PDA

View Full Version : Media NBC cancels "Green Week" Admits Global Warming a hoax to earn GE/others profit


Bootlegged
11-24-2009, 08:19 AM
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.

Bootlegged
11-24-2009, 08:21 AM
GE Determined to Show More 'Ecomagination'
Program Sets Pollution Reduction Targets


By Greg Schneider
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 10, 2005

General Electric Co. yesterday announced a new company-wide environmental initiative, pledging to decrease pollution from its products and to double research and development spending on cleaner technologies.

GE is the biggest addition to a growing list of corporations seeking to be seen as "green," and one of only a few business titans to call for broad action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that many scientists say lead to global warming.

"I think [global warming] is something we need to start figuring out and taking proactive steps to make improvements on," GE chairman and chief executive Jeffrey R. Immelt said in a recent interview.

Immelt announced the initiative -- dubbed "ecomagination" in a play on the company's "Imagination at Work" slogan -- yesterday in a speech at George Washington University. The plan calls for increased spending to develop new technologies such as wind-power generation, diesel-electric hybrid locomotives, more-efficient aircraft engines and appliances, and advanced water-treatment systems.


The company pledged to spend $1.5 billion a year on such research by 2010, more than double the $700 million it spends today. Immelt said GE also aims to double the revenue goal over that period for products that provide better environmental performance, to $20 billion a year, and expects more than half of its product revenue to come from such products by 2015.

At the same time, GE promised to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of its factory operations 1 percent by 2012. Without the initiative, those emissions were expected to increase 40 percent, the company said.

GE began heavily advertising the initiative yesterday, joining BP PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp., General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and other big companies with ecology-related marketing campaigns. Some environmental advocates, briefed in advance by GE about the plan, praised the effort for having measurable performance targets and for taking sides on the global warming debate.

"We are still quite politically polarized on the issue of climate change in this country," said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center for Climate Change. "The fact that a company that size wants to take a very public position to talk about their products in terms of climate change and then, most important of all, to say they want to be part of the policy dialogue, which is very difficult in the United States at this moment, is an act of courage."

Immelt said in the interview that he would like Congress to pass an energy bill that set "clear milestones" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, so that companies would know clearly how to invest to achieve them. The bill should include market-based mechanisms to encourage businesses to cut pollution, such as caps with incentives or the ability to trade emissions credits, he said.

Immelt also called for federal incentives to encourage "fuel diversity," the development of a variety of national energy sources, as well as a centralized effort similar to the National Institutes of Health to help develop new environmental technologies that can be used throughout U.S. industry.

Some environmental advocates were skeptical of GE's new green look. "Actions speak louder than words," said Chris Ballantyn, director of the Hudson River Program for the Sierra Club. "When you scratch beneath the public relations surface, I'm afraid they have unfinished business in terms of environmental protection."

GE has clashed with the Sierra Club over cleanup of the Hudson River in upstate New York, which was polluted with PCBs from two GE factories for decades until the late 1970s. The company has resisted a dredging cleanup project, arguing that it would disturb sediments and make the problem worse. But Ballantyn said the company has a pattern of resisting cleanup efforts.

"We'll feel a lot differently about this company and where they're going once they commit to cleaning up the Hudson here," Ballantyn said.

Bootlegged
11-24-2009, 08:23 AM
Immelt Named To Obama's New Economic Advisory Board
GE CEO to join independent group that will advise president on programs to jump-start economy
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 2/6/2009 11:58:11 AM

President Barack Obama has named Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of NBC Universal parent GE, to his new economic advisory board.

The new board is modeled on the foreign intelligence advisory board created under President Dwight Eisenhower, according to the White House, and will "provide an independent voice on economic issues and will be charged with offering independent advice to the President as he formulates and implements his plans for economic recovery."

The board, which will meet regularly to advise the president on programs to "jump-start" the economy and how those programs are working, features a mix of executives from various industries, academics, a representative of the AFL-CIO, and others.

"I'm grateful that I will have the counsel of these talented and experienced men and women in the challenging months to come," the President said in announcing the board. "I created this board to enlist voices that come from beyond the echo chamber of Washington, DC, and to ensure that no stone is unturned as we work to put people back to work and to get our economy moving. We will meet regularly so that I can hear different ideas and sharpen my own, and seek counsel that is candid and informed by the wider world."

The new board is different from the president's transition economic advisory board, on which former Time Warner CEO Dick Parsons and Google chief Eric Schmidt served. Neither are on the new board.

Joining Immelt on the new board, which is chaired by former Fed Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, are:

William H. Donaldson, Chairman, SEC (2003-2005); Roger W. Ferguson, Jr., President & CEO, TIAA-CREF; Robert Wolf, Chairman & CEO, UBS Group Americas; David F. Swensen, CIO, Yale University; Mark T. Gallogly, Founder & Managing Partner, Centerbridge Partners L.P.; Penny Pritzker, Chairman & Founder, Pritzker Realty Group; John Doerr, Partner, Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers; Jim Owens, Chairman and CEO, Caterpillar Inc.;Monica C. Lozano, Publisher & Chief Executive Officer, La Opinion; Charles E. Phillips, Jr., President, Oracle Corporation; Anna Burger, Chair, Change to Win; Richard L. Trumka, Secretary-Treasurer, AFL-CIO; Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Dean, Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley; Martin Feldstein, George F. Baker Professor of Economics, Harvard University.

tiptap
11-24-2009, 08:56 AM
BEP referenced the Telegraph Article at the top of this post. I commented on it in the "Global Warming Meltdown thread". As far as GE is concerned, yes they are big in electrical production projects. Whether it is traditional turbines or wind turbines. But the act of being concerned about CO 2 production is as much PR for the Oil and Coal industries as any real thrust to absolutely reduced CO 2 production. But I didn't catch the NBC connection though I am sure it is only about the Headline after all.

