Reuters Takes Sides on Climate Change
Thanks to how the establishment heavily filters environment- and climate-related news — with more than a little irony, you might call it a bad-news blackout — a large majority of Americans, particularly of the 85% to 86% of us who are for better or worse relatively disengaged, likely believe that:
- The recently passed cap-and-trade legislation is a first-stage shining example of the U.S. “doing its part” to forestall alleged global warming and its ultimate passage will lead other countries to follow our example.
- Whatever the U.S. can do to minimize its carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions will have a material impact on the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere.
- Much of the rest of the world is doing more than we are to fight alleged global warming.
Without the indispensable CCNet email from English climate policy analyst Benny Peiser, yours truly could be buying into some or all of the above conventional “wisdom.” None of the above bulleted items is even remotely true.
The House’s passage of cap and trade hasn’t impressed the three countries that matter most, namely India, China, and Russia.
On Sunday, “[Indian] environment minister Jairam Ramesh asserted … in the presence of visiting U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton that India would never take legally binding commitments to cut down on emissions.”
China? Yeah, like we’re in a position to boss around our biggest lender, whose holding of U.S. Treasuries at the end of May, at over $800 billion, was 60% higher than a year earlier, and where in early June an audience of students broke out laughing when Treasury secretary and tax cheat Tim Geithner tried to tell them that “Chinese assets [invested in the U.S.] are safe.” That same month China, identified as the world’s leading emitter two years ago, “announced that they would not participate in a global initiative to control climate change air pollutants.” Russia did the same.
This means that the world’s number one, three, and four emitters, according to this 2006 chart with supporting spreadsheet, aren’t on board and aren’t about to get on board, no matter what kind of “example” we set.
But even if the U.S. ultimately chooses aggressive carbon-reduction targets, thereby, according to many predictions, slitting its economic wrists and voluntarily becoming “a second-rate economic power” in the process, it won’t do much to stop worldwide emissions growth. The spreadsheet referred to earlier shows that China’s annual emissions increased by 600 million metric tons of CO2 per year from 2003 to 2006. If that country’s emissions have continued to grow at that rate, its emissions are already 30% higher than ours. Projecting further ahead at that same rate, China’s emissions will double ours by 2016. Even the EPA has had to sheepishly admit to the fundamental truth that the U.S. alone can do little to affect overall worldwide emissions growth.
Mr. Blumer:
It is OK to say “CO2 emissions”, because CO2 IS emitted. But it is dishonestly deceiving to label China or whoever “the biggest polluter”, because carbon dioxide IS NOT POLLUTANT.
“Short of that, news consumers need to aggressively look elsewhere for the truth.”
That has been patently obvious for a few years now.
Thanks, Tom, for exposing Reuters’ wrong but energetic support of a non-solution to a non-problem.
Reuters is no different than our own state run media.
The article was interesting and I have to agree that when a purported news organization like Reuters starts forwarding it’s own bias, we are in trouble. I think we ought not worry too much about the impact of Reuters though to move masses of people to their side when their Face book group boasts 2,061 members who apparently feel strongly enough about the issue to donate a combined total of ……………………………………$75.
It seems the suckers who have bought hook-line-and-sinker into the global warming BS (or has it been watered down to climate change now?) are also a bunch of cheapskates.
This is all BS. we implement carbon reduction and the temp goes down and the econuts will say see we were right. We implement and the temp goes up and the econuts say we did not go far enough. you cannot control the weather or the climate regardless of what the econuts say.
this “globale warming/climate change” is like religion to the believers.
so it difficult for them to be objective. that those propagating the myths have manipulated the language also make it have for people to grasp what is really happening.
lastly they propagators of the myth lie …make up facts that aren’t facts and mis-use data.
they employ the same tactics the marxist use. it doesn’t matter if it is the economy, health care voter registration.
these nutters have lots of time.
As if it were possible, I now have even less respect for those engaged in “journalism” as it’s currently practiced. The open advocacy of a highly questionable theory by a worldwide news service draws into question their ability to accurately inform the public on any matter. If I can’t trust them to be objective in their reporting, I won’t waste my time with them.
The psychological aspects of climate change adherants are baffling, especially so for news gatherers. Whatever happened to scepticism? Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t accept any premise at face value. I want to examine the facts and come to as complete and accurate a conclusion as possible, regardless of how I may feel about the outcome. Truth is truth, and it exists independently of anyone’s emotional reaction to it.
In the end, it all comes down to what you believe. People these days tend to believe what they wish to be true instead of what is true.
Spreading environmental fiction is not only a cause of Reuters but of the other members of the “former” mainstream media,Obama and the O-adminstration and the EPA,and 1000s of cooperating green orgs. Oh,and the Al Dorkers.
