[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

As I mentioned in the other thread, your article doesn't contradict current evidence. You should probably read them before posting, as it's contradictory to your viewpoint.

I believe it is quiet clear. The Gore lemmings will only believe the lies of Al Gore.

The can't think for themselves. It has been proven over and over that Al Gore's data was full of BS, yet the lemmings refuse to see the light.

[Buckaroo]

Scammer gore is at it again.


Gore pleads for unity on climate, despite divide

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090424/...te_hearings_37

Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Re...sional-Hearing

DEM CONGRESSMAN: ‘NOBODY IN THIS COUNTRY REALIZES THAT CAP-AND-TRADE IS A TAX’

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/325633.html

Climate bill will punish American

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

As I mentioned in the other thread, your article doesn't contradict current evidence. You should probably read them before posting, as it's contradictory to your viewpoint.

Why? Because it doesn't say Al Gore is a poop-butt stinky face? What is current evidence olePigeon?

[BadKosh]

Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing
Thursday, April 23, 2009By Marc Morano

'House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated'

Climate Depot Exclusive - Updated

Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”

According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had “chickened out” and there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment's fourth day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.

According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee staff earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed 'celebrity' as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing examining the House global warming bill. The "celebrity" witness turned out to be Gore. Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats' "celebrity" with an unnamed "celebrity" of their own. But Monckton claims that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore.

[ Update: 1:55 PM EST: A GOP House source told Climate Depot that the Democrats on the Committee said “absolutely not” to allowing Monckton to appear during today's Gore hearing. The GOP committee “pushed at multiple levels” to bring Monckton in to testify but the Democrats “refused,” according to the GOP source. Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich was called in to testify after Monckton was rejected by the committee Democrats, according to the Congressional source.]

“The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore's sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear,” Monckton said from the airport Thursday evening.

“Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling. Waxman knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore's mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,'” Monckton explained. Monckton has previously testified before the House Committee in March. (See: Monckton: Have the courage to do nothing...US Congress told climate change is not real ) Monckton has also publicly challenged Gore to a debate.

AT LEAST we can see it for the PURE POLITICS is is and NOT science as the GW lemmings believe they are practicing. The GW scam is looking like Phrenology.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Maybe they can compromise, and Monckton can just submit some of his research papers instead?

greg

[Buckaroo]

Gore and his massive scam.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=86d_1240600502

[VicF]

How is it more environmentally friendly to import natural gas and oil from the other side of the planet when we have plenty right here in America. Sure in the long term we need to move off fossil fuels but we it can not happen in 5 or 10 years so we should get our own. There are hundreds of scientists who disagree with the global warming hysteria anyway. Nuclear fission is the way to go until we can develop hydrogen fusion power plants. Wind, solar and biofuels will never be more then a small percentage of what we need.

[Chongo]

"I bought some ocean front property in Arizona"

[Chongo]

Al's new gig

[Buckaroo]

[Buckaroo]

[Buckaroo]

[BadKosh]

U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher was in a froth, and his audience loved it.

The California Republican was talking about global warming and could barely contain his disgust.

"Al Gore has been wrong all along!" Rohrabacher yelled into the microphone. "This is outrageous! All of this is wrong! The people who have stifled this debate have an agenda that is just frightening!"

Welcome to the third annual International Conference on Climate Change, a daylong session of speeches and scientific presentations that took place Tuesday just blocks from the U.S. Capitol. Almost no media covered the event.

Organized by The Heartland Institute and other conservative think tanks and groups, the conference drew about 250 guests, most of them researchers and policy analysts, some from as far away as Japan and Australia.

There was plenty of wry laughter during the day, especially when former Vice President Gore and his award-winning movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," were brought up, which was often.

The conference hall also was filled with a tangible air of frustrated defeat, like the brainy kid in math class who thinks he knows all the answers, raises his hand time and again, but is never called upon.

"We are seldom heard in the policy debate," said Joseph L. Bast, president of The Heartland Institute. "If you open your newspaper, turn on your TV set, you're likely to see global warming alarmism, and nothing else."