Bootlegged
11-24-2009, 09:56 AM
BEP referenced the Telegraph Article at the top of this post. I commented on it in the "Global Warming Meltdown thread". As far as GE is concerned, yes they are big in electrical production projects. Whether it is traditional turbines or wind turbines. But the act of being concerned about CO 2 production is as much PR for the Oil and Coal industries as any real thrust to absolutely reduced CO 2 production. But I didn't catch the NBC connection though I am sure it is only about the Headline after all.

Do you have a vested interest in global warming? Why do you spend so much time/effort defending?

RaiderH8r
11-24-2009, 10:01 AM
Do you have a vested interest in global warming? Why do you spend so much time/effort defending?

Anthropogenic Global Warming is the newest coolest religion. Complete with tighing, cries of heresy, excommunication, and ridicule. People do not easily or often give up their religion simply because it has been proven to be a hoax. This is about belief and faith man, not science and truth.

mlyonsd
11-24-2009, 10:20 AM
Remember all the crazy suggestions on how Haliburton and the Bush administration were in Kahoots?

This is no different when you have the CEO of a company that not only will profit from green technology pushing that agenda through it's network ownership, all the while serving on an advisory board for the administration.

Laughable.

Brock
11-24-2009, 10:29 AM
The Green Bubble is bursting already? I hadn't even made any money on it yet. :cuss:

blaise
11-24-2009, 10:36 AM
Remember all the crazy suggestions on how Haliburton and the Bush administration were in Kahoots?

This is no different when you have the CEO of a company that not only will profit from green technology pushing that agenda through it's network ownership, all the while serving on an advisory board for the administration.

Laughable.

No, no. Totally different. Bush & Co. did it for sinister reasons. This is for our own good.

demonhero
11-24-2009, 10:46 AM
megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T



^emails


add the hxxp.......

HonestChieffan
11-24-2009, 10:48 AM
The sad part of all this is that a handful of "scientists" now muddy the water for those in other fields doing good work. They will make them have to defend thenselves because a political agenda drove unethical scientists to this point.

Garcia Bronco
11-24-2009, 11:24 AM
Do you have a vested interest in global warming? Why do you spend so much time/effort defending?

Not realated to TT, but on the OM there is this guy that call GW deniers all kinds of names. Turns out he works for a firm that gets government funding to study it in Boulder, Co.

blaise
11-24-2009, 11:29 AM
I didn't know NBC had a green week. It sounds incredibly lame.

HonestChieffan
11-24-2009, 11:36 AM
It will be a summer thing called Green Weak

bluehawkdoc
11-24-2009, 11:47 AM
I didn't know NBC had a green week. It sounds incredibly lame.

It's all about the Leprechauns. Those little bastards...

Bootlegged
11-24-2009, 11:58 AM
“Green Week 2009” will seep into everything NBC owns: its networks (CNBC, MSNBC, NBC News, NBC Sports, SciFi Channel, Sundance Channel, Bravo, USA, and Telemundo), its Web sites (iVillage), and even its theme parks (Universal Studios). As a point of reference, last year’s “Green Week” totaled 150 hours of “pro-environmental messages.” So be prepared for re-runs of environmentally-themed Top Chef episodes and “green tips” from the green thumb herself, Martha Stewart.



Despite NBC’s efforts climate change advocates and even its own affiliates have given “Green Week” two thumbs down, calling it a “vast green wasteland.” So why has NBC continued this greenwashing charade for the third straight year? Is it just so heart-wrenchingly worried about the environment that it doesn’t care about its low ratings? Perhaps there are other motives at hand, such as the profit motive.



The answer lies in the owner of NBC Universal: General Electric (GE). In 2005 – just two years before NBC launched its annual “Green Week” – General Electric announced that, by 2010, it would double its investments in “cleaner technologies,” according to The New York Times.



Jeffrey Immelt, the chairman of GE, promised to increase the company’s annual investment in research on reducing pollution from $700 million to $1.5 billion. He also speculated that, by then, the company’s revenue from green products and services would double to $20 billion. In order to achieve that revenue goal GE invested about “$160 million in 20 startups in such businesses as wind and solar power, batteries, energy efficiency, smart grid and fossil fuels.”

NBC Kicks Off Annual Green Week with Primetime Climate Hype 121109banner2



Obviously GE, and, by default, NBC Universal, has invested a lot in the green movement. And, as the biggest company in the world in terms of market capitalization, it has the power to insure that its green investment isn’t wasted.



GE is also invested in making sure government regulation benefits its green technology spending. According to The Examiner’s Tim Carney, the company spends “more than any other corporation in America on lobbying the federal government – more than $20 million annually over the past three years.”



In 2008, GE lobbied for the “Climate Stewardship Act,” “Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act,” “Global Warming Reduction Act,” “Federal Government Greenhouse Gas Registry Act,” “Low Carbon Economy Act,” and “Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.”



Notice a trend?



As Carney said, “In many of GE’s businesses, the profit model appears to be: (1) invest in something for which there isn’t much demand; (2) then lobby to mandate or subsidize it.”



He gave the example of GE’s “green” investment in wind turbines. GE prides itself in being “one of the world’s leading wind turbine suppliers.” Without subsidies, however, there probably wouldn’t even be a windmill industry. Windmills cannot “reliably produce energy, and certainly not as affordably as traditional fuels such as coal.” Even Germany’s energy agency, which subsidizes its wind industry, has concluded that “spending billions on building new turbines” isn’t “energy efficient.”



