NNN Reporters Newsroom Forum  

Go Back   NNN Reporters Newsroom Forum > RSS FEED


Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-16-2007, 06:05 AM
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Global warming is not happening

Originally Posted by Gabrielle View Post
MINNEAPOLIS - A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.

"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.
A few toes is such a small sacrifice for such a noble cause that could affect the world population.

Originally Posted by Gabrielle View Post
Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures.

"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."

"Unpredictability" get real, how about naturally occurring changes in the earth's climate.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2007, 07:41 AM
-88-'s Avatar
-88- -88- is offline
Clark Kent 5K Club
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,068
Default Re: Global warming is not happening

Global Warming: why it is the Left's last best chance to gain a stranglehold on our political system and economy
-- and how we can fight back

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism
by Christopher Horner

For decades, environmentalism has been the Left's best excuse for increasing government control over our actions in ways both large and small. It's for Mother Earth! It's for the children! It's for the whales! But until now, the doomsday-scenario environmental scares they've trumped up haven't been large enough to give the sinister prize they want most of all: total control of American politics, economic activity, and even individual behavior. With global warming, however, greenhouse gasbags can argue that auto emissions in Ohio threaten people in Paris, and that only global government can tackle such problems. National sovereignty? Democracy? Forget it: global warming has now brought the Left closer to global government, statism, and the eradication of individual rights than it has ever been before.

Now, in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, Christopher C. Horner tears the cover off the Left's manipulation of environmental issues for political purposes - and lays out incontrovertible evidence for the fact that catastrophic man-made global warming is just more Chicken-Little hysteria, not actual science. He explains why, although Al Gore and his cronies among the media elites and UN globalists endlessly bleat that "global warming" is an unprecedented global crisis, they really think of it as a dream come true. It's the ideal scare campaign for those who are doing all they can to secure strict control over society, business, and the minutest details of individual life. For, as Horner explains, if global warming really were as bad as the Leftist doomsayers insist it is, then no policy imaginable could "solve" it. According to the logic of the greens' own numbers, no matter how much we sacrifice there would still be more to do. That makes global warming the bottomless well of excuses for the relentless growth of Big Government.
Horner (an attorney and Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) reveals the full anti-American, anti-capitalist, and anti-human agenda of today's environmentalists, dubbing them "green on the outside, red to the core." He details how they use strong-arm legal tactics - and worse - against those who dare to point out the weakness of their arguments for global warming. Along the way, he explodes ten top global warming myths, carefully examines the evidence to determine how much warming there really is and what is actually causing it. He exposes the lies that the environmental lobby routinely tells to make its case; the ways in which it is trying to impose initiatives such as the Kyoto Accords on an unwilling American public; and much more - including the green lobby's favorite politicians (an often surprising rogue's gallery including John Kerry, John McCain, Joe Lieberman and others).

It's time to stand up to the environmentalist industry and insist: human beings are not the enemy. In breezy, light-hearted and always entertaining fashion, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism gives you the facts you need to do so.

No, the sky is not falling, despite the Green Left's best efforts:

Proof: media hype and deceptive Al Gore slide shows notwithstanding, greenhouse gas concentrations demonstrably do not determine temperatures

The mainstream media's routinely sloppy, inaccurate reporting about evidence of global warming and other environmental matters

More proof: The hole in the ozone layer - the 1980s manmade environmental crisis - was caused by the Antarctic atmosphere being too cold

How environmentalists throughout modern history have instilled fear over one looming "crisis" or another with the aim of increasing government control over things big and small

Why the environmental alarmists do whatever they can to avoid actual debate

The environmentalist movement: not a grassroots phenomenon driven by scruffy idealists but an elite-driven movement that lards the coffers of pressure campaigns with wealth - commonly inherited, often corporate, and far too-frequently looted from the taxpayer

Recent studies that have shown that the environment is actually flourishing - and how the greens have turned even these into evidence of our imminent doom

"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem": the environmentalists' openly anti-human agenda

How real pollution problems can be addressed through the technological improvements that the Left is doing all it can to obstruct

Al Gore's global warming jihad: how it will lead to massively higher costs and direct or indirect energy rationing - and probably many measures that are even worse

How much of the budget for environmental pressure groups comes directly from taxpayers -- through grants for public "education" and congressional schemes designed to subsidize the greens' lawyers