Bast labeled as "popular delusion" the current conventional wisdom on the issue - that man-made emissions, notably carbon dioxide, from the burning of fossil fuels is dangerously heating up the planet, causing sea levels to rise and is increasing the ferocity of storms and drought.

As such, the conference represents a lingering - and still powerful - sentiment that global warming is not such a big deal after all.

Instead, attendees argued, the slow and slight increase in air, water and atmospheric temperatures during much of the 20th century is part of a natural cycle of the Earth's unpredictable, roller-coaster weather patterns.

Carbon dioxide, they debated, is not a pollutant that should be regulated, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Supreme Court now hold; it is an attribute that helps plant and sea life.

Bast acknowledged that the conference was hurriedly organized, and moved from New York City to Washington, to counteract proposals from President Barack Obama for a "cap-and-trade" program aimed at fighting global warming by drastically limiting carbon emissions.

Bast and others described the proposed programs as a complete waste of money, with potentially crippling consequences for the economy, and without any attainable goals.

"How do you control the weather?" asked Bob Carter, an Australian scholar from James Cook University. "For us to assume we can somehow control nature and regulate weather patterns, when we cannot even predict them correctly, is patently absurd."

Others saw darker motives in the climate debate.

These skeptics, including Rohrabacher, contended that global warming is a liberal-inspired hoax, intended to wrest control of world energy policy and wealth from Western countries so the United Nations can have its way.

To them, liberty, capitalism and the U.S. economy are at stake.

"I have to wonder what has happened to the sovereignty of the United States," said U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the keynote speaker at the conference and the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which debates climate policy.

Skeptics, or "realists," as they call themselves, focus much of their scorn on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Gore in 2007.

The IPCC consists of hundreds of scientists from across the globe who, for two decades, have tracked climate research and temperature trends, and attempted to interpret what they mean for policymakers.

Its most famous pronouncement, in 2007, was that a marked increase in greenhouse gases from mostly man-made sources is "very likely" causing climate change.

"Very likely," the IPCC wrote, means a 90 percent certainty that human activity, not natural variability, is the driving force.

The IPCC also noted that many geographical areas seem especially susceptible to climate change, including low-lying coastal areas, such as southeastern Virginia and northeastern North Carolina.

But scientist after scientist at the conference pointed out flaws and shortcomings in the calculations of the IPCC, especially its reliance on computer models to make forecasts.

One researcher, Roy Spencer, a professor at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, noted that the IPCC did not adequately calculate how clouds play a major role in ground temperatures.

When there are few clouds in the sky, temperatures typically are warmer, Spencer said, and when it is cloudy outside, conditions typically are cooler.

Is it possible then, Spencer asked, that decreasing clouds in recent decades caused the warmings recorded on Earth?

Spencer said he asked the IPCC about this and was surprised to learn that the organization had not researched this point and had assumed that cloud cover does not change over time but is fairly consistent.

The two revelations sparked more wry laughter from the audience.

"If a 1 percent change in cloudiness could trigger global warming, or global cooling, wouldn't you think that'd be a pretty important thing to nail down?" Spencer asked. "They have never gone there."

Skepticism over climate science is hardly new. Indeed, skepticism has always been a part of scientific discourse and has been around global warming since the 1970s, when the theory first gained credence.

William "Skip" Stiles, a Norfolk environmentalist, was working as a congressional aide back then, and he remembers the committee hearings, the charges and countercharges of bias and flawed science.

"I will agree that these models are only as good as the data that goes into them," Stiles said. "But when you think of all the shots these folks have had at this, and all the years of research by the IPCC - we're talking 25 years! - you have to think we've reached some fairly solid conclusions that global warming is real and we, as humans, are playing a major role in it."

Carl Hershner, a researcher and professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science who has tracked sea level rise in Virginia for years, expressed similar thoughts.

"One thing about science is that you never get rid of all the naysayers," Hershner said. He described the IPCC as "an extremely conservative group" that "constantly looks at achieving consensus, and updates its findings regularly."

In his keynote address Tuesday, Sen. Inhofe predicted that cap-and-trade will pass the House of Representatives - "Nancy Pelosi has the votes," he said - but will stall in the Senate, where previous climate-change programs have similarly died.