Thanks Tom for bringing this to the forefront. The left continues to use “scare” tactics and their domination of the MSM to manipulate the public into supporting programs that divert fortunes to “protect” mother earth. They don’t really care about man, it’s all about mother earth.
The other side of the story needs to be heard. Like this review of the IPCC by the NIPCC
In “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),” coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors and reviewers present an authoritative and detailed rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on which the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress rely for their regulatory proposals.
Check it out at http://www.nipccreport.org/
OK!OK!I’LL DRIVE A PRIUS….whatever it takes to save that cute little bear.(awww..whooz a snuggly lil’ man-eater..you are!)
Advocacy Journalism. Thank you for this poisoned chalice, Walter Cronkite.
Is it any wonder that there is considerable verity to this anecdote: How do you make a used car salesman look good? Put him next to a politician or a reporter!
Bernie Goldberg in “Bias” and “Arrogance” certainly
knew what he was talking about.
You know, it’s interesting that the environmentalists conviently forget that without CO2, plants will die. (and reducing the CO2 level, *will* reduce plant growth) Or that Oceans and Volcanos are two of the biggest sources of CO2.
Then again, if they remembered that, they wouldn’t get money from extortion. It’s all about the money.
7. homero:
lastly they propagators of the myth lie …make up facts that aren’t facts and mis-use data.
~~~
Oh, let’s call it what it is. FORGED data. Hanson got caught red-handed doing that last fall. (oh, it was just a [GLARING] mistake that he didn’t catch. yeah, right. I’ve some ocean front in Arizona for sale.)
I’d like Rueter’s (and every other AGW supporter) to explain THIS quote from Dr. Phil Jone’s, the UK equivalent to James Hansen:
“I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
If scientific data will not stand up to scrutiny, it’s NOT WORTH anything.
India: “Who’s this “we” you talk about, white man?”
It’s really kind of interesting to take a couple steps back and look at this thing in perspective. According to the IPCC WG2 report (the consequences) all the bad shiite that’s supposed to happen to people is supposed to happen in the tropics. Temperate and cold places like Canada, Russia, and Scandinavia are supposed to benefit on balance.
So we have a bunch of pasty white morons from the places that will benefit demanding that the entire world reorganize itself for the benefit of the endangered brown people in the warmer parts of the world, and those brown people telling the whites to go pound sand.
But the whities have to be right, ‘cuz they’re white, and therefore smarter than the brownies. This is environmentalism in a nutshell. White supremacy.
The time to do somthing about climate change 9it was those drama queens the scientits who wrongly dubbed it global warming) was thirty years ago. Back then the scientists stat aound stroking their cjinds and saying “of course the cae is anecdotal, there is no scientific evidence of climate change.
Now nobody knew then whether what was happening was due to human activity alone or natural causes. But if it was canused by us the process had started at the beginning of the industrial revolution 300 years before. So whatever the cause, with 300 years momentum behind it, like the Titanic, the process cannot be reversed quickly.
If we had had thirty years to work at it we could have improved sea defences in low lying areas, developed new food crops better suited to wetter / drier conditions in certain parts of the world, taught Africans and Asians to use conraception as in poor zones less kids means more food for those you do have and generally been better prepared to cope.
Now all we can do is hope our nations and cultures survive when the planet adapts to different conditions.
15.ked5.hanson,gore and the others are lying through their teeth,for our own “common good”,of course.they all grew up believing in the Malthusian catastrophe theory:
http://www.aboutsociology.com/sociology/Malthusian_catastrophe
then this genius came along….”The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970′s the world will undergo famines–hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate, although many lives could be saved through dramatic programs to “stretch” the carrying capacity of the earth by increasing food production. But these programs will only provide a stay of execution unless they
are accompanied by determined and successful efforts at population control. Population control is the conscious regulation of the numbers of human beings to meet the needs, not just of individual families, but of society as a whole.
Nothing could be more misleading to our children than our present affluent society. They will inherit a totally different world, a world in which the standards, politics, and economics of the 1960′s are dead. As the most powerful nation in the world today, and its largest consumer, the United States cannot stand isolated. We are today involved in the events leading to famine;tomorrow we may be destroyed by its consequences.
Our position requires that we take immediate action at home and promote effective action
worldwide. We must have population control at home, hopefully through a system of incentives and penalties, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail. We must use our political power to push other countries into programs which combine agricultural development and population control. And while this is being done we must take action to reverse the deterioration of our environment before population pressure permanently ruins our planet. The birth rate must be brought into balance with the death rate or mankind will breed itself into oblivion. We can no longer afford merely to treat the symptoms of the cancer of population growth; the cancer itself must be cut out. Population control is the only answer.”
-Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (1968)
exactly what the left is saying now,there are too many of who are too productive(consuming)….so poop in a hole and take a bus to work.also,kill the unborn and turn off your AC,(for the good of the planet)
If Reuters had been around during the last ice age when the thaw began, what do you think their position would have been?
“I’d like Rueter’s (and every other AGW supporter) to explain THIS quote from Dr. Phil Jone’s, the UK equivalent to James Hansen:
“I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
If scientific data will not stand up to scrutiny, it’s NOT WORTH anything.”
Once again, it’s time to bring up Richard Feynman’s off-repeated admonition: “A scientist’s highest obligation is to prove himself wrong.”
I rented a car in France. Found out when I went
to fill up, all the gas grades were leaded.
Yup, they sure are far ahead of us.
#1, although the linked article uses the terms “CO2″ and “pollution,” and variation, interchangeably, you are correct that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and that we shouldn’t cede rhetorical ground. The word has been revised. Thanks for the making the point.
One way to reduce CO2 emissions is to get rid of all the blowhards in Washington. They generate so much BS that the other world partners see through it and laugh in our face! Gore made his $100 million, send him to live somewhere else!
Concerns about energy in the physical sense of the word has been overtaken by the zealous energy of the prophets of the post-modern age, by definition the age in which science has been become obsolete.
This why there was no need to stop electing someone with zero executive experience to the presidency, we are well above this, because we had the foresight and the fortitude to find a candidate meeting the skin chromatic criterion of the age, which by the way superseded its genetic counterpart, a seminal discovery made in Iowa early last year.
Therefore, sacrifices in the name of the Global Warming Omnipotence, have become a matter of faith, protected under the US constitution by virtue of the freedom of religion clause.
All the while, what the so-called “third world” is praying for is access to energy sources more practical and less poisoning than firewood. We can never pay our debt of gratitude towards Reuters, the vigil of universal harmony.
Kumbaya. Now, go back to your caves.
So many of these green drama queens originated in California- Pelosi is an example.
I guess after the Vietnam War hair heads had nothing left but trees for protest.
FYI here are pictures of just one fire taken from a satellite above California- 2007
And remember,
this has been going on for years.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/socal_wildfires_oct07.html
Who the hell needs oceans or volcanoes?
We have California wildfires.
Thanks for these global warming-climate change posts.
because
IF CALIFORNIA SINKS NORTH AFRICANS WILL EAT OATES AND HONEY AND THE POLAR BEARS WILL HAVE ICE TO WALK ON.
You guys said the same thing about cigarettes, leaded gas, asbestos, PCBs and a whole litany of other environmental issues which were very settled scientifically while you still played politics. Once again, “Conservatives” try to score political points while responsible adults like Reuters try to save lives. Classy.
26. Jefro3000:
troll on Jefro,
I just hope you still live in Beverly Hills when it sinks.
You guys are all whistling past the graveyard, in full scale denial!
Sure, you might quibble about the semantics or what to call it or who knew what, and when… but all that is minor compared to the big truth.
The Earth is warming to its full “summer” heat, as it has done in the past. The difference is, on top of the natural peak of heat, we are adding a bit more by emmitting greenhouse gases.
OK, you might argue whether to call CO2 a pollutant or what not, the truth is not changed by our arguing the semantics.
The world is warming, and we are making it worse by increasing greenhouse gases.
The simple facts are clear and no real scuentists disputes the bare truth: this year is warmer than last year, and it going to get worse.
Argue and call names and be petty if you want, but none of that changes the truth. Our grandchildren are going to live in a much warmer world, and most of the wildlife on this planet is already on their way to extinction.
The polar bears and seals die offs which are happening for the past several years are the canary in the coal mine, the environmental wind vanes pointing to the facts.
Call it what you like, our world is pretty much doomed. Nothing you conservatives (ha, that’s a laugh, you conserve nothing but your own material wealth!) can say or do is going to matter.
Every costal city is doomed. Miami, Atlanta, Charleston, Savannah, the costal islands, Washington DC, New York and even Boston are going to inundated. It will be like Katrina-Rita but the whole East coast will be flooded.
Because we sat for years in denial, it is too late to save the coasts.
My advice: Buy a high-altitude farm in Arizona or Colorado! Get your families out the low coastal areas. Next year might be too late.
And all you ditto-head “Can not think for ourselves” parrots can say all you want, but the truth will manifest itself despite your wishful thinking.
All the left-vs-right political drama is just a waste of breath, just more hot air.
If you loved America you would abandon your petty partisan political agendas and save America!
18. shau-jan:
15.ked5.hanson,gore and the others are lying through their teeth,for our own “common good”,of course.they all grew up believing in the Malthusian catastrophe theory:
~~~~
They don’t believe this is for “our” common good, but “their” bank account.
