YEAH!

We know already Kerrin!

Climate Change Isnt Real and Poses no danger to Our Way of Life-- --- But The Terrorists Live in Linen Closets and will Attack us at any Minute!

"The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a United States based organization that is skeptical of human induced climate change.

It was formerly known as the Center for Science and Public Policy for the Frontiers of Freedom [1], a conservative think tank founded by former Republican senator Malcolm Wallop[2]."

I'd sort of take what they say with a box of salt.

Yet you'll swallow a Gore's obviously partisian viewpoints hook, line, and sinker.

Thank you for your unbiased input, Danni

"10,000 strong is nothing if Data isn't a member"

That's right- if you are a scientist on behalf of an organization skeptical of climate change, you aren't a scientist anymore.

But The Terrorists Live in Linen Closets and will Attack us at any Minute!

Posted by Redneckville at 2008-07-21 04:24 PM

Red....Have the attendants tell one of the doctors about your recent bout of paranoia...they can adjust your meds.

150,000 people die each year because of climate change. Billions are spent in costs to repair/mitigate damage caused by climate change, but other than that, nothing to worry about.

Rush says so, so it must be true.

There is an anomaly occurring here, unanticipated consequences. Since Germany has accomplished so much in eliminating "smog-like" cover over the years, one half of the increase in temperature (1% of 2%) is due to the direct sunlight no longer being obstructed by the blanket of "smog," and directly striking the Earth.

It appears that Chicken Little was right. We are doomed.

Conditions have always been transitory. Sometimes the changes have been quite rapid, and other times have taken eons. We had Pangea. We've had glaciers over a mile in depth covering much of the United States (and bringing us the rich Canadian soil) within the past 18,000 years. Core drillings in the Greenland ice cap have shown that monumental changes occurred within 20 or 30 years rather than being an inexorable but slow process.

Our problem is that our burgeoning population has reduced the margins and we are particularly vulnerable. This shattering cycle is apparent when predator-prey-vegetation populations are subject to destructive cycles and regrowth along the same pattern. We humans do not seem capable of controlling our cycles any better by actively managing them, than through theb ruthless and uncaring actions of unfettered nature.

We already have a problem with commodities, energy, food, and water shortages. Now with the growth of population and the necessity for population control, we are enter a period when we will be exposed to "demographic winter" with an aging population not having sufficient offspring to support them. There may be rationales and methods developed for disposing of the eldrly prematurely in accord with a new ethic.

China with its one-child policy may become a model for the chaos that will reign.

Climate change. Bah. It may become a secondary consideration as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse mount their steeds and ride. It bodes ill. Live drink and make (Mary and) merry, for this is the Golden Age for our civilization.

We thought we had things going our way, but Catch-22 is here to stay. There is no way out without conflict and suffering.

150,000 people die each year because of climate change.

Where did you come up with this number?

When glaciers, ice bergs and even the Arctic Ice Sheet start melting I kinda think those who deny are like Baghdad Bob claiming the Iraqis were winning the war for Saddam.
When combating global warming by ending our reliance on fossil fuels will also make us energy independent I figure what's the harm in moving into the future instead of clinging to the past just so entrenched status quo can continue to make money.
When I consider the character issues of those politicians and pundits denying that global warming is real and compare them to those who are claiming it is real, I tend to ignore the deniers. They have lied to us about many things in the past and they certainly represent interests other than those of the Average American.
So yeah, when a right wing organization claims to prove global warming isn't realy I feel justified in ignoring them.

While the publication MIGHT be peer-reviewed, you've neglected to point out the salient first paragraph of the touted paper by Christopher Monckton:

"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earths climate.--"

"When I consider the character issues of those politicians and pundits denying that global warming is real and compare them to those who are claiming it is real, I tend to ignore the deniers."

Yeah, because Al Gore is certainly a trustworthy gentlemen. I'd trust him with my wife, my son, AND my business any day. On top of that, there certainly aren't any scientist denying man-made global warming- only oil execs and the evil, nasty President Bush.

Man, drill through the head of every seal, dolphin, whale, and endangered species on the face of the planet to get more oil, THEN work on alternative energy sources.

"Yet you'll swallow a Gore's obviously partisian viewpoints..."

"Partisian" views, Goat, are usually expressed for a reason, hope of gain somewhere. Can you, or any rightie brainiac with whom you consort, suggest a motive - ANY reason - that anyone would want to inflict a global warming "myth" on the world? Never mind that the Arctic ice is vanishing even as we squabble, but what's to gain by concocting such a fiction? herm

that anyone would want to inflict a global warming "myth" on the world?