Last year, without any action coming from Washington, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine appointed a Climate Change Commission to suggest ways Virginia can reduce carbon emissions and lessen its role in accelerating warming.

The theory that global warming is a natural phenomenon, and not man-made, was not part of commission deliberations.

"The fact that global climate change is happening and is largely human-caused is now widely accepted," reads the commission's final report, published in December.

At the bottom of the page, however, is a footnote: "While we have concluded that the overwhelming evidence supports these points, we have heard testimony providing contrary information during public comment periods at our meetings."

State Sen. Frank Wagner, a Republican from Virginia Beach, was a member of the climate commission. He also has attended one of the skeptics' conferences in New York City.

"I've tried to keep an open mind," Wagner said. "There are so many theories out there, and so much detail, you're kind of overwhelmed.

"I mean, even the scientists themselves are debating with each other at these meetings. You're left wondering what the truth really is."

[ShortcutToMoncton]

[ctt1wbw]

Is global warming the reason that there is still snowfall in places like Montana right now, in the first week of June?

US Radar

As of a few minutes ago, at least.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Is global warming the reason that there is still snowfall in places like Montana right now, in the first week of June?

US Radar

As of a few minutes ago, at least.

This is interesting
AccuWeather.com - Weather News Headlines - Weather News

According to Long Range Expert Joe Bastardi, areas from the northern Plains into the Northeast will have a "year without a summer." The jet stream, which is suppressed abnormally south this spring, is also suppressing the number of thunderstorms that can form. The ones that do form in areas of the Ohio Valley and West are forming in places with very cold temperatures, which can lead to more electrified thunderstorms than normal this year.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Welcome to 2004

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Is global warming the reason that there is still snowfall in places like Montana right now, in the first week of June?

US Radar

As of a few minutes ago, at least.

No.

We have to blame that one on a strange phenomenon called "weather."

greg

[Warren Pease]

Full-Size Image (updated daily)

Today, Arctic sea ice extent is at the same level as the record-breaking 2007 season, but declining much more rapidly. Will be interesting to see what happens in the next couple months. July is when things really started to take off in 2007.

It appears the Arctic is missing out on this "year without a summer." The emerging counter-argument appears to be images of submarines. *sigh*

Oddly enough, those Navy subs have been collecting data which purportedly shows 30-50% decrease in ice thickness over the past 50 years. But you know, those military folks are really just a bunch of greenie treehuggers.

[ctt1wbw]

You missed my sarcasm... well, not exactly. The keyword in Global Warming is "warming." That means it gets hotter and hotter over time. You would think that after the years, it would be almost 150 outside now. At least that's what the global warming worshippers would have you believe.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

You would think that after the years, it would be almost 150 outside now.

You're probably right; you would.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

You would think that after the years, it would be almost 150 outside now. At least that's what the global warming worshippers would have you believe.

[Buckaroo]

Look out, it won't be long before the UN (along with Obama) starts requiring all Americans that make over $80,000 to wear tracking devices.

They need to start by putting one on Gore.

New climate strategy: track the world's wealthiest

* World's richest emit about half of Earth's carbon
* Tracking the wealthy could break climate impasse
* New method would follow individual greenhouse emissions

Reuters AlertNet - New climate strategy: track the world's wealthiest








Al Gore likens fight against climate change to battle with Nazis

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6658672.ece

[Chongo]

Global governance? What doe he mean by "global governance" BTW, it appears Al is still going with the Reagan look. he needs so sway side to side a bit more.

“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Editor's Note: Gore makes the “global governance” comment at the 1min. 10 sec. mark in this UK Times video.)

Video: Al Gore likens fight against climate change to battle with Nazis - Times Online

[BadKosh]

By David Fogarty, Climate Change Correspondent, Asia

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - A dramatic warming of the planet 55 million years ago cannot be solely explained by a surge in carbon dioxide levels, a study shows, highlighting gaps in scientists' understanding of impacts from rapid climate change.

During an event called the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, global temperatures rose between 5 and 9 degrees Celsius within several thousand years. The world at that time was already warmer than now with no surface ice.