Green lunacy run amok: how even respectable political figures (and Slick Willie) say that the environmental damage caused by American industry is a greater threat than terrorism

Why, as with other political crusades that fail in the arena of representative democracy, the greens now see the courts and supranational bodies as their best hopes

How environmental policies come with a cost, often to the society as a whole, decreasing wealth, and so harming health - dangers the average environmentalist ignores

How greens worship primitive lifestyles from afar, while those mired in them would kill to escape them

How, almost without fail, global warming skeptics are charged with being stooges of industry - a charge that neither addresses the skeptic's criticism or question, nor reflects the fact that most of "industry" now actually supports the alarmists' agenda

Ethanol: sobering evidence that it might not be good for the environment - and how the damage to soil from single-crop farming is probably more real than global warming

How the risks of climate change policy far outweigh the risks that might realistically be expected as climate continues to change
Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2007, 03:57 PM
3 Ks's Avatar
3 Ks 3 Ks is offline
Clark Kent 2K Club
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West KY
Posts: 2,190
Default Re: Global warming is not happening

Praise the internet, idiot is thy name and on a toe-less horse rode a brainos called global warming gore ...
Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2007, 12:54 AM
-88-'s Avatar
-88- -88- is offline
Clark Kent 5K Club
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,068
Default Re: Global warming is not happening

Climate change danger 'overplayed'

Two leading British scientists have hit out at the "Hollywoodisation" of fears over climate change.

Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal Meteorological Society figures, have criticised peers who they accuse of "overplaying" the global warming message.

The pair placed the highly respected American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) at the centre of their criticism.

The pair reportedly say some researchers make claims about possible future impacts that cannot be justified by the science. At a conference in Oxford they will say this damages the credibility of all climate scientists.

They think the "Hollywoodisation" of weather and climate only works to create confusion in the public mind.

The 2004 smash hit film The Day After Tomorrow blurred the lines between science and entertainment with its depiction of catastrophic consequences after global warming caused large areas of the Arctic ice shelf to break off and melt.

Professors Hardaker and Collier argue for a more sober and reasoned explanation of the uncertainties about possible future changes in the Earth's climate.

They criticised a strongly worded statement released by the AAAS at its last annual meeting in San Francisco in February which said: "As expected, intensification of droughts, heatwaves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies.

"These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible."

According to Professors Hardaker and Collier, this may well turn out to be true, but convincing evidence to back the claims has not yet emerged.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2007, 03:31 AM
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Global warming is not happening

An online video some kind soul posted to youtube in its entirety.

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Complete)
"This short program, produced and shown in England, destroys the arguments put forward by Al Gore and the human caused Global Warming activists."


We're definitely not alone in having our suspicions that its a load of crap.

Heres another tidbit to consider, from this newsgroup thread:


Ilya Prigogine received his Nobel prize for his studies of self organising
circulation patterns in chaotic systems and his Nobel prize acceptance
lecture will repay careful study although it is heavy going. The model is
one of sudden jumps between stable states. The quantum effect writ large.
Modern research shows that, as far as global climate is concerned, these
changes can happen over a period of a few years and that the last such
change was about 8,000 years ago when there were far fewer than 6 billion
people on earth. No worries; our large brains, language and tool making
abilities, and social structures are all adaptations driven mostly by
numerous sudden changes in climate over the last few million years.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2007, 05:59 AM
Gabrielle's Avatar
Gabrielle Gabrielle is offline
Clark Kent Club
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,238
Talking Re: Global warming is not happening


WASHINGTON, DC – Former Vice President Al Gore refused to take a “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge” today to consume no more energy than the average American household. The pledge was presented to Gore by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, during today’s global warming hearing.

Senator Inhofe showed Gore a film frame from “An Inconvenient Truth” where it asks viewers: “Are you ready to change the way you live?”

Gore has been criticized for excessive home energy usage at his residence in Tennessee. His electricity usage is reportedly 20 times higher than the average American household.

It has been reported that many of these so-called carbon offset projects would have been done anyway. Also, carbon offset projects such as planting trees can take decades or even a century to sequester the carbon emitted today. So energy usage today results in greenhouse gases remaining in the atmosphere for decades, even with the purchase of so-called carbon offsets.

“There are hundreds of thousands of people who adore you and would follow your example by reducing their energy usage if you did. Don’t give us the run-around on carbon offsets or the gimmicks the wealthy do,” Senator Inhofe told Gore.