Money.

If not that, I don't know. Don't ask me why people start chain letters. Don't ask me why people perpetuate hoax. Don't ask me why the Piltdown man was fabricated. Some people get a kick out of lying and tricking people. I'll be the first to admit I don't know why.

suggest a motive - ANY reason - that anyone would want to inflict a global warming "myth" on the world?

Posted by herm at 2008-07-21 06:13 PM | Reply

Just before the Protestant Reformation, sellers of indulgences would enter a town and set up two tables: One to sell the documents for money, another to buy what little personal property the peasants had.

Peasants, lied to about their place in eternity, would sell their wool, their dishes, even their clothes, to get some money to buy an indulgence -- a worthless piece of paper.

Then the crew would leave with all the money and all the goods.

Today, Algore is getting rich selling 'carbon credit.' Different name, same old scam

Can you, or any rightie brainiac with whom you consort, suggest a motive - ANY reason - that anyone would want to inflict a global warming "myth" on the world?

Posted by herm

The "Pope" of Global Warming is making a killing off of the "myth":

How is Gore trying to be a climate change profiteer? Essentially, he wants to make a fortune by creating a new market for a product that he is attempting to create by legislative fiat. If he succeeds and carbon emissions trading comes to the United States, Al Gore will be uniquely positioned to cash in. He's made sure of that.

Gore himself is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). He says the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are becoming environmentally-friendly, to use green parlance. GIM appears to have considerable influence over major carbon credit trading firms: the U.S.-based Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and the U.K.-based Carbon Neutral Company (CNC). CCX appears to be the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.

Not to mention profits from his falsehood of a movie.

"Can you, or any rightie brainiac with whom you consort, suggest a motive - ANY reason - that anyone would want to inflict a global warming "myth" on the world?" - HERM

How about the same rationale the "leftie brainiacs" use to splain Dubya's Iraq adventure?

Power, influence, money.

I think it's pretty widely accepted that the world has had temps rise a bit over the past several decades. The CAUSE of such warming... and to the degree our activities can mitigate the warming (along with the associated effects to our economy & way of life)... those are the debatable topics.

The Three Wise Men of The Right weigh in with theories on why-in-the-world someone would try to peddle a global warming "myth."

Vern suggests that Gore sees himself in papal terms and peddles indulgences. Why not? I suppose that if people still vote GOP, they'd surely buy those from him.

The Cid sees more pecuniary motives. Gore must peddle SOME product. (I'm honestly unsure WHAT, but he stands to collect Big Bucks if the sheeple merely believe it. Next case.

Oorah asks "How about the same rationale the 'leftie brainiacs' use to splain Dubya's Iraq adventure? Power, influence, money."

I suppose such deflection works. Sometimes. You Guys Do It Too. These are answers, I guess. More, anyway, than the out-to-lunch bogus paratrooper calling you stoopid, a pussy, whimp and commie faggot pinko marxist traitor. Anyone else have any ideas? herm

Anyone else have any ideas? herm

To have the prestigious honor of winning a Nobel Prize? That always looks good on a resume'.

"Anyone else have any ideas? herm"

"To have the prestigious honor of winning a Nobel Prize? That always looks good on a resume'."

Goat, Gore has it made, needs no resume. He's not running for anything. He has his Nobel. He has money and needs no job. I know you're tryin', baby but that one won't work either. herm

When glaciers, ice bergs and even the Arctic Ice Sheet start melting I kinda think those who deny are like Baghdad Bob claiming the Iraqis were winning the war for Saddam.

Nobody is denying that the globe has warmed in the last 100 years. What is in question is the theory that man-made carbon emissions are the primary culprit.

When combating global warming by ending our reliance on fossil fuels will also make us energy independent I figure what's the harm in moving into the future instead of clinging to the past just so entrenched status quo can continue to make money.

So, because you despise those who are wealty, unless of course they are leftists like Soros, you advocate economic destruction as a means of 'moving into the future'? You want to set policy based predominantly on science that has more holes in it than a sieve just because it feels right?

When I consider the character issues of those politicians and pundits denying that global warming is real and compare them to those who are claiming it is real, I tend to ignore the deniers.

That is about the most utterly naive and partisan comment I've read today. You are essentially saying that personal character is directly linked to one's worldview. That is beyond stupid. Grow up.

They have lied to us about many things in the past and they certainly represent interests other than those of the Average American.
So yeah, when a right wing organization claims to prove global warming isn't realy I feel justified in ignoring them.

Essentially, if anyone is Conservative in their worldview they are to be blanketedly ignored, regardless of what they are saying and regardless of whatever factual information they have backing their assertions simply because you disagree with their worldvidew?