"We now believe that the CO2 did not cause all the warming, that there were additional factors," said Richard Zeebe, an oceanographer with the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

"There may have been an initial trigger," he told Reuters on Wednesday from Hawaii. This could be a deep ocean warming that caused a catastrophic release of methane from hydrate deposits under the seabed.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas but much of it is oxidised into CO2 when it is released from hydrate deposits.

Zeebe and his colleagues estimated the amount of CO2 released during the Palaeocene-Eocene event by studying sediment cores from seabeds around the globe. Their study is published in the latest issue of Nature Geoscience.

They estimated about 3 trillion tonnes of carbon (11 trillion tonnes of CO2) was released over several thousand years from the methane deposits, leading to a 70 percent rise in atmospheric CO2 levels from pre-event levels.

But Zeebe said this could only explain a 1 to 3.5 degree Celsius rise in temperatures, adding that a commonly accepted scientific range for a doubling of CO2 is between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius.

This meant other factors must have been at work to drive up temperatures between 5 and 9 degrees Celsius.

"If this additional warming which we do not really understand, was caused as a response to the CO2 warming, then there is a chance that also a future warming could be more intense than people anticipate right now," Zeebe said.

He said the study suggested there could be atmospheric or ocean processes as yet unknown or poorly understood that might have accelerated the warming. Possibilities could be changes in ocean currents, a much larger release of methane or even greater impacts from higher CO2 levels than currently thought.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Global governance? What doe he mean by "global governance" BTW, it appears Al is still going with the Reagan look. he needs so sway side to side a bit more.

Global governance:

is the political interaction of transnational actors aimed at solving problems that affect more than one state or region when there is no power of enforcing compliance.

[Warren Pease]

Is it the presence of something - in addition to rapid CO2 and methane release present then and now - that caused the earth to be warmer? Or is it a lack of something back then that made the earth not as cool? These are questions you should ask yourself.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Global governance:

[tinfoilhat]I think Al is talking about something else.[/tinfoilhat]
Global Governance

[BadKosh]

Government monopsony distorts climate science, says SPPI

Government monopsony distorts climate science, says SPPI

The climate industry is costing taxpayers $79 billion and counting

The Science and Public Policy Institute announces the publication of Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova revealing that the federal Government has a near-monopsony on climate science funding. This distorts the science towards self-serving alarmism. Key findings:



Ø The US Government has spent more than $79 billion of taxpayers’ money since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, propaganda campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Most of this spending was unnecessary.



Ø Despite the billions wasted, audits of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of “global warming” theory and to compete with a lavishly-funded, highly-organized climate monopsony. Major errors have been exposed again and again.



Ø Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks, which profit most, are calling for more. Experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 - $10 trillion in the near future. Hot air will soon be the largest single commodity traded on global exchanges.



Ø Meanwhile, in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying just $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government spends on alarmists, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in 2008 alone.



Ø The large expenditure designed to prove the non-existent connection between carbon and climate has created a powerful alliance of self-serving vested interests.



Ø By pouring so much money into pushing a single, scientifically-baseless agenda, the Government has created not an unbiased investigation but a self-fulfilling prophecy.



Ø Sound science cannot easily survive the vice-like grip of politics and finance.



Says Nova, “For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. It’s time to start talking of “Monopolistic Science”. It’s time to expose the lie that those who claim “to save the planet” are the underdogs. And it’s time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money.”



Robert Ferguson, SPPI’s president, says: “This study counts the cost of years of wasted Federal spending on the ‘global warming’ non-problem. Government bodies, big businesses and environmental NGOs have behaved like big tobacco: recruiting, controlling and rewarding their own “group-think” scientists who bend climate modeling to justify the State’s near-maniacal quest for power, control, wealth and forced population reduction.



“Joanne Nova, who wrote our study, speaks for thousands of scientists in questioning whether a clique of taxpayer-funded climate modelers are getting the data right, or just getting the “right” data. Are politicians paying out billions of our dollars for evidence-driven policy-making, or policy-driven evidence-making? The truth is more crucial than ever, because American lives, property and constitutional liberties are at risk.”