In America, however, GE has managed to not only protect but also expand the large amount of turbine subsidies, including “production tax credits,” government mandates on utilities to buy wind power, and even building wind farms by means of eminent domain. In the end, GE can pay as little as $5,000 for a $15,000 turbine Reuters reported. The taxpayer, of course, covers the difference.



In fact, most of GE’s clean energy businesses “either benefit from current policy [or] get stimulus money or Department of Energy grants.”



Lately, GE had been campaigning for cap-and-trade legislation. Lucky for GE, President Obama has zeroed in on it too. He’s been pressuring Congress to pass the legislation by early next year so that the program will be fully functional by 2012 (which he’s particularly anxious about since his 2012 budget plan figures $78.7 billion in revenue from the sale of carbon credits).



Essentially, the legislation would require companies to “buy enough credits … to cover their carbon dioxide emissions, or acquire more by trading with others at a later stage.” The companies could also “reduce their emissions by investing in more efficient technologies.”



Now how would GE fit into this equation? 1) It’s the biggest company in the world in terms of market capitalization. 2) It has already heavily invested in green technology.



Sounds like a win-win situation for GE. Not only can GE afford to buy large amounts of credit but it doesn’t even need them, allowing the company to earn a great deal of money by selling the credits to coal companies and other “polluters.”



Of course none of this can happen until the legislation becomes a law. In order for it become a law, Americans need to support it. That is less likely if people don’t believe global warming is a threat. According to a recent Pew poll, only 36 percent of Americans think global warming is man-made (down from 47 percent).



What better way to create necessary support than to hype the threat of climate change over and over and over again … which returns us to our original topic: “Green Week.”



As Bill O’Reilly put it: “When a powerful corporation, which controls a major part of the American media, may be using its power and the airwaves to influence politics, in order to make money from government contracts … that kind of corruption would make Watergate look small.”

tiptap
11-24-2009, 12:00 PM
Do you have a vested interest in global warming? Why do you spend so much time/effort defending?

My kids. I am unlikely to be living through the worst of the problem. I do not have nor do I work for any entity that derives financial gain from any energy related industry except those held in undirected mutual funds. I do not presently work for, nor receive any government wages, grants or contracts of any kind. I have worked in Government County, City and State agencies in 3 states related to water, air and soil chemical analysis and in engineering firms in related capacities. And a long time ago I did receive grants for original research in the fields of Glycogen studies related to Pharmacology and Enzymology related to Digestion.

It is directly invisible and not intuitive. It is a complex subject. I am a geek. And it is equally possible that we have understated the time scale and the degree of trouble as to have overstated the problem.

RaiderH8r
11-24-2009, 12:09 PM
My kids. I am unlikely to be living through the worst of the problem. I do not have nor do I work for any entity that derives financial gain from any energy related industry except those held in undirected mutual funds. I do not presently work for, nor receive any government wages, grants or contracts of any kind. I have worked in Government County, City and State agencies in 3 states related to water, air and soil chemical analysis and in engineering firms in related capacities. And a long time ago I did receive grants for original research in the fields of Glycogen studies related to Pharmacology and Enzymology related to Digestion.

It is directly invisible and not intuitive. It is a complex subject. I am a geek. And it is equally possible that we have understated the time scale and the degree of trouble as to have overstated the problem.

Thank God we didn't have Eco-religious fanatics 80,000 years ago. They would have banned fire because it caused the rain as opposed to just finding shelter to adapt to the weather.

fan4ever
11-24-2009, 12:37 PM
No, no. Totally different. Bush & Co. did it for sinister reasons. This is for our own good.

You like being lied to for your own good?

And this whole scam has nothing to do with "your own good".

Brock
11-24-2009, 12:39 PM
I didn't know NBC had a green week. It sounds incredibly lame.

You didn't notice the green peacock in the corner of your screen? Just imagine the difference that was made.

BucEyedPea
11-24-2009, 12:41 PM
Do you have a vested interest in global warming? Why do you spend so much time/effort defending?

He's a chemist....it helps his profession.

Taco John
11-24-2009, 12:47 PM
This is awesome. I'm all for green technologies. I'm just not for having it pushed on me by a bunch of communists who want me to pay for their green fantasies. Green technologies can develop in their own time without the need for government intervention. Just follow the money.

wild1
11-24-2009, 12:50 PM
I am amazed by people who think that global warming is some universal, near-religious idea that no one is approaching or pushing because of their ability to gain from it - be it monetarily, in terms of power and influence, in terms of steering research dollars and effort their way, or in any other terms.

If you do succeed in setting up "the environment" as your constituency, however - you have an amazing luxury. You have an advocee whom you've placed above all others, and who can never tire of your approach, question your methods, speak out about their own views, or not reliably show up when you need them. Claiming "the environment" as the party you represent and fight for is a much more powerful position in politics than is claiming to represent a group of humans.

blaise
11-24-2009, 12:55 PM
You like being lied to for your own good?

And this whole scam has nothing to do with "your own good".

You just hate the environment. Typical. It's been proven that Obama and Gore are doing things in our own best interest so why are you wasting time questioning it?

fan4ever
11-24-2009, 01:03 PM
You just hate the environment. Typical. It's been proven that Obama and Gore are doing things in our own best interest so why are you wasting time questioning it?

There's no way you're not kidding, right? Seriously?

I have to assume you're joking because from some of your posts I've read in the past, your at least too intelligent to say something like "...doing things in our own best interest so why are you wasting your time questioning it?"

Shouldn't we question everything until it's proven to be a truth?