#18 shau jan: tahnks for the Ehrlich quotes. Obama’s science adviser, Holdren, was a collaborator with the Ehrlichs.
#26 Jefro3000:
You just went down a wrong path by citing what you did: PCBs and asbestos are harmful to some people in certain conditions, and THAT has been “very settled scientifically,” but the results were completely ignored by the media because they did not fit an alarmist model. Massive human-caused Ozone depletion, world-wide famines, health problems from high-tension wires or breast implants, Radon scares, etc., all exaggerated or pure baloney. All of these followed the same dreary pattern as this AGW hysteria, and each one ended up in the “never mind” column in the back of MSM’s major newspapers where few were likely to read the final verdicts. THIS is why people are weary and irritated and untrusting of the AGW propaganda — they’ve heard it all before, and they were asked to spend huge sums to “fix” those “problems.”
Are people so ignorant of our political system that they can think the Cap & Tax bill is doing anything? It isn’t even out of the Senate, and hopefully it never will be.
Oh yeah, I guess they are that ignorant. The majority voted for Obama, and believe the lie that the ‘stimulus’ has helped our economy even when only 11% of it will be spent by the end of the year.
God I hate hippies. I just saw another $25,000 Prius, brand new, with an equally new Obama/Biden sticker defacing its ample rear. These people are sick in the head.
Yyyyyyyyyyeah. Boris, you got a new nic?
It is the sun that forces climate change. Over the past 2 million years 85% of the time the earth is in an ice age. It is very linked to the orbit and tilt variance of the earth and the gas giants forced wobble of the Sun.
http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm
Re #28 Ignorance is no excuse: The Earth is “doomed”? You have definitely OD’d on your kook-aid. Cheer up there bub! I’ll help:
The polar bear numbers are NO decreasing, in fact quite the opposite:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0503/p13s01-wogi.html?page=1
The Earth is NOT warmer this year in fact it is COOLER:
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/global_warming_ice_age/2008/04/24/90591.html
You need to refocus your anger towards the purveyor of the lies you were led to believe, the blowhard Al Gore, who has been making a HUGE profit off of the global warming lies:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/03/al-gore-getting-rich-spreading-global-warming-hysteria-media-s-help
It’s typical of a liberal to become hysterical like this for the simple reason that they (you) buy into whatever the liberal media spoonfeeds you. Do yourself a favor and research a little before helping spread the lies even further.
Is “Ignorance” the same as this guy?
http://neoconexpress.blogspot.com/2009/07/breaking-news-arab-scientist-proves.html
The proof is in the piss. Close enough for science, I guess.
Recently I read that Goldman Sachs is looking forward to participating in cap-and-trade if it is implemented – and that is why Reuters is supporting “reducing CO2″ because there is money to be made.
———-
We do have global warming. So what? Over ten thousand years ago huge ice sheets covered Canada and a lot of the northern half of the United States – where did all the heat come from to melt all that ice ? And raise the ocean levels 20 feet too ?
Many years ago we – all of us – had problems with acid rain, the coal used in power plants had a lot of sulfur compounds in it, and the resulting combustion products reacted with water vapor to create acid rain, which was lethal to a lot of river creatures, like delicious fish. So scrubbers were designed and installed to reduce the amount of acidic compounds being floated off into the atmosphere.
But there are also other elements in coal that are problems – mercury, cadmium, lead, and chromium – which are very small amounts on a per-ton basis but a large amount on a per-year basis, spread over the countryside and cityscape by air currents to sink into the soil to be taken up by plants that we eat, or that animals that we eat eat. We’re getting poisoned, so they say.
Removing this tiny amount-per-ton is economically impossible, so it isn’t done.
So the environmentalists needed a way to reduce the use of coal for power generation, and the heat-absorbtion ability of carbon dioxide and the slight increase in global atmospheric and water temperatures gave them a rallying cry – regulate carbon dioxide ! As coal is carbon, that means they can regulate the use of coal. Natural gas contains 4 atoms of hydrogen for each carbon atom, natural gas generates the same power with less carbon dioxide than coal, and would be less regulated. Hooray !
Coal is so cheap that incentives to stop using it would have to be government mandated, regulated, and taxed to offset the cheapness. Hence cap and trade.
Personally, I support Solar Panels as I am in the electronic business. In much of the rural areas of Texas, reliance on remote power generating plants can be reduced, especially for the summer months when the air conditioning has to run all day. This can reduce the peak loads the generating plants have to cope with during the afternoon heat. Also, solar cells do not require water. Nuclear, coal, natural gas, and biomass all require water for cooling.