You've had a pretty darn good year on this blog, Danni. I've really enjoyed reading your posts over the last year. That said, over the last couple of weeks you have been slipping back into that blatantly partisan malaise that has plagued your posting career on this site.

Please, go back and re-read your post. Then, think about what you just conveyed. Let's assume the topic of this thread was opposite - the earth is dying and it's all of the greedy capitalists fault. If I simply attacked the messenger without offering any substantive refutation of the information being presented, you'd rightly say something along the lines of:

"Yeah, just attack the messenger because Rush tells you to. Don't you ever get tired of being a partisan hack and corporate apologist Jeff?"

You know that's how you'd respond and I know it. We also both know that were the tables turned, you'd be correct.

Hopefully you check back and see my response to your post. I don't expect any kind of follow up. My only hope is that you'll step back, read my post with an open mind and think about the critiques I've proffered.

Herm,

Gore's buddies are the green technology producers.

Look at it this way, Cheney has it made. He's not running for anything and he's wealthy just like Gore is. Yet, we are to believe that he pulled Bush's puppet strings and started a war with Iraq solely to enrich his buddies. Well, take the same premise and apply it to Gore.

Gotta run, you get the last word.

has money and needs no job.

See the 6:26.

Bill Gates doesn't need money either, but that doesn't stop him from making it, does it?

I'm sure you'll shoot that down, too -- I don't care. Bottom line is he and his gaggle of scientists don't know any more about climatology than the naysayers. They are both out of line. So I don't know why Gore does it. Vanity, probably. It sure isn't out of caring for the planet, or he'd cut down his own carbon footprint.

QUid pro quo: I still wonder why he refuses to get his top scientists together and accept any of the many debates he's been challenged to. Why do you think that is? I, for one, would have a little more faith in his message if I saw him step up to the plate and debate the issue instead of one sidedly issuing edicts

Well, take the same premise and apply it to Gore.

But, but, but, that's different. Gore's on my side. Herm

"Partisian views,...are usually expressed for a reason, hope of gain somewhere. Can you, or any rightie brainiac with whom you consort, suggest a motive - ANY reason - that anyone would want to inflict a global warming "myth" on the world?"

Uh, I believe you just did...and the key word is "gain". Real power, over our free society can only be obtained by dictating acceptable energy supplies and consumption by declaring it necessary in order to save the planet and the human race! Now were talking about total control over the whole economy...a Socialist's dream!

Secondly, an entire industry has been built around the industry of "environmentalism" in the past four decades or so. A lot of folks would be out of a job if the global warming climate crisis were exposed as the alarmist sham that it truly is.

"Never mind that the Arctic ice is vanishing even as we squabble..."

And never mind that the south pole is currently advancing. Ice sheets retreat (melt) and advance. It's part of the earth's natural cycle...nothing to panic over.

What motive would John Coleman (founder of the Weather Channel) have for calling the global warming hysteria "the greatest scam in history"?

What would motivate Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greepeace) to say "I dont even like to call it the environmental movement any more, because really it is a political activist movement, and they have become hugely influential at a global level. By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism."

These men are established seasoned veterans of climatology. They need not jump aboard the global warming train of hysteria in order to qualify for research grants.

"Nobody is denying that the globe has warmed in the last 100 years. What is in question is the theory that man-made carbon emissions are the primary culprit."

JEFFJ we had better hope it is man made because that is probably the only cause we can have any effect on. If it isn't a man made phenomenon we're toast.....literally.

Hey, if Gore's wrong we'll be stuck with energy independence, whole new clean industries employing millions, a cleaner environment and a better world.

That's right- if you are a scientist on behalf of an organization skeptical of climate change, you aren't a scientist anymore.

If you were a scientist on behalf of a tobacco company, your studies were buried if they didn't help the company's obfuscate the truth about the dangers of cigarettes.

Personally, I'd prefer to hear about climate change studies from groups that don't have a vested interest in one outcome.

We'll just have to adapt. It worked last time.

We fixed it just like the rainforest, the ozone hole, bigfoot and killer bees.

"Anyone else have any ideas? herm"

Why bother?

ElCid's post explains exactly how Al Gore has a heavy financial interest in global warming. Your dismissal of his post was a demonstration of willful ignorance and nothing more.

I happen to believe that man is warming the Earth but that doesn't doesn't make Al Gore's motives any more pure.

What's this!? An entire thread on global warming without ZAT? Has he gone on a retreat or is he perhaps consulting his scientific pool and redoing the math?