Iowanian
11-24-2009, 01:03 PM
The stupid thing is if the greenies would back off and not be so radical and ridiculous, they'd have alot more support.

Hell, I'm all for improving the electric grid to make it more efficient, I'm a supporter of wind farms, own stock in bioD(stupid investment btw). I'm all for improving efficiency of my household with insulation, windows and efficient appliances. Having a vehicle that gets better gas mileage and puts out less pollution.....fine. Removing our dependence on Foreign oil? Fine...bring it on.

Just stop telling me that cow farts are making Polar bears die, trying to tax cattle $87/head for environmental crap....Stop trying to impose unreasonable expectations and demands on American manufacturers that give them even more of a disadvantage to the Chinese, Mexicans et al.


Stop lying. Stop the doom and gloom and try REASON and financial sense and it will go further.

fan4ever
11-24-2009, 01:05 PM
This is awesome. I'm all for green technologies. I'm just not for having it pushed on me by a bunch of communists who want me to pay for their green fantasies. Green technologies can develop in their own time without the need for government intervention. Just follow the money.

Damn straight. It's called capitalism.

RaiderH8r
11-24-2009, 01:11 PM
The stupid thing is if the greenies would back off and not be so radical and ridiculous, they'd have alot more support.

Hell, I'm all for improving the electric grid to make it more efficient, I'm a supporter of wind farms, own stock in bioD(stupid investment btw). I'm all for improving efficiency of my household with insulation, windows and efficient appliances. Having a vehicle that gets better gas mileage and puts out less pollution.....fine. Removing our dependence on Foreign oil? Fine...bring it on.

Just stop telling me that cow farts are making Polar bears die, trying to tax cattle $87/head for environmental crap....Stop trying to impose unreasonable expectations and demands on American manufacturers that give them even more of a disadvantage to the Chinese, Mexicans et al.


Stop lying. Stop the doom and gloom and try REASON and financial sense and it will go further.
Hell yeah. I've been saying it until I could puke coat hangers; America and the world could and should absolutely do a better job or producing, transporting, consuming and storing energy. We do a pretty piss poor job. At the heart of it is battery technology. Making batteries that store mass amounts of energy with a short recharge life and are manageable in size makes all energy sources legitimate. If you could store energy from windfarms, solar panels, and the rest then they become preferable sources overnight. Since we can't do that those alternative energy sources will be relegated to back bench options. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work to make them more viable but the technology and physics don't work out for them at this point. Moreover, their foolish insistance that nuclear energy not be considered destroys any credibility regarding desire for sound and clean energy policy.

Brock
11-24-2009, 01:14 PM
Moreover, their foolish insistance that nuclear energy not be considered destroys any credibility regarding desire for sound and clean energy policy.

You're asking them to chop off their liberal roots. Jackson Browne and Bruce Springsteen told them "Nukes are bad" back in the seventies.

Iowanian
11-24-2009, 01:15 PM
In the mean time, be reasonable. Back off of clean coal technology, consider nuclear energy.

It would be easier to swallow if so many of the biggest promoters didn't have so much to gain financially with these whack-job ideas.

If animals are the problem, I suppose we'd better start by letting the endangered and biologically irrelevant species like the Panda die off to remove their carbon footprint, get rid of housecats and lap dogs.....Cows make milk and meatloaf.


In effort to prevent global warming, I'll appreciate the donations to my paypal account for the purchase of tags to remove the methane-crop destroyer-Americans known as whitetail deer.

HonestChieffan
11-24-2009, 01:41 PM
I did my part. Got a nice 10 point last week. Plan to bow hunt after Thanksgiving and rid the farm of a couple tender does and maybe a bigger buck.

Chief Henry
11-24-2009, 01:47 PM
The Green Bubble is bursting already? I hadn't even made any money on it yet. :cuss:

Al Gore has. How much do you suppose. I wonder if any news media types will go and do any fact checking of Al Gores books and movies.

HonestChieffan
11-24-2009, 01:54 PM
This is where it leads. Kooks with animation software.

<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/Ac+xdIPsew" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="510" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

mlyonsd
11-24-2009, 02:06 PM
Al Gore has. How much do you suppose. I wonder if any news media types will go and do any fact checking of Al Gores books and movies.

What's a Nobel worth?

kcfanXIII
11-24-2009, 02:20 PM
There's no way you're not kidding, right? Seriously?

I have to assume you're joking because from some of your posts I've read in the past, your at least too intelligent to say something like "...doing things in our own best interest so why are you wasting your time questioning it?"

Shouldn't we question everything until it's proven to be a truth?

except for 9/11 and birth certificates, oh i kid, i kid.

fan4ever
11-24-2009, 02:22 PM
except for 9/11 and birth certificates, oh i kid, i kid.

Is there a 9/11 conspiracy out there? :eek:

BucEyedPea
11-24-2009, 02:26 PM
This is where it leads. Kooks with animation software.

<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/Ac+xdIPsew" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="510" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

ROFL

kcfanXIII
11-24-2009, 02:28 PM
https://secure3.convio.net/gpeace/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&amp;page=UserAction&amp;id=545&gclid=CJfgxMnJpJ4CFRlcagodyVQLkQ

this is the ad at the bottom of the page... evidently some americans are buying in enough to sign away there sovereignty.

fan4ever
11-24-2009, 02:39 PM
This is where it leads. Kooks with animation software.

<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/Ac+xdIPsew" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="510" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

I didn't see that so much as a propaganda piece for global warming as I did a call for the pharmaceutical companies to come up with antidepressants for animals.

Following the same thread of "science" Gore's been using, how do we know the depression of the monkey didn't cause the global warming?

