......literally ;)