So let’s put more money into Solar Cells !
You have to love trolls like Jefro3000 and “Ignorance is no excuse”. Though sometimes using different “noms de guerre”, they come here repeatedly to prove to us the failure of both US education and universal suffrage. If brains were dynamite they would both be hard pressed to blow their noses. Fortunately, they are easily ignored; which is more attention than they actually deserve.
31. AtheistConservative:
God I hate hippies.
Hmm…
Not that I disagree, mind you.
“aren’t about to get on board, no matter what kind of “example” we set”
But.. but.. but this is the Age of Obama! I was promised that if we elected a black man that the world would love us and everybody would hug and everything would be wonderful, all the stars would come into alignment and all the universe’s problems would just cease to be!
Are you suggesting that’s not true?
Who plants more trees in this country? Answer: logging companies. Why? Beacuse if they didn’t, they would go out of business. Who cares more about nature and the environment? Answer: hunters and outdoors enthusiasts, why? Because that is where they spend much of their time, and they don’t want to ruin it. I love all the eco nuts who live in the big metro areas. They don’t have a clue, but they read it in Reuters, so it must be true. Let them but their Prius’ and put their bumper stickers all over their cars to prove how much the care.
#16 Strawman:
“According to the IPCC WG2 report (the consequences) all the bad shiite that’s supposed to happen to people is supposed to happen in the tropics. Temperate and cold places like Canada, Russia, and Scandinavia are supposed to benefit on balance.”
Climate in tropics is virtually thermostabilized by tremendous energy required to evaporate ocean water. Through the whole history of Earth, with much colder and much hotter globe, climate in tropics was exactly the same as it is today: warm and moist, and will be the same no matter what.
You wingnuts think your arguments are any match for that polar bear cub? You’re pissing up a rope. The bear wins. The bear totally wins. Think about it. Put on your thinking cap. White fuzzy baby bear. Put on your thinking cap. White fuzzy baby bear. Put on your thinking cap. White fuzzy baby bear. The bear wins. Your thinking cap loses. Losers.
CKIAH
28; WTF? Get your head out of your dark places and read what good research is available. The Earth has not warmed recently and is in fact getting cooler any REAL climate scientist will tell you that if you’ll listen. The problem with government scientists is they get paid to promote a polical agenda and can’t be trusted. The 79 billion we’ve spent on research better confirm global warming or you’re fired! You see the cap and trade deal is worth trillions, so what’s a 79 billion investment compared to that.
As stated above, it’s about swindling money from the American tax payer.
Anyone with at least 1/4 of a brain who lived thru the brief “global freezing” scare of the early ’70s which quietly flubbed as all its predictions were far more than just wrong, knows that the current global warming scare — originally justified by models created BY THE SAME GLOBAL FREEZING CHARLATANS — is just as much hooey as the first attempt of these 4th rate scientists to achieve name recognition and income from engagements to speak to crowds of ignoramuses and retards. All the data shows — repeat ALL the available historic data, bar none — that although CO2 and atmospheric temperature are correlated, it is WITHOUT EXCEPTION the case that atmospheric temperature changes first, THEN much later the co2 level rises. It rises because of evaporation of co2 dissolved in the sea, more of which enters the atmosphere when surface sea temperatures are warmed. This is true for the data Gore shows in his famous “documendacity,” which he intentionally squeezes into a long time scale over a small chart so that the detail is obscured, since it shows the precise opposite cause & effect that he knows is the correct one in reality. The atmosphere has been far warmer in the past than now, and it has had at times at least 20 times the co2 concentration as at present. And… those times were wonderful times when plant and animal “biodiversity” flourished, as any botanist would tell you is the natural consequence of a little warming. That’s why life is easier in the warmer latitudes and terribly harsh in the northerly ones. We should PRAY (if religious) for global warming because it would go a long way toward ending world hunger, expanding the rain forests, increasing biodiversity and making this planet more of a heaven on earth than it already has the capacity to be. But the advocates of the global warming hoax are just SO incredibly uninformed (or such liars) that they are either unaware of (or hiding) their hypocrisy in advocating a war on non-existent man-caused warming that would, even if correct, accomplish all the other goals they claim to worship. It would be a colossal joke if these neanderthal numbskulls weren’t so populous and endowed with the voting power to destroy the lives of their betters along with their own suicides.