HonestChieffan
11-24-2009, 02:52 PM
I didn't see that so much as a propaganda piece for global warming as I did a call for the pharmaceutical companies to come up with antidepressants for animals.

Following the same thread of "science" Gore's been using, how do we know the depression of the monkey didn't cause the global warming?

You missed the whole point. We need to ban vines. We need to ban Trains. The entire thing with the polar bear was left over from a Coke commercial cause everyone knows the polar bear can swim for hours. Sorta like Ted Kennedy but even better.

KCWolfman
11-24-2009, 04:38 PM
You missed the whole point. We need to ban vines. We need to ban Trains. The entire thing with the polar bear was left over from a Coke commercial cause everyone knows the polar bear can swim for hours. Sorta like Ted Kennedy but even better.

Ted didn't swim, he just pushed off the nearest flotsam he could find.

tiptap
11-25-2009, 07:03 AM
He's a chemist....it helps his profession.

Jesus BEP, chemists are more highly likely to employed by industry related to energy or petroleum production. If you want to say my particular employment record damns me ok. But I am not actively employed as a chemist now nor do I get a paycheck or reward from any government activity.

tiptap
11-25-2009, 07:19 AM
The naming paradigm is Watermelon vs Grape environmentalism. Watermelons are big and are "red" on the inside (commie) and Grapes are small and hang in bunches and are green on the inside (money). And the articles in these threads about GE or NBC or whoever FROM 5 YEARS AGO, are about trying to jumpstart the Grapes toward meeting CO 2 reduction. Cap and Trade is about putting a market together that represents this push. It is an attempt to put market forces to work to reduce waste and reduce CO 2.

As far as farm practices. We have for a long time push industrial farming over family farming. But Iowanian needs to remember that deer or chickens or turkeys and even pigs are more efficient herbivoires than cattle. Not as much do to the animals themselves but to the energy needed to managed each of those protein sources to market. (I have to admit here my doctor has told me to quit eating beef related to my kidneys AND I HATE HIM FOR IT but i hate kidney stones more so I have cut way, way back on beef.)

Bootlegged
11-25-2009, 07:44 AM
Jesus BEP, chemists are more highly likely to employed by industry related to energy or petroleum production. If you want to say my particular employment record damns me ok. But I am not actively employed as a chemist now nor do I get a paycheck or reward from any government activity.

Jesus dude - you may spin off this planet.

tiptap
11-25-2009, 07:52 AM
I will move to the equator and really spin at a thousand miles and hour.

Brock
11-25-2009, 08:03 AM
Cap and Trade is about putting a market together that represents this push. It is an attempt to put market forces to work to reduce waste and reduce CO 2.


No it isn't. It's a new revenue stream. That's all it is.

mlyonsd
11-25-2009, 08:07 AM
No it isn't. It's a new revenue stream. That's all it is.

Ding Ding Ding we have a winner.

Bootlegged
11-25-2009, 08:08 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nEiLgbBGKVk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nEiLgbBGKVk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

HonestChieffan
11-25-2009, 08:09 AM
Good Christ TT. Cap and Trade is a Tax. Its simple. You are better than spinning it into a social good. Its a tax. A penalty imposed on us all in the name of voodoo science.

Bootlegged
11-25-2009, 08:14 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TF5F6eYho8U&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TF5F6eYho8U&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

tiptap
11-25-2009, 09:09 AM
Good Christ TT. Cap and Trade is a Tax. Its simple. You are better than spinning it into a social good. Its a tax. A penalty imposed on us all in the name of voodoo science.

I won't deny that there is a taxing element to it. I don't necessarily disagree with just taxing CO 2 directly. But the Cap and Trade is meant to create a market at well to steer CO 2 caps to get the maximum reduction for the lowest price. That aspect differentiates it from simply just a tax only.

HonestChieffan
11-25-2009, 12:36 PM
"is meant to" is the key words leading to unintended consequences. It will fail to achieve its C02 goals and will maximize its taxing impact on people who can least afford it.

irishjayhawk
11-25-2009, 02:36 PM
Here's what I love:

Staunch capitalism defenses which include less regulation while simultaneously condemning science because people are capitalizing on the science behind whatever they're capitalizing on. For example, global warming.

Capitalism is awesome, less regulation. Wait, they're capitalizing on global warming science. Bad science! Bad! It's just junk science anyway.

Perhaps it's junk capitalism on sound science?

Cosmos
11-25-2009, 05:46 PM
84 degrees, and sunny in SoCal today.

KCWolfman
11-25-2009, 06:14 PM
Here's what I love:

Staunch capitalism defenses which include less regulation while simultaneously condemning science because people are capitalizing on the science behind whatever they're capitalizing on. For example, global warming.

Capitalism is awesome, less regulation. Wait, they're capitalizing on global warming science. Bad science! Bad! It's just junk science anyway.

Perhaps it's junk capitalism on sound science?

If the emails were busted on the Secretary of Treasury you would have a point. As they weren't.......
Posted via Mobile Device

googlegoogle
11-25-2009, 06:34 PM
GE's name has been coming up a lot lately with connections to politics.

The Iran contracts and then the ownership of MSNBC and the ties to Obama administration.

I would love to hear what they say in their personal meetings.

And don't worry about global warming unless there are droughts and mega sea rise.

BigChiefFan
11-25-2009, 06:44 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nEiLgbBGKVk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nEiLgbBGKVk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>:D

Saul Good
11-25-2009, 06:46 PM
Here's what I love:

Staunch capitalism defenses which include less regulation while simultaneously condemning science because people are capitalizing on the science behind whatever they're capitalizing on. For example, global warming.