“Are you willing to make a commitment here today by taking this pledge to consume no more energy for use in your residence than the average American household by one year from today?” Senator Inhofe asked.

Senator Inhofe then presented Vice President Gore with the following "Personal Energy Ethics Pledge:

As a believer:
ÃâÅÚà that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;

ÃâÅÚà that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;

ÃâÅÚà that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and

ÃâÅÚà that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;

I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.”

Gore refused to take the pledge.


More... Very important!

Ranking Member of the EPW Committee

Hearing on Vice President Al Gore’s Perspective on Global Warming
March 21, 2007

Thank you for holding this hearing, Madame Chairman, and to you also, Mr. Vice President, for agreeing to come before our Committee to testify about your perspectives. Your views are already known to many Americans, but today will allow us to engage in a dialogue which should be interesting.

It is my perspective that your global warming alarmist pronouncements are now and have always been filled with inaccuracies and misleading statements. Many of the peer-reviewed studies published in such journals as Nature, Geophysical Research Letters, and Science are radically at odds with your claims. I do not have time to delve into each flaw with your movie, but I do want to touch on just 2.

First, you have claimed that there is a “strong, new emerging consensus” linking global warming to an increase in hurricane intensity and duration. Yet last year, the World Meteorological Organization very clearly rejected this assertion, and other scientists agree.

Secondly, you said that East Antarctica might melt and this could raise sea levels by 20 feet, so we’re all going to die. However, according to many scientists, Antarctica is gaining ice mass, not losing it. In a 2005 study published in Science a team of researchers led by Dr. Curt Davis found an overall gain in ice mass in Antarctica over a ten year period.

And the public is catching on. Even the New York Times last week published an article about scientists, many of them your supporters, who say you have overstated your case on global warming — in fact, they warn that you may be hurting the so-called cause with your "alarmism."

Given that, it is no wonder you have turned down the chance to debate the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus. And now I understand a debate challenge has been issued by Lord Monckton of Benchley.

Now there is a reason for this.

When the debate is balanced, skeptics win, alarmists lose. In New York last week, for instance, a major debate took place to examine whether global warming is a crisis. Prior to the debate, the hand-wringers, the alarmists, in the audience outnumbered those who didn’t think it was a crisis 2 to 1. After the debate, the alarmists were outnumbered – a major turnaround in beliefs in a single night.

That shift mirrors a larger one taking place in the scientific community. Claude Allegre, a French geophysicist – Nir Shaviv, an Israeli astrophysicist – and meteorologist Reid Bryson have converted from alarmists to believing that climate variability is largely natural. In short, the ranks of converted scientists are skyrocketing.

Lastly, the cost: Global warming is now big business. Thousands of individuals and even some Fortune 100 companies stand to make tens of billions of dollars.

I was on the floor opposing the ’93 Clinton-Gore tax increase of $32 billion, but the cost of Kyoto and other CO2 reduction schemes are estimated to be over $300 billion, ten times the cost of your ’93 tax increase. And who’s paying for it? Those on fixed incomes and the poor, who as a percent of their monthly budget spend five times more on energy than the average household.

Largest tax increase in history – 10 times Clinton-Gore of ’93 and the poor pay for it… and the science isn’t there. We just can’t do that to America, Mr. Vice President… and we’re not gonna.

Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2007, 06:23 AM
Gabrielle's Avatar
Gabrielle Gabrielle is offline
Clark Kent Club
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,238
Default The coming Ass Age

No matter how much liberals try to dress up their nutty superstitions about global warming as "science," which only six-fingered lunatics could doubt, scratch a global warming "scientist" and you get a religious fanatic.

These days, new religions are barely up and running before they seize upon the worst aspects of the God-based religions.

First, there's the hypocrisy and corruption. At the 1992 Democratic Convention in New York, Al Gore said: "The central organizing principle of governments everywhere must be the environment." The environment would not, however, be the central organizing principle of Gore's own life.

The only place Al Gore conserves energy these days is on the treadmill. I don't want to suggest that Al's getting big, but the last time I saw him on TV I thought, "That reminds me we have to do something about saving the polar bears."

Never mind his carbon footprint have you seen the size of Al Gore's regular footprint lately? It's almost as deep as Janet Reno's.