"What's this!? An entire thread on global warming without ZAT? Has he gone on a retreat or is he perhaps consulting his scientific pool and redoing the math?"

Allow me to provide you your fix of Zat:

"I'm a very important, smart person who's met alot of famous people. In 1863, I built a working ferris wheel out of pencil shavings. I was 57 days olds.

Happy extinction, morons."

"Allow me to provide you your fix of Zat:"

Thanks...I feel better now.

"Happy extinction, morons."

Ah, good. Everything is back to normal so I can take a nap and rest easy.

We have to buy into my scam in ten years so I can retire.-Algore

Global warming-- halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;

someone needs to tell that to the Arctic Ice Cap which seems to have not gotten the word yet as it is still melting.

We'll just have to adapt. It worked last time.

Posted by shirtsbyeric at 2008-07-22 11:42 AM

yeah! How is your brother, the Neanderthal Man, doing these days?

I am still trying to figure out why the rightie conservative is denying climate change.

What is in it for them to deny? What are they gaining?

MONEY-
The issue(s) aren't so much that the world has warmed. Instead it's the degree to which that change is influenced by man's actions. It's also the cost to our economy and way of life.

One would think that before we unilaterally divorce ourselves from petro products we make certain we're doing so for valid reasons.

One would think that before we unilaterally divorce ourselves from petro products we make certain we're doing so for valid reasons.

Posted by OohRah

Sending $700,000,000,000 (billion) out of out country every year to regimes who don't like us should be reason enough shouldn't it?

Well, glaciers and icebergs are always melting. That's what happens when you put big chunks of ice into water. So confronted with evidence that they are, I'll probably just remember what my second-grade Earth textbook had to say on the subject.

As to why anyone would knowingly perpetuate a myth, plenty of reasons. But I'll give the enviros credit for being earnest--if hypocritical--about their beliefs as to mankind-induced global warming. Most of them no doubt believe what they say, even if they don't really live accordingly.

Poppycock--

By Gore's methods--the polar caps are gone by 2013.

And he wants to make his money the old fashioned way--stealing it ....

Why not get our own petrol and screw the foreign oil countries.

Work on the alternatives in the mean time.

There is nothing to replace oil--so get our own while we work on it.

It was formerly known as the Center for Science and Public Policy for the Frontiers of Freedom [1], a conservative think tank founded by former Republican senator Malcolm Wallop[2]."

en.wikipedia.org

I'd sort of take what they say with a box of salt.

Posted by danni at 2008-07

yeah thats right SWEETY

if they lean to the right they are all morons and idealogical idiots. we have heard that before
and remember too that ALGORE HAS MADE OVER ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS ON his threats and films...
so thats always good...........hee hee

and here is a question that I have to ask all the time.

liberals are supposed to be so progressive and intellectual HOWEVER here they are telling us that the results are in and there is no more need to EVEN QUESTION what gore and others say.
they tell us that if we dont BLINDLY FOLLOW them down their path that we are stupid and the
SKY IS FALLING
THE SKY IS FALLING
THE SKY IS FALLING

so why is it that data from the left is allknowing and incontrovertable and if it comes from the right........well its just propaganda or even worse.
YOU CANT HAVE IT THIS WAY ANYMORE.

I am still trying to figure out why the rightie conservative is denying climate change.

What is in it for them to deny? What are they gaining?

Posted by moneywar at 2008-07

oohrah gave some of the best answers.
so tell me.....have china and india signed on to all this........NO>.......and china has said that their economy is MORE IMPORTANT Than the damage to the environment that they might cause.......
so it will amount to us being brought into the europeon level, which is what the rest of the world is really after anyway,.

Sending $700,000,000,000 (billion) out of out country every year to regimes who don't like us should be reason enough shouldn't it?

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2008

something we all agree on........NONE of those people are our friends including the saudis,....
SO WhY is it that YOU SIDE refused to want to do anything about it?????
they are the ones who have blocked drilling and more refinaries and a TON OF GOVT REGS concerning nuclear energy.......you know what that is.....ITS WHAT the fricking french can do but we cant.........

last night my congressman called me while he was on a conference call to his consituents......
and there was a shale oil expert there who said that in only THREE STATES, we have enough to bring in more oil than the MIDDLE EAST COMBINED>.......
and yet.........democrats have blocked it from happening........and YES they said that this shale is too expensive if oil were 30 a barrel or so but it is extremely worthit with oil where it is now.

I wish we could see a real debate between the global warming believers and the global warming deniers.

I've never seen a debate offered by the believers that a denier refused to participate in. However, I have heard of several that the deniers challenged the believers, and the believers declined.

I wonder why that is?