Capitalism is awesome, less regulation. Wait, they're capitalizing on global warming science. Bad science! Bad! It's just junk science anyway.

Perhaps it's junk capitalism on sound science?

Brilliant critical thinking. Maybe the science was SO sound that they had to lie and manipulate data and illegally destroy data that didn't fit their narrative. That MUST be what happened.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 09:53 AM
Brilliant critical thinking. Maybe the science was SO sound that they had to lie and manipulate data and illegally destroy data that didn't fit their narrative. That MUST be what happened.

Yeah, because one scientist/group of scientists speaks for everyone.....:rolleyes:

Saul Good
11-26-2009, 09:56 AM
Yeah, because one scientist/group of scientists speaks for everyone.....:rolleyes:

Maybe you hadn't noticed, but those were some of the most prominent voices for AGW.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 10:00 AM
Maybe you hadn't noticed, but those were some of the most prominent voices for AGW.

I haven't looked into this supposed "climategate" enough to discern anything. That's why I really haven't commented on it.

The current skeptic in me is wondering why people are jumping all over this as if it's a anything new (supposed leaked emails coming out about something) and b how one group of scientists now completely destroys a field of research when we have factions of scientists scattered all over on different things. Hell, there's scientists on the fake moon landings, 9/11, and pretty much any conspiracy theory. Why are these ones being treated as "true" where the other ones are categorically false?

Saul Good
11-26-2009, 10:31 AM
I haven't looked into this supposed "climategate" enough to discern anything. That's why I really haven't commented on it.


Then why are you commenting on GW right now? You are missing a huge piece of information. It's like talking trash to the fans of another team about how your team is going to kick their team's ass after the game has been played and your team has already lost. Then you're defending it by saying that you recorded the game and haven't watched it yet. Just because you are ignorant of reality doesn't mean that the rest of the world should accept your idiotic arguments until you get yourself up to speed.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 10:34 AM
Then why are you commenting on GW right now? You are missing a huge piece of information. It's like talking trash to the fans of another team about how your team is going to kick their team's ass after the game has been played and your team has already lost. Then you're defending it by saying that you recorded the game and haven't watched it yet. Just because you are ignorant of reality doesn't mean that the rest of the world should accept your idiotic arguments until you get yourself up to speed.

Nor should the rest of the world jump to conclusions off of a string of emails. Unless, of course, everything one reads on the interwebz is tru.

Calcountry
11-26-2009, 10:49 AM
Anthropogenic Global Warming is the newest coolest religion. Complete with tighing, cries of heresy, excommunication, and ridicule. People do not easily or often give up their religion simply because it has been proven to be a hoax. This is about belief and faith man, not science and truth.At least Christians don't seek to tax non believers into bowing down at the alter.

RNR
11-26-2009, 11:19 AM
Nor should the rest of the world jump to conclusions off of a string of emails. Unless, of course, everything one reads on the interwebz is tru.

Which is exactly what the looney left has been doing from the beginning on this issue. Gore has proclaimed this theory based on fiction to be fact and now Barry and his band of idiots joined in and march on. They have jumped to the conclusion that we should paralyze our ability to utilize our natural resources. There is nothing we can do but stand back and wait. These shitbags better enjoy it while they can because their days are numbered. As they push their moronic agenda the air is leaking out of the balloon loan false recovery.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 11:20 AM
Which is exactly what the looney left has been doing from the beginning on this issue. Gore has proclaimed this theory based on fiction to be fact and now Barry and his band of idiots joined in and march on. They have jumped to the conclusion that we should paralyze our ability to utilize our natural resources. There is nothing we can do but stand back and wait. These shitbags better enjoy it while they can because their days are numbered. As they push their moronic agenda the air is leaking out of the balloon loan false recovery.

And that would be where you're wrong.

RNR
11-26-2009, 11:23 AM
And that would be where you're wrong.
Please enlighten me!

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 11:23 AM
Please enlighten me!

How can I do that?

RNR
11-26-2009, 11:26 AM
How can I do that?

How am I wrong about Gore and his unproved theory?

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 01:02 PM
How am I wrong about Gore and his unproved theory?

Define "unproved," please.

Saul Good
11-27-2009, 08:35 AM
Define "unproved," please.

For starters, how about the fact that the graph upon which his entire movie was based showed that he had it backwards? The graph showed this undeniable link between temperatures and CO2 in the atmosphere. The problem was that his own graph showed that the temperature changes preceded the changes in atmospheric CO2. In other words, increased temperatures cause the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, not the other way around.

The hockey stick graph, created by one of the main culprits involved in these e-mails, has been proven to be false for a myriad of reasons before this whole scandal was exposed.

tiptap
11-27-2009, 08:55 AM
For starters, how about the fact that the graph upon which his entire movie was based showed that he had it backwards? The graph showed this undeniable link between temperatures and CO2 in the atmosphere. The problem was that his own graph showed that the temperature changes preceded the changes in atmospheric CO2. In other words, increased temperatures cause the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, not the other way around.

The hockey stick graph, created by one of the main culprits involved in these e-mails, has been proven to be false for a myriad of reasons before this whole scandal was exposed.

You've confused arguments here. It is true that Deniers have looked at PALEO data and found that temperatures do proceed rise in CO 2. And no one denies this before the 19th Century. The initial forcing for higher temperatures does not come from CO 2. But what is seen is that higher temperatures (celestial arrangement) with the resulting higher CO 2 (biological activity) that warmer temperatures increase even more and last much longer well after the original force factor (celestial arrangement) would see the temperature drop. Once in the atmosphere it is a force factor for higher temperatures.