But I digress. As has been widely reported, Gore's Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the energy of the average home in that state. But it's OK, according to the priests of global warming. Gore has purchased "carbon offsets."

It took the Catholic Church hundreds of years to develop corrupt practices such as papal indulgences. The global warming religion has barely been around for 20 years, and yet its devotees are allowed to pollute by the simple expedient of paying for papal indulgences called "carbon offsets."

Americans spend an extra $2.2 billion on gas a year because they're overweight, requiring more fuel in cars to carry the extra pounds. So even with all those papal indulgences, Gore may have a small carbon footprint, but he has a huge carbon butt-print.

Further proving that liberalism is a religion, its practitioners respond with the zeal of Torquemada to any dissent from the faith in global warming.

A few years ago, Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg wrote a book titled "The Skeptical Environmentalist," disputing the hysteria surrounding global warming and other environmentalist scares. Lomborg is a Greenpeace anti-war protester or, as he is described on liberal websites, he is a "young, gay vegetarian Dane with tight T-shirts." His book was cited favorably in the New York Times.

But for questioning the "science" behind global warming, Lomborg was brought up on charges of "scientific misconduct" by Denmark's Inquisition Court, called the "Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation." I take it Denmark's Ministry of Truth was booked solid that day.

The moment anyone diverges from official church doctrine on global warming, he is threatened with destruction. Heretics would be burned at the stake if liberals could figure out how to do it in a "carbon neutral" way.

Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball is featured in the new documentary debunking global warming, titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." For this heresy, Ball has received hate mail with such messages as, "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further global warming."

I'm against political writers whining about their hate mail because it makes them sound like Paul Krugman. But that's political writers arguing about ideology.

Global warming is supposed to be "science." It's hard to imagine Niels Bohr responding to Albert Einstein's letter questioning quantum mechanics with a statement like: "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further quantum mechanics."

Come to think of it, one can't imagine the pope writing a letter to Jerry Falwell saying, "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further infallibility."

If this is how global warming devotees defend their scientific theory, it may be a few tweaks short of a scientific theory. Scientific facts are not subject to liberal bullying which, by the way, is precisely why liberals hate science.

A few years ago, the New York Times ran an article about the continuing furious debates among physicists about quantum mechanics, which differs from global warming in the sense that it is supported by physical evidence and it doesn't make you feel good inside to "do something" about quantum mechanics. It is, in short, science.

Though he helped develop the theory of quantum mechanics, Einstein immediately set to work attacking it. MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark called the constant testing and arguing about quantum mechanics "a 75-year war."

That's how a real scientific theory operates. That's even how a real religion operates. Only a false religion needs hate mail, threats, courts of inquisition and Hollywood movies to sustain it.

Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2007, 03:00 PM
-88-'s Avatar
-88- -88- is offline
Clark Kent 5K Club
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,068
Default Re: Global warming is not happening

Gore and excess energy comsumption

Al Gore testified before a Senate Committee on global warming and blamed Mankind as its cause. His proposal: raise energy taxes. Regardless of the reality of global warming, I for one believe this is an excellent idea. Yes, let's raise taxes on the biggest residential consumers who use more than 2 times the energy of an average American household.

I propose the following Excess Energy Consumption Tax (EECT): All residential electric and natural gas consumption taxes should be based upon excess energy use; after all, the point of raising taxes is to discourage excessive consumption to save the planet, right? Any excess energy consumption will be defined as being twice the national average consumption. All consumption in excess of the threshold will be taxed at the multiple of the national average rate of energy use.

Using Al Gore as the example of 18,400 kWh per month in 2006. He uses 20 times the national average therefore his bill should be as follows: Assuming the national average at 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year or 890 kwhrs/month, on the first 1780 kwhr, there would be no tax, on the next 890 kwhrs he would pay a 100% EECT equal to the electric utilitys kwhr charge, on the next 890 kwhrs he would pay a 200% EECT and so on. By taking this taxation route to saving the planet we will wring out the worst and most wasteful energy consumers.

Those high energy consumption consumers have two choices: reduce consumption preferably using the most efficient electrical devices or get off the electric grid by installing solar panels or wind turbines. It should be obvious that those who now pay in excess of a $1,000 a month for electricity, never mind natural gas, have the financial means to buy small scale electrical generation (18,000 kwhr/mo or so). How long do you think Al Gore would continue to consume energy at his current rate under this taxation regime before he both reduces his consumption and then gets off the electric grid?

Of course we can quibble about how much the EECT should be, but one fact remains, if Al Gore and the rest of the wealthy 5% or 15 million people (who own 70% of the personal wealth of the US) would reduce their consumption, residential electrical use in the US (1,140 billion kwhr) would drop at least 50%, and that's a big number! Their share, 570 billion kwhrs is a lot of energy in anyones book.

Do any of you really doubt that Al Gore is not typical of the wealthy? If you doubt that the wealthy, represented by Al Gore, John Edwards or Nancy Pelosi, consume at least half of all residential electricity, do the math: 15 million people X 20 times average US household = 300 million people. This is a very conservative estimate since we know that Al Gore and the rest of the wealthy have more than one house each and most if not all of those houses are significantly larger than the average American household of 2,500 sq ft.

Now tell me if the US couldn't meet it's Kyoto targets if the wealthy like Al Gore were get off the electric grid or reduce their consumption down to that of the average American household? For those of us who dont believe its mankinds fault, we can still support this approach because such a reduction in energy use would bring the US very close to energy independence.

If this approach is successful, then it should also be applied to fuel for private jets. Remember, one transcontinental flight, one way, consumes as much fuel as two commuters driving (2 vehicles) to work for an entire year. So who is consuming the planet? Al Gore and his friends like Brad Pitt or the average American?
Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2007, 03:32 PM
Dragass's Avatar
Dragass Dragass is offline
Clark Kent 2K Club
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,728
Default Re: Global warming is not happening

People like Gore and Pitt are not Americans. They are nationless, globalist, jew-bolshivik parasites.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2007, 02:19 PM
Gabrielle's Avatar
Gabrielle Gabrielle is offline
Clark Kent Club
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,238
Default Re: Global warming is not happening

Global warming on trial
Sixth-graders decide that humans arent to blame

By Ben Ready
The Daily Times-Call

LONGMONT Humans dont cause global warming, a jury of sixth graders at Trail Ridge Middle School concluded Thursday after hearing opposing arguments from their peers.

Theyre pretty young for this kind of thinking. They did great," paleontology teacher Ken Poppe said after the 40-minute trial" in his classroom.

With Earths warming accepted as a tenet, pre-teen lawyers" and scientists" debated whether humans have caused it.

Eleven jurors listened intently as prosecutors and defendants flashed contradictory graphs tracking global temperatures, carbon dioxide levels, polar ice cap statistics, volcanic activity and sea surface temperatures all of which were found Wednesday in the schools computer lab.

The earth has warmed and cooled over many years. If its caused by CO2, why havent the charts shot up?" Poppes son and lead prosecutor Caleb argued during a rebuttal.

In a climax that sent half the class to its feet and forced the judge to call for order, opponent Monique Nem slapped a contradictory graph onto the prosecutions table.

Weve proven you wrong! The CO2 levels have shot up," she said.

The jury responded more warmly, however, to Caleb Poppes response: The graphic cited a Hawaiian source; Hawaii has volcanoes; volcanoes emit CO2.

In closing arguments, Alexia Hegy said global temperatures actually decreased in the 1960s, while the global population rose. Humans cannot be at fault, she concluded.

With the final word, defense attorney Sarah Steed countered: It all comes back to us, the people not the sun, not the weather. We need to turn off lights when we dont need them. Bikes can work. The environment can be richer."

Seven of 11 jurors decided humans are not to blame, but everyone agreed classroom debates make for fun learning.

It was a hard decision, because both sides made good points," said student Samantha Roberts.

Ken Poppe said he let students choose which side of the debate to argue. Poppe personally believes global warming is cyclical and not affected by humans, while his Colorado State University student aide David Richards believes the opposite. Both, however, said they presented both sides equally to the students leading up to Thursdays debate.

What I think is not the issue. Its what the students dig up and how they present the case," Poppe said.

Only one parent questioned Poppes decision to hold a global warming debate. That mother expected him to present Al Gores global warming movie An Inconvenient Truth" as indisputable facts, Poppe said. After he explained his neutrality in the classroom, the mom allowed her child to participate in the debate, he said.

You dont understand someones position until you can argue it to their satisfaction," Poppe said, quoting a famous physicist. I dont believe in Darwinism either, but I can argue it as well as any Darwinist."

Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.