Solar activity, as mentioned in other posts, is also highly correlated with atmospheric temperature, something that ought to appear very common-sensical to anyone with 1/10th of a brain, and something which has been demonstrated to be EXTREMELY reliably correlated for much of earth’s history. So we have 3 correlated variables of concern(there are of course many others too, but they are not of concern here because we are addressing only the claims of a mass of mindless idiots parroting the propaganda of a few shrewd charlatan, so we can limit ourselves to examining only their stupid, worthless, and totally groundless claims). These are solar activity, atmospheric warming and co2 concentration in the atmosphere. And indeed the order I’ve mentioned them is the order of their causality. Solar activity increases, THEN the atmosphere warms as a result, and FINALLY, the co2 content of the atmosphere rises. Anyone who understands the basic laws of equilibrium states from physical chemistry knows that man’s contributions of co2 into the atmosphere CANNOT have an effect on its concentration, any more than you can increase the salt content of a glass of water after it’s become fully saturated at the prevailing conditions of temperature and pressure. You just precipitate out all the salt you add and the water remains at its equilibrium salt concentration no matter how much more salt you add.
Two final points of the 500 I might make if space permitted:
1. Al Gore’s net worth was public knowledge during the political campaign of 2000 — it was approximately $2 million. He is no longer a public servant so his financial affairs are his own private business. However, from investments in public concerns, it is known that he has to have at a minimum a figure upwards of $100 million now. At least a 50-fold increase in 9 years. What has he been doing full time for the past 9 years? Pushing the scam of global warming that’s making him rich. If cap & trade is passed in the US, Gore stands to become a multi-billionaire. He is the indirectly paid propagandist for the eco groups and the corporations who will benefit from that particular means of thieving on the grand scale from the average citizen. Which, I might add, will undoubtedly cause the deaths of at least thousands of elderly from freezing for lack of heat in winter, and of the poor whose diets will be pushed over the line into malnutrition that lowers their immune systems and causes them to succumb to diseases they otherwise would have recovered from (as food prices soar and as disposable incomes of the poor are especially hard hit).
2. For all the untold $billions of taxpayer monies wasted on global warming research, and all the zillions of published papers on the topic, ask the next advocate of this pure junk science that you meet to refer you to a bona fide, peer-reviewed scientific paper in any reputable journal anywhere on earth which has provided evidence of a link between any of man’s activities and atmospheric temperature changes or climate change. That’s not asking for proof, just one tiny but definite piece of evidence. And that’s regarding ANY of man’s myriad activities being damned by the pea-brained warming advocates. And…the evidence can be linked to either climate change of any type or atmospheric temperature change in either direction. He will not be able to offer you even one such paper, because despite the many, many billions wasted on this hoax, NOT ONE paper in any peer-reviewed scientific journal in any nation on earth, NOT ONE, exists or ever has existed which shows even EVIDENCE of a link between ANY of man’s supposedly nefarious activities and climate change. NOT ONE. NOT ANYWHERE. If you don’t believe me, try and find one. You warmers out there reading this, ask the gurus whose received wisdom you place your mindless faith in to provide you with the name and title and publication of such a paper ANYWHERE ON EARTH, and then post it here. And the rest of you, watch this space, because hell will freeze over before you see it. There is no such paper in existence for one reason only: there exists no line (that means NONE) whatsoever between man’s activities and global warming.
The Algorites are the 21st century’s version of the old gloom and doom religious zealots who walked around with signs urging everyone to repent because the world was coming to an end tomorrow. IE, they are lunatics one and all, with mental deficiencies or, in the case of their leaders, character deficiencies (or more accurately, lack of character). This is not a controversial statement. It may be debated by the lunatics themselves, but they won’t do a very good job of it, since they are after all very unintelligent sub-normal humans by definition, being lunatic fringe fanatic religious believers in the global warming religion. Their parents were probably zealots for global freezing in the 1970s, and they have inherited the genes. It is an absolute, inescapable requirement that to believe in a human contribution to global warming in the absence of any shred of evidence for any aspect of it whatsoever other than the arbitrary claim of charlatans that “We have a HYPOTHESIS, and it is confirmed by the computerized models WE put the garbage into, models which you must believe are TRUTH AND WISDOM even though they disagree with each other and continue to produce forecasts that prove wrong, one after the other” — yes you have to be, if you actually choose to believe this, you MUST ABSOLUTELY AND LOGICALLY be either (a) unfortunately quite ignorant of the topic OR (b) an unusually stupid person OR (c) suffering from a severe mental/emotional/psychological problem. These 3 together make up the all-encompassing, exhaustive list of possibilities. There is no 4th option.
I have read many of the posts supporting global warming and if there were time I could demolish every argument in each one. With ease. And with irrefutable fact and/or logic. I have already abused the generosity of this site by writing more than most, however, and it would take 10 times what I’ve written to dispense with all the lame-brained rationalizations the Algorites keep coming up with as each previous one is refuted. I have heard them all and there is not one with an iota of validity. They are arguments designed to sound reasonable to the unintelligent, and conclusive to those ignorant of the topic.
Not one is correct, or even partially correct.
Man-caused global warming a hoax and a fraud and complete garbage. There is no scientific dispute about this, only a political one which has enlisted a few scientists and many pseudo-scientists to join with the politicians and share the same agenda. This is a fraud on a global scale, and those who swallow it will deserve the truly horrible consequences for humanity, dwarfing the largest wars in history, DWARFING THEM, in the horrors of its consequences. Should the lemmings succeed in implementing the politics of the global warmers, unfortunately many of their betters — ie, those with actual HUMAN brains — will also perish, and the culmination of thousands of years of advancing human civilization will be destroyed for absolutely no reason.
You who advocate global warming, do you have any idea what awful harm you will be doing to humanity and life on this planet? How dare you, ignorant as you are, spout off like a scientist when you can’t possibly have any idea of the topic, given the side you take. Look into yourselves. I think if you are capable of being honest with yourself you will find someone who needs something to crusade for so badly in order to shore up his self-esteem, or something to draw away the focus of the hate he has for himself, and for that reason has an EMOTIONAL NEED to believe in this hoax and to have someone to condemn as evil. If you are man enough to admit it, welcome to the club of human beings. If not, you consign yourself to membership amongst the worst enemies of humankind, human life, human civilization: you are a crusading ignoramus, about to add your own 2 cents to the savagery and barbarism recorded history’s litany of human disasters.
“The Earth has not warmed recently and is in fact getting cooler any REAL climate scientist will tell you that if you’ll listen.”
If only stupidity were a clean energy source, PJM would be the next Saudi Arabia.
“Yyyyyyyyyyeah. Boris, you got a new nic?”
No. But why haven’t you changed yours since you’ve proven you don’t know what a strawman argument is?
Realist:
Excellent irrational screed. A++++++.
So, burning fossil fuels–where does that CO2 go? Why are the oceans increasing in CO2? What about the C12/C13 isotope evidence?
Wait, please let me answer for you:
All evidence that disproves my theory is a hoax by greedy environmentalists who want to ruin the world’s economy and get rich. Also, they rape babies and then eat the raped babies and spit acid on the raped eaten babies and they kick puppies too.
Idiot.
Some people would benefit from some introspection. Bears can’t ride unicycles, white straight guys can’t dance, and Boris can’t snark. But he looks as silly trying as a bear trying to ride a unicycle or a straight white guy trying to dance.
Since you’re so incredibly smart, tell me 1) what are all of the carbon sinks in the ocean system, and 2) what is in the scope of “oceans” that you claim are increasing (I’ll even help you out here: dissolved, sequestered, and in what forms), and 3) what’s the evidence that CO2 in the oceans (please also define is it total quantity, or dissolved concentration) is increased.
If you can provide a coherent answer to that that’s anything close to correct, we can talk about the isotope red herring.
CO2 increasing in the oceans:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v277/n5693/abs/277205a0.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v396/n6711/abs/396560a0.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7169/edsumm/e071122-11.html
More:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119087640/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13314
I doubt you’ll find a single climate scientist who disputes that the CO2 rise is man made. Well, maybe Roy Spencer.
Let’s see:
1 says they don’t have good data, and proposes a “model” (and if you don’t see the problem with that, this is pointless).
2 is a trivial statement of the obvious, but doesn’t address what the ultimate disposition of the C is.
3 is an editorial.
4 is a dead link.
5 is a windy IPCC-like report that addresses consequences from a presumed acidification, and provides a theoretical basis for why it should, but doesn’t actually present robust data.
BTW, just to be perfectly clear (as some people’s messiah says), there’s never been any controversy over the fact that half of the anthropogenic carbon disappears. That’s basic mass balance. We don’t have good data on how much disappears into the biosphere (and contrary to myth, there’s no law that locks the animal and plant kingdoms into carbon balance), and (I’m giving the whole thing away here, since once again Boris completely mangled the question) how much leaves the dissolved state for sequestered solid fates.
Environmentalism has become the State sponsored religion that our founders were worried about. Forty years of indoctrination of our kids in our government labor union controlled schools has made it so. We now get to see the consequences of completely institutionalized irrationality. And we think the religious zealots of the middle ages were irrational. They were pikers compared to this.
It seems there is a consensus among those who comment on this topic, at least here. (So what?) Does that mean that the question is closed? (Not at all! There is always more to be learned.)
Careful, you AGW cultists out there — do you really want to take a vote on this, which would involve telling the losing side to shut up? You sure did a year or two ago, when every other word out of your mouths was “consensus,” but do you now?
Or are you ready to admit that science is a matter of facts, not a matter of polling and voting and counting who has the biggest crowd?
Are you willing to admit to the hoax of the hockey stick graph, agree that Al Gore’s film includes nine crucial errors, and explain why you have had to re-brand “global warming” as “climate change?” Can you face up to the devastating implications of the time gap in the ice cores that shows CO2 levels following temperature levels? Are you ready to stand with Jim Hansen when he calls for imprisonment of those who disagree with him?
There are fads in science, and we are just starting to emerge from a particularly damaging one. We’ll complete that process by following the truth wherever it leads, not by preaching that we sinful humans are responsible for provoking earth-wide catastrophe by being greedy and failing to respect Gaia.
It took a while to get past the ignorant myth that the earth is the center of the solar system, and then…in the “scientific” twentieth century…”Penicillin sat on the shelf for thirteen years, while I was called a quack.” That from Sir Alexander Fleming.
Man’s role in affecting global temperatures is no longer commonly portrayed as a matter of skeptics vs. scientists. It’s finally being recognized as a struggle between genuine science and the irrational dogma of a cult. That’s the direction in which the facts point.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/oceans/glodap/Glopintrod.htm
Come on, Straw, this is too easy. Carbon is increasing in the oceans in every form. This is undisputed. Now, how can the ocean be a source of atmospheric CO2 if it taking up carbon?
Also, where does the carbon from fossil fuels go?
Also, Why does the rise in atmospheric CO2 follow a trajectory defined by human FF burning?
By all means keep making yourself look stupid.
“Are you willing to admit to the hoax of the hockey stick graph”
Not a hoax. Largely vindicated by later research. Its general conclusions were supported by the NAS.
“agree that Al Gore’s film includes nine crucial errors”
There are certainly errors in Gore’s film, but none are “crucial.”
“and explain why you have had to re-brand “global warming” as “climate change?”
Rebrand how? Both terms are still in use. Climate change takes into account more effects than warming–e. g. changes in precipitation, sea level, storm intensity, etc.
“Can you face up to the devastating implications of the time gap in the ice cores that shows CO2 levels following temperature levels?”
Only people who don’t understand the issue think this is devastating. No one ever argued that CO2 was the beginning cause of deglaciations, only that once it was outgassed from the ocean that it contributed to the warming. This is supported by well established physics.
“Are you ready to stand with Jim Hansen when he calls for imprisonment of those who disagree with him?”
You are lying about what Hansen said.
Global warming has never lost ground. Maybe it has in the GOP bizarro world.
JackT is a troll.
This is futile, I know, because this is a religious issue, not a scientific one…but still, some folks may want information, so here is some that may help them make up their minds.
So: Rebranding really is in place, as you will notice if you read the latest material from the AGW cult. The use of “global warming” is discouraged. Yeah, the old term is uttered from time to time; I still call the refrigerator an ice box, but the gizmo really has been renamed.
Folks should look at the nine crucial errors in Gore’s film and decide how crucial they are. How convincing and urgent would Gore’s message be, if all nine were removed from his film? Or what if they were left in, but exposed as errors, so everyone could see what the original version of the film was? That would speak to its motivation, wouldn’t it? Have a look.
More on Gore the Oscar winner here.
Here are two reports on a fairly recent debate ( Part I and Part II) in which the hockey stick graph is mentioned. Its attempted resuscitation has failed; it was, don’t forget, a deliberate hoax from the first. Reinstating a fraudulent concept (as opposed to a flawed one) is not easy — imagine trying to reintroduce Piltdown Man into primate evolution.
Then there’s good old Jim Hansen. Begin with a discussion of just how much freedom of speech we should permit in the AGW debate here; it refers to “balancing freedoms,” which strikes me as a scary concept. Those who appreciate and promote censorship won’t be alarmed.
If Jim Hansen can say that disagreeing with him means distributing “…misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into
school textbooks, then I think that’s a crime,” yet he means to create a new type of crime without conviction or punishment, then yes, he’s not saying anybody should go to jail for publishing the facts. This is the guy who has promoted illegal activities in support of the AGW cult, though, so I’m take him literally when he talks about criminality. I accept that he would not be above locking me up for what I have to say, if only he could. He honestly believes those who attack the AGW cult are extremely dangerous, rather like terrorists with a nuke. Hansen’s no angel.
Then there’s the matter of accusations of lying. Honest folks may make errors in judgment, but they don’t lie, and decent folks don’t accuse others of lying unless malice can be proved. Or…? Read “How we know they are lying.” This religious war is pretty nasty.
–Hey, PJM! How about giving us a Preview function? Editing a comment that includes some URLs is too error-prone for plodders like me, if we can’t check it in another format before submitting. Heaven knows how many hyperlink mistakes I made in this comment (apologies in advance, gentle Readers). Come on, PJM, give us a break!