However the force factor in present situation is the force factor in human generated CO 2 raising its concentration and temperatures lag (biological function is saturated especially with modern agricultural practices). But like any large feedback system it isn't perfectly linear. Gore's graph does show CO 2 leading for the last century but there are plenty of other factors that overlay that linear rise with oscillating characteristics (solar sunspot cycle).

KCWolfman
11-27-2009, 08:57 AM
Define "unproved," please.

Most assuredly that the human factor is such a controlling element in Global Warming.

Hell, he got a Nobel for the unproved basis.

RNR
11-27-2009, 10:55 AM
Define "unproved," please.

LMAO we were talking back and forth and you said I was wrong, this all takes place in a couple of minutes. You wait two hours and throw this weak ass reply :rolleyes: just answer the question. Talking to you is like talking to Direkshun a total waste of time~

irishjayhawk
11-27-2009, 01:36 PM
Most assuredly that the human factor is such a controlling element in Global Warming.

Hell, he got a Nobel for the unproved basis.

Again, what would you like me to show you? You have the same problem as RedNeckRaider.

What could I show you that would, without a doubt, make you see the light, as they say?

FWIW, human factors in global warming are borderline common sensical. We pollute, pollution traps the sun's rays which would normally rebound back out of the atmosphere. Instead, they rebound continuously against the surface. Since pollution has increased steadily in the last century and continues to rise due to the number of cars alone, the earth's temperatures have gone up consistently.


LMAO we were talking back and forth and you said I was wrong, this all takes place in a couple of minutes. You wait two hours and throw this weak ass reply :rolleyes: just answer the question. Talking to you is like talking to Direkshun a total waste of time~

Actually, you didn't answer my original question thoroughly. I asked How I can enlighten you. What would it take? I could, like tiptap, present data out the ass. I could provide mountains and mountains of research and peer reviewed papers (yes, peer reviewed, the ones you claim don't exist). But I suspect nothing would change your opinion.

So, I asked how I could enlighten you. You didn't answer.

RNR
11-27-2009, 03:04 PM
Facts disprove warnings about global warming


by William Robert Johnston
in The Brownsville Herald, April 4, 2001, p. A10

A long time ago kings and rulers might be advised by magicians, astrologers, and other charlatans. These mystics would prey on leaders--and through them, on entire societies--by using the false superstitious beliefs of all involved. These people mostly went away with the advent of science.

But they're back--this time using the name of science. A vocal minority of the scientific community, with the help of unqualified outsiders, has persuaded many politicians to pursue plans that would be economically devastating. The story this time is global warming.

The "global warmers" produced the Kyoto treaty of 1997. However, the facts completely disprove what these people are saying about climate change.

We've all heard the stories, reported as indisputable fact: The last century or decade is just about the hottest the world has ever been. Carbon dioxide from burning gasoline and coal is blamed. Unless their solution is enacted right now, temperatures will rise terribly in the next century. Icecaps will start to melt, coasts will flood, storms will get worse, diseases will spread, animals will die, and more. And it's all because of us Americans.

The best lies contain a measure of truth. Yes, carbon dioxide in the air has increased in the last century due to the use of fossil fuels. Yes, global average temperature has increased 0.8 degrees F in the same century. Unfortunately, the temperature increase came first: most of the temperature increase was before 1940, and most of the new carbon dioxide was added after 1960. Would you trust a "scientist" who said the result came before the cause?

There are other problems, as well. Solar activity may be the cause of the world temperature changes. The global warmers can't explain why satellites show no temperature change in the past 20 years. The computer models that predict disaster in a century have been completely wrong for the past 20 years. And no one can agree on the side effects.

Scientific facts actually helped unravel the treaty last year. Carbon dioxide is removed from the air by various natural and manmade processes, and world leaders couldn't agree on how to credit for this. No one wanted the U.S. to get credit for removals of carbon dioxide, so negotiations faltered.

Most scientists use facts and logic to reach conclusions. It's no surprise that over 17,000 scientists and engineers have signed a petition calling for rejection of the Kyoto treaty. This overshadows any collection of scientists that have endorsed the treaty.

The global warmers have failed to prove that man has caused a problem. This hasn't stopped them from demanding we act, and act now.

The Kyoto Protocol called for the U.S. and other western nations to shoulder most of the limits on fossil fuel energy use. Developing countries suffer little or no restrictions.

Those countries are obviously enthusiastic. The economic powerhouses would have their hands tied, while would-be competitors like mainland China would not.

President Bush has sided with the scientific facts in recently declining to implement the Kyoto limits. After all, the treaty is so bad the Senate opposed it 95 to zero.

Bush and Congress must go further. They should refuse any regulation of carbon dioxide emissions whatsoever.

Consider the impact of the restrictions still promoted by some. The U.S. would have to put a 50 to 100 % tax on gasoline, heating fuels, and most electricity. Local farmers and landowners will face bureaucratic restrictions hindering the use of land. In south Texas, the result would just be massive inflation and unemployment. In the developing world, suffering economies would cause starvation and death. And for all this, the restrictions can't be shown to make any difference to world climate.

The primary advocates of global warming remain the environmentalists. They propose a drastic solution to a non-existent problem--a solution which is, amazingly, the same political policy they have unsuccessfully sought to impose for decades. Many of their leaders oppose free markets and seek to limit human development, and global warming is currently the best means to these ends. If people are hurt in the process, so be it.

The current power supply problems in California are a perfect example. They are not a consequence of true deregulation, but of environmental and anti-free market restrictions on power production. This is the same thing proposed in Kyoto, and the same thing still promoted by some Washington leaders.