[BadKosh]

Kerry panel looks at climate change and national security

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff

WASHINGTON -- Massive crop devastation, melting glaciers, water shortages, millions of displaced people -- all of these will drag the US military into conflict if global climate change goes unchecked, a Senate panel was warned today.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, convened by Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, focused on what so far has received only modest attention in the climate change debate: the effect it is bound to have on national defense.

"Addressing the consequences of changes in the Earth's climate is not simply about saving polar bears or preserving the beauty of mountain glaciers," retired Navy Vice Adm. Lee F. Gunn, president of the American Security Project, told the panel. "Climate change is a threat to our national security."

Gunn and other military specialists said that climate change could have broad effects on how the US military operates. It will likely expand the number of humanitarian missions the Pentagon will have to undertake, they said, and even change how it deploys its fighting forces.

For example, they warned that rising sea levels could swamp critical US military bases in the Indian Ocean and even the headquarters of the Atlantic Fleet in Norfolk, Va., which could be under water after just a one-meter rise in the ocean level.

From Africa to the Middle East and South Asia, dramatic changes in the weather will stress already unstable nations, creating what Gunn called "climate conflicts."

"International conflicts over resources, due to migrants, and/or as a means of distraction are not only likely," he added, "but likely to exacerbate the underlying climate change problem."

Kerry, since he took the helm of the committee earlier this year, has made addressing climate change a top priority. Several specialists said today that elevating the security aspect will help garner the kind of support necessary to make the difficult changes in energy and other global policies to stabilize the climate.

Sharon E. Burke, vice president for natural security at the Center for a New American Security, testified that the hearing was "an important demonstration of the fact that global climate change is now taken seriously as a strategic challenge."

Kerry, for his part, pledged to keep the shining the light on the issue.

"If we fail to connect the dots -- if we fail to take action -- the simple, indisputable reality is that we will find ourselves living not only in a ravaged environment, but also in a much more dangerous world," he said.

Kerry's full opening statement is below:

KERRY'S PREPARED OPENING REMARKS

We are here today to discuss a grave and growing threat to global stability, human security, and Americaís national security. As you will hear from all of todayís witnesses, the threat of catastrophic climate change is not an academic concern for the future.
It is already upon us, and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Earlier this year, a 25-mile wide ice bridge connecting the Wilkins Shelf to the Antarctic landmass shattered, disconnecting the Shelf from the Antarctic continent. In four years, the Arctic is projected to experience its first ice-free summerónot in 2030, but in 2013. The threat is real and fast approaching.
Just as 9-11 taught us the painful lesson that oceans could not protect us from terror, today we are deluding ourselves if we believe that climate change will stop at our borders.
Fortunately, Americaís most trusted security voicesóincluding those here todayóhave been sounding the alarm. In 2007, eleven former Admirals and high-ranking generals issued a seminal report from the Center for Naval Analysis, where Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn serves on the Military Advisory Board. They warned that climate change is a ìthreat multiplierî with ìthe potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale far beyond those we see today.î
This is because climate change injects a major new source of chaos, tension, and human insecurity into an already volatile world. It threatens to bring more famine and drought, worse pandemics, more natural disasters, more resource scarcity, and human displacement on a staggering scale. Places only too familiar with the instability, conflict, and resource competition that often create refugees and IDPs, will now confront these same challenges with an ever growing population of EDPsóenvironmentally displaced people. We risk fanning the flames of failed-statism, and offering glaring opportunities to the worst actors in our international system. In an interconnected world, that endangers all of us.
Nowhere is the nexus between todayís threats and climate change more acute than in South Asiañthe home of Al Qaeda and the center of our terrorist threat. Scientists are now warning that the Himalayan glaciers, which supply water to almost a billion people from China to Afghanistan, could disappear completely by 2035.
Water from the Himalayas flows through India into Pakistan. Indiaís rivers are not only agriculturally vital, they are also central to its religious practice. Pakistan, for its part, is heavily dependent on irrigated farming. Even as our government scrambles to ratchet down tensions and prepares to invest billions to strengthen Pakistanís capacity to deliver for its peopleóclimate change is threatening to work powerfully in the opposite direction.
Worldwide, climate change risks making the most volatile places even more combustible. The Middle East is home to six percent of the worldís population but just two percent of the worldís water. A demographic boom and a shrinking water supply will only tighten the squeeze on a region that doesnít need another reason to disagree.
Closer to home, there is scarcely an instrument of American foreign policy that will be untouched by a changing climate. Diego Garcia Island in the Indian Ocean, a vital hub for our military operations across the Middle East, sits on an atoll just a few feet above sea level. Norfolk, VA, home to our Atlantic Fleet, will be submerged by one meter of sea level rise. These problems are not insurmountable, but they will be expensive, and they risk compromising our readiness.
Of course, the future has a way of humbling those who try to predict it too precisely. But we do know, from scientists and security experts, that the threat is very real. If we fail to connect the dotsóif we fail to take actionóthe simple, indisputable reality is that we will find ourselves living not only in a ravaged environment, but also in a much more dangerous world.
We are honored to be joined today by an old friend who needs no introduction in these halls. John Warner served five terms as a US Senator from Virginia. He enlisted in the Navy at age 17, served as a sailor in World War Two, fought as a Marine in Korea, and rose to become Secretary of the Navy.
I met Secretary Warner when he presented me a Silver Star. Senator Warner became a friend, a colleague for twenty-four years, and one of the true gentlemen of this institution. When he retired and I was awarded his old office, Senator Warnerís gift to his fellow Navy man was a binnacleóa tool that sailors use to point out the right direction and light a path forward. Of course, none of us could ask for a better guide than Senator Warnerís own words and his life of service. I am pleased that he continues to use his extraordinary credibility to speak directly to the American people about the urgency of this issue.
Our other witnesses are impressive in their own right. A decorated 35-year veteran of the US Navy, Vice Admiral Lee Gunn now serves as President of the American Security Project.
Sharon Burke is Vice President for Natural Security at the Center for a New American Security, where she directs the Centerís work on the national security implications of global natural resources challenges.
Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn is a member of the CNA Military Advisory Board and former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Requirements and Programs. I look forward to hearing from each of you. But first let us turn to a Senator who, for years, has been a Senate leader in confronting non-traditional security challenges from loose nuclear material to food security: Senator Richard Lugar.

[Snow-i]

what a crock of ****.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Just to let you know, I've reported this one.

The incessant copy/pasting of articles is annoying and destroys any ability to "make conversation" about the subject. And it's against the rules of the lounge, as everyone knows.

Stop being annoying, people. If you have an opinion, type it yourself.

greg

[BadKosh]

CNN? Any credible news orgs?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

You'd think I'd be already tired of "digging up evidence that you should be finding yourself" in this thread, but no, apparently it's the name of the game with you people:

Pol Forum Rules

Originally Posted by Rules

Eighth rule of the Political Lounge: No posting and running. Cutting and pasting of long articles with only a brief comment is not allowed. Please provide a link to the article (with a summary and/or excerpts if you so desire) and then give your opinion.

Anyways, I don't like bitchy self-moderators but the other pol mods are either too busy or don't really care about this rule as long as it's only done in this thread. But it's annoying, so I'm putting it out there.

[/rant]

greg

[vmarks]

It's really quite a wonder that this thread keeps coming back. Apparently it doesn't die for the 6 months at a time, so there's no using the zombie thread moderation.

Still, people should link and excerpt, and attempt to support their positions.

It's courtesy, and will go a long way towards civility.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Anyways, I don't like bitchy self-moderators but the other pol mods are either too busy or don't really care about this rule as long as it's only done in this thread. But it's annoying, so I'm putting it out there.

[/rant]

greg

You can be annoyed. It's easy in this thread. But consider just how difficult it is to sort out what each member is saying, whether it's on topic and appropriate, and whether or not it complies with the rules. Now add to that people posting major excerpts from War and Peace to use AS THEIR POINTS, and you find that "too busy" stuff right here-it's very difficult trying to figure out who's making what point and how much it applies to the topic. And frankly, some of us have given up on this thread as a completely lost cause.

Argument by weight of input as opposed to content of input is not real discussion. It's poo-slinging without as many rude words. As vmarks says, there should be a LOT of citation, maybe with a crucial quote here and there. Instead, a number of members have been apparently trying to beat each other over the head with tons of data.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Hahaha, yes, apologies all around. Bad day at work FTW! You're all doing a bang-up job, really.

greg

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Hahaha, yes, apologies all around. Bad day at work FTW! You're all doing a bang-up job, really.

greg

Thanks. Now let's see if others agree and start posting those "important snippets" and not huge tomes...

[Buckaroo]

What happened to global warming?

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming?


The GWS (Global Warming Scam).

[Uncle Skeleton]

It's cute that you miss the attention, but it might just be time for you to grow up, Buckaroo, and take a hint. Nobody cares. You're the boy who cried wolf.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's cute that you miss the attention, but it might just be time for you to grow up, Buckaroo, and take a hint. Nobody cares. You're the boy who cried wolf.

Wrong again! Al Gore is the boy who cried wolf.

[BadKosh]

He's coming to Virginia to 'help' Cree Deeds campaign. Think Al will get environmental questions?

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

He's coming to Virginia to 'help' Cree Deeds campaign. Think Al will get environmental questions?

The last time a reporter challenged his claims, they cut the reporters microphone off.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

The last time a reporter challenged his claims, they cut the reporters microphone off.

Here it is. YouTube - Daring to Question Al Gore

[Buckaroo]

This Global Warming scam is the biggest and most damaging crap that has ever been dreamed up to hurt the US worker.

Now they want to take away our meat.

Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet - Times Online

Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet

[Buckaroo]

Didn't some political pundit recently claim that if we didn't have the new accords agreed to by October that we were doomed?

I can't find the news story, maybe it was November.

[Buckaroo]

It was only a matter of time before the truth came out. Global Warming is a LIE.

Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own research wasn't always conclusive. In others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one occasion, climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about climate change and extreme weather events because environmental officials in one country were planning a "big public splash."

Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor - WSJ.com




Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center

"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."

Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center

And now for the best link yet. Al Gore's lies.


New Documentary Challenges Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' on Global Warming


Al Gore's award-winning global warming film "An Inconvenient Truth," socked two years ago by a British court ruling that found several errors, is facing additional scrutiny with the release of a new documentary that seeks to rebut many of Gore's claims.

Buoyed by the ruling, two Irish journalists -- Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney -- released a documentary in which they gather evidence outlining the damage of global warming hysteria. In "Not Evil Just Wrong," they challenge the claims made in Gore's film and conclude that the film is not worth screening in schools


New Documentary Challenges Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' on Global Warming - FOXNews.com

Congress Launches Climategate Investigation

Congress Launches Climategate Investigation

Global warming religion becoming a Joke


� Global warming religion becoming a Joke - Blogger News Network



Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph


Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Barack Obama's Cap and Trade laws


Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Barack Obama’s Cap and Trade laws – Telegraph Blogs

[Buckaroo]

Al Gore is worried his scam business of selling carbon credits for money will come to an end.

Totally ignorant of the facts, he's claiming:

Mr Gore said that to avoid the worst ravages of climate change world leaders would have to come together again to set more drastic reductions than those now planned.

“Even a final treaty will have to set the stage for other tougher reductions at a later date,” he said. “We have already overshot the safe levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

Copenhagen targets not tough enough, says Al Gore

Copenhagen targets not tough enough, says Al Gore - Times Online




Here is the real truth.

Quote from Gary Sutton:

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."

You can't blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed's mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today's scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work.

The Fiction Of Climate Science

The Fiction Of Climate Science - Forbes.com

[stupendousman]

When will this thread die?

When Al Gore starts trying a little honesty and stops showing the world what a clueless ass he is.

If you interpret that statement to mean that it won't ever die, you are probably right.

Climategate: Gore falsifies the record | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

Apparently Al is taking the "old news" tact in an attempt to diffuse Climategate. Forget the fact that such a tactic is simply a diversion in the first place, the truth is he's just not telling the truth....AGAIN.

Al's nose is going to start to grow soon.

[BadKosh]

It' just an Icicle.