As you watch your gas and electricity bills go up, recognize this as only a taste of what could have been under Kyoto--and what could still be, if environmental politics and big government win out over free markets and scientific facts.

RNR
11-27-2009, 03:07 PM
New Books Scientifically Disprove Man-Made Global Warming Theories
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
January 30, 2007 - 10:20 ET

2006 will go down as the year that the media universally tried to sell America on the unproven theory that man-made global warming is destroying the planet, and will cause our imminent doom. Part of this hysteria includes fallacious assertions by all involved that there is a scientific consensus regarding these dire predictions.

Though they are likely to get little attention from an hysterical press, two books by prominent scientists have recently been released that scientifically disprove global warming theories, and supply a little sanity for those who like to proceed with caution before jumping on tenuous bandwagons.

As reported by the Center for Global Food Issues Tuesday (emphasis mine throughout, h/t Drudge):


Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.

Singer and Avery note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.


Rather than using theories or unproven temperature models to predict the future, Singer and Avery looked at past historical climate activity:

Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth’s temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth’s temperatures by creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes that global climate models can’t accurately register cloud effects.


Svensmark and Calder studied the issue from a more chemical approach:

The Chilling Stars relates how Svensmark’s team mimicked the chemistry of earth’s atmosphere, by putting realistic mixtures of atmospheric gases into a large reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun. When they turned on the UV, microscopic droplets—cloud seeds—started floating through the chamber.

“We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons [generated by cosmic rays] do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,” says Svensmark.

The Chilling Stars documents how cosmic rays amplify small changes in the sun’s irradiance fourfold, creating 1-2 degree C cycles in earth’s temperatures: Cosmic rays continually slam into the earth’s atmosphere from outer space, creating ion clusters that become seeds for small droplets of water and sulfuric acid. The droplets then form the low, wet clouds that reflect solar energy back into space. When the sun is more active, it shields the earth from some of the rays, clouds wane, and the planet warms.

Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.


Hmmm. Imagine that: actually looking at climate trends over a 1500-year period to reach conclusions rather than extrapolating theories based upon weather changes in the last century.

By contrast, the global warmingists are predicting the outcome of a football game after only witnessing four minutes.

Which do you think represents better scientific analysis?

Regardless of the answer, don't expect the morning shows to be paying much attention to these books or these authors, or to ask global warmingism prophet Dr. Al Gore to comment about their findings.

What a disgrace.

irishjayhawk
11-27-2009, 10:17 PM
Oh lookie, someone can copy and paste.


I could do the same thing with anti-evolution stories. Does that mean evolution is debunked? No.

RNR
11-28-2009, 04:44 PM
Oh lookie, someone can copy and paste.


I could do the same thing with anti-evolution stories. Does that mean evolution is debunked? No.

You are damn right I copied and pasted. Do you have research you have performed yourself??? No you claim fact on research you choose to believe. For every study you provide I can provide one that disagrees. As I said Gores unproven theory presented as fact~

Lzen
11-28-2009, 05:09 PM
Al Gore has. How much do you suppose. I wonder if any news media types will go and do any fact checking of Al Gores books and movies.

Someone did just that. They questioned some of his facts at a conference and they just ended up shutting off his mic. Can't have any dissension, ya know.

irishjayhawk
11-29-2009, 09:25 AM
You are damn right I copied and pasted. Do you have research you have performed yourself??? No you claim fact on research you choose to believe. For every study you provide I can provide one that disagrees. As I said Gores unproven theory presented as fact~

Can you please define theory for me?

RNR
11-29-2009, 09:27 AM
Can you please define theory for me?

I am bored with your little game~

RNR
11-29-2009, 10:22 AM
Again, what would you like me to show you? You have the same problem as RedNeckRaider.

What could I show you that would, without a doubt, make you see the light, as they say?

FWIW, human factors in global warming are borderline common sensical. We pollute, pollution traps the sun's rays which would normally rebound back out of the atmosphere. Instead, they rebound continuously against the surface. Since pollution has increased steadily in the last century and continues to rise due to the number of cars alone, the earth's temperatures have gone up consistently.




Actually, you didn't answer my original question thoroughly. I asked How I can enlighten you. What would it take? I could, like tiptap, present data out the ass. I could provide mountains and mountains of research and peer reviewed papers (yes, peer reviewed, the ones you claim don't exist). But I suspect nothing would change your opinion.

So, I asked how I could enlighten you. You didn't answer.

And irishchickenhawk runs through ChiefsPlanet yelling at the top of his wittle lungs 'the ice is melting" the ice is melting' Save me Al Gore! save me King Barry! save me big government!

irishjayhawk
11-29-2009, 03:14 PM
And irishchickenhawk runs through ChiefsPlanet yelling at the top of his wittle lungs 'the ice is melting" the ice is melting' Save me Al Gore! save me King Barry! save me big government!

:spock:

Aside from the fact that I dont' care for Al Gore's politicization of GW, Obama's handling of many situations, a previously documented profession that many entities could be cut from government and having never uttered those statements, I guess this is accurate.

RNR
11-29-2009, 03:50 PM
:spock:

Aside from the fact that I dont' care for Al Gore's politicization of GW, Obama's handling of many situations, a previously documented profession that many entities could be cut from government and having never uttered those statements, I guess this is accurate.

Right! LMAO

irishjayhawk
11-29-2009, 06:06 PM
Right! LMAO

I will not feed trolls.
I will not feed trolls.
I will not feed trolls.

RNR
11-29-2009, 09:50 PM
I will not feed trolls.
I will not feed trolls.
I will not feed trolls.

Yeah sure thing chickenhawk I am the troll :rolleyes: