posted on February 3, 2007 10:37:58 AM new
Warming Report Builds Support for Action
Updated 1:07 PM ET February 3, 2007
By ANGELA CHARLTON
PARIS (AP) - Fear of runaway global warming pushed 46 countries to line up Saturday behind France's appeal for a new environmental body that could single out _ and perhaps police _ nations that abuse the Earth.
"It is our responsibility. The future of humanity demands it," President Jacques Chirac said in an appeal to put the environment at the top of the world's agenda.
He spoke at a conference a day after the release in Paris of a grim report from the world's leading climate scientists and government officials that said global warming is so severe that it will "continue for centuries" and that humans are to blame.
posted on February 3, 2007 04:38:29 PM new
Liberals Right Again ....? Nope, Liberals are on the wrong side of right.
This from a government of surrender monkeys that couldn't even control muslim rioters in the streets of Paris.
What a laugh.
The global warming myth.
Written by Ray Haynes
The story in Genesis reveals the sin of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were told not to eat the “fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden,” or they “would surely die.” When the serpent was talking to Eve, he said eat the fruit, you won’t die, “you will be like God.” She and Adam ate, wanting to be like God, and then they figured out they had made a huge mistake, and in the spirit of a true husband, Adam told God that Eve made him do it. (Actually, blaming the wife wasn’t the sin, although most women can relate to that problem). The first sin was the desire to be like God.
The problem with most of the environmentalists is that they suffer from that sin. They think that mankind is God, and can actually affect the rising of the sun, the coming of the rain, and the direction of the wind. The fact is that nature existed before us, and will exist after us, and the balance of nature is not under our control. It will survive, in balance, no matter what we do.
Interestingly enough, both of the major theories about the origin of the species confirm this fact. If you believe in the biblical story of creation, God says that man will have dominion over “birds … and over all the earth and every creeping thing,” which means these things don’t have dominion over us. God will end things when he is ready, no matter what we do. If you are an evolutionist, you believe that natural selection will cause our demise when something better on the evolutionary scale comes along. Both ways, nature resolves its problems by itself.
Those who believe in global warming think that we can actually make long term permanent changes to the global climate by driving around too much. Once again, no matter what you believe there is actually no evidence to support that claim.
There is evidence that the earth is getting slightly warmer right now—but the earth has been warm before, and then got cold. Think about the dinosaur age and the ensuing ice age. Do you think the T-Rex caused the ice age with its SUVs?
More recently, the warmest time in the last 1000 years was in the 12-14th centuries. People weren’t generating much in the way of greenhouse gasses in that mainly agrarian society—unless you count the methane gas caused by the prevalent bovine indigestion at the time.
In the last century, we got warmer from about 1930 to 1970, cooled off for a while, and we have been warming up slightly since then. By and large, however, these changes have been small, and not caused by human activity, but by the vagaries of nature.
In fact, a warmer globe causes a little more evaporation of water, which, by the way, creates more clouds, which, by the way, cools down the surface of the planet. This is a bit of a simplification of what happens in the weather, but, suffice it to say, nature has a way of fixing things. We are not God, and we cannot permanently change things.
So—our environmental friends who claim that government regulations can stop global warming are like the witch doctors who say that their incantations can cause it to rain or stop the wind. Their hocus-pocus is meaningless babble, and their actions are literally spitting into the wind. The problem is when they spit into the wind, it comes back and hits us.
The fact is that the sun will come up tomorrow no matter what the environuts do. The wind will blow, and the rain will come no matter what dance they do. In fact, the globe will warm and cool, no matter how much you drive your SUV. So happy motoring to you.
About the Writer: Ray Haynes is the former assemblyman for California's 66th Assembly District.
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
posted on February 3, 2007 06:35:20 PM new
Mingo, the naysayers here will ignore the work of several hundred international scientists, a report which gathered data from all over the world for several years and was checked, rechecked and triple checked before being released in favor of ill informed editorials written by a conservative hacks. I hate to say it, but trying to convince them is a fool's errand. They'll all be pushing up daisies by the time this comes to fruition and couldn't care less about the world their great grandchildren will inhabit.
posted on February 3, 2007 07:19:06 PM newLiberals Right Again
Apparently mingopig hasn't poked her head out the door the past two days. Let me update you. It's -20 degrees Fahrenheit as we speak and going down. It is forcast that we will have the coldest stretch of temps in over a decade.
.
.
.
"Unfortunately there are levels of Stupid that just can't be cured!!" The current Demomoron motto.
posted on February 4, 2007 06:19:59 AM new "I agree profe but "naysayers"???"
Yes, "Naysayers"... it's a perfect description.
The Bush administration's propaganda team supported by discredited scientists and funded by energy interests rely on these "naysayers" to lap up their lies without a critical thought. To carry on their campaign of deception and disinformation they need an audience of non-thinking "naysayers"...such as we see here.
posted on February 4, 2007 09:30:45 AM new
Weather in a portion of the United States is not indicative of whether the Earth is warming. As the National Climatic Data Center noted in its preliminary 2006 report, "[f]ollowing the warmest year on record for the globe in 2005, the annual global temperature for 2006 is expected to be sixth warmest since recordkeeping began in 1880." That report also noted that "the 2006 annual average temperature for the contiguous United States (based on preliminary data) will likely be 2 [degrees] F (1.1 [degrees] C) above the 20th Century mean, which would make 2006 the third warmest year on record."
posted on February 4, 2007 03:34:44 PM new
Exactly, coincoach. To walk outside when it's 10 degrees and say "what global warming?" is the height of ignorance.
posted on February 4, 2007 04:16:35 PM new
And of course there are just as many 'scientists' on the opposite side of this so called 'global warming'. Those the lefties don't want to acknowledge. LOL
And about 20 years ago...these same 'leftie' supporting 'scientists' were CLAIMING our world was entering an ICE AGE.
Most agree we are CURRENTLY experiencing some global warming. Where the disagreement comes in is in whether or not HUMANS are causing it.
And that's where the 'lefties' 'scientists' HAVE NO PROOF....only computer SPECULATION/projections/their BEST GUESSES. LOL
Oh...but if the 'world body' says it's so...then who needs verifiable PROOF? Surely not the leftie scientists.
posted on February 4, 2007 04:28:44 PM new
LOL....name calling and LYING is what you're best at sybil.
And old Chirac has publically stated he wants the US to be FINED if we don't play along. LOL LOL
As I've said over and over....our radical liberals/environmentalists have always wanted to be 'europeans'. Doesn't matter what the cost to our Nation would be....doesn't matter what effect it would have on our economy....doesn't matter that those countries who ARE currently paying though the nose aren't making a 'global' difference. Doesn't matter that those who signed this treaty haven't met their promised limits.\
posted on February 4, 2007 04:38:29 PM new
And the REST of mingo's article.
============
But key world polluters _ including the United States, China, India and Russia _ steered clear.
Without naming the United States directly, Chirac expressed frustration that "some large countries, large rich countries, still must be convinced." They are "refusing to accept the consequences of their acts," he said.
Chirac, 74, is seeking to leave his mark on international affairs before he leaves office, likely in May, though his environmental record over 12 years as France's president is spotty.
Former Vice President Al Gore, whose documentary on the perils of global warming has garnered worldwide attention, cheered Chirac's efforts.
"We are at a tipping point," Gore said in recorded remarks shown at the conference. Friday's report was "yet another warning about the dangers we face. We must act, and act swiftly. ... Such action requires international cooperation."
Many questions remain about the proposed environment body, including whether it would have the power to enforce global climate accords.
Chirac's appeal says only that the body should "evaluate ecological damage" and "support the implementation of environmental decisions."
Many countries have failed to meet targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions laid out in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
The United States has never ratified the pact.
In a published interview earlier this week, Chirac warned that the United States could face a carbon tax on its exports if it does not sign global climate accords.
"We have 700 multilateral environmental agreements, and none of them seem to work. Environmental institutions are extremely weak," said Cristian Maquieira, a Chilean government environment official, said,
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Denisov said creating a new environment organization would require too much time and money. Instead, he urged expanding the powers of the existing U.N. Environment Program.
Several participants called for taxing actions that hurt the environment, or labeling products according to how ecologically clean they are.
U.S. economist Jeremy Rifkin urged governments, businesses and activists to work together to create a "post-carbon" era.
"Climate change is going to be more responsible for bringing about a borderless world than free trade," Rifkin said.
posted on February 4, 2007 04:51:36 PM new
Much of the scientific community agrees that human activity plays a good sized role in global warming. A smaller group of scientists place much greater emphasis on the earth's natural temperature fluctuations. There are NOT just as many scientists on the opposite side, as you say. The vast majority believe there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed ASAP. To my knowledge, these concerned scientists are just that and not particularly politcally motivated to say such things. Not everything can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, but many brilliant scientists have evaluated lots of empirical and solid evidence that climate change is a real danger. These EXPERTS gave their opinions based on their knowledge and experience. Not every issue should be, or is politically generated, despite what you think.
posted on February 4, 2007 04:59:13 PM new
Not politically motivated????
Just who pays their salaries, in your opinion?
WHO benefits from their claims, in your opinion?
The are NOT all 'scientists'....and any one can read what different 'fields of employment' some of these so called scientists work in. Like the ones who supported gore's CLAIMS....vs the ones who have disagree with most of what his 'scientists' have said. And called it anything but SCIENCE. LOL
Nope....just as when they were CLAIMING we were entering an ice age....and as still is going on now....[b]they PAYCHECKS won't continue unless they can convince enough fools this is something urgent...and not just the 'regular cycle' of our earth. As it's always been...and always will be ...with or without human intervention.
Yep...they want to keep their paychecks/grants/donations from environmenal radical groups FREELY FLOWING.
And coincoach....do you honestly agree with chirac in that this so called global warming should be at the TOP of our concerns????
Not nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran/terrorists?
But a THEORY that hasn't been PROVED beyond a reasonable doubt?
I have a difficult time seeing you as holding chirac's position.
posted on February 4, 2007 07:49:39 PM new
Chirac has no influence on my opinions, nor does France but even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. Enough serious information is available to cause great concern and the fact that Chirac or the French agree, does not change that.
posted on February 4, 2007 07:54:27 PM new
You can be as 'concerned' as you want to be as long as you and your ilk aren't allowed to damage our economy in any manner.
Talk all you want.
Doesn't make weather people into scientists. LOL
edited to ask again:
"Many countries have failed to meet targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions laid out in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol."
Why would that be, in your opinion??? lol
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 4, 2007 07:57 PM ]
posted on February 4, 2007 09:45:15 PM new
Just as I thought. Not one dumbassed left winger is offering a solution to the problem. Just some BS "reduce green house gases."
How would they do it and what would they eliminate and what would they replace it with?
Again, never an answer. Then there is coincoach. First works for 20 years with Aids, now is a global scientist. Talk about no credibility.
.
.
.
"Unfortunately there are levels of Stupid that just can't be cured!!" The current Demomoron motto.
posted on February 4, 2007 10:31:23 PM new
Stone--I have never claimed to be an expert on climate changes---unlike you who is an expert on everything. That is why I don't have the solution---I leave that to the experts.
"Then there is coincoach. First works for 20 years with Aids, now is a global scientist. Talk about no credibility."
What has working with AIDS patients to do with my credibility, you jerk. Crawl back into your own bunghole! Your level of stupid just went off the charts.
posted on February 4, 2007 10:48:52 PM new
Another article that spoke of gore's movie that I enjoyed reading:
The Inconvenient Truth About Al Gore
Written By: Joseph Bast
Published In: The Heartlander
Publication Date: July 1, 2006
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say "we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts."
¯ It is a fitting retort to Al Gore's new movie about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth."
¯
A friend invited me to attend a screening of "An Inconvenient Truth" when it first arrived in Chicago a few weeks ago. The event was sponsored by an environmental advocacy group and the theater was filled with Gore fans. They seemed to love it. I found it disturbing.
The Real Al Gore?
The film is one part Al Gore biopic and one part pseudo-documentary about global warming. The parts about Gore portray him to be deeply thoughtful, committed to family and the pursuit of the truth--even unpopular truths--and still upset about losing the 2000 presidential election.
During the biographical parts we hear Gore talking softly about important moments in his life, lessons he learned, and values he holds dear. We hear about his son nearly dying in an accident, his sister dying of lung cancer, and his lost election. We watch as he walks through airports, onto stages before cheering crowds, and around the family farm, or sits in shadows, apparently deep in thought.
For those who already admire him, these parts of the movie are likely to build a deeper bond of trust and confidence in Gore as a man of good character. Even those who don't like him may find him less wooden and doctrinaire than he appeared during the presidential campaign.
Credible on Climate?
Few people would want to watch a movie about Al Gore's life, but substantially more are interested in global warming, the coming global calamity that could cause, or perhaps already is causing, droughts and floods, scorching hot summers and fierce winter storms, rising sea levels, hurricanes, species extinctions, deformed frogs, and a long list of other terrible things. At least, that's what Gore thinks, and what newspapers serve up on an almost-daily basis.
I have difficulty taking Gore seriously on environmental issues ever since it was reported that Ted Kaczynski, the murderous "Unabomber," kept a heavily marked-up copy of Gore's book, Earth in the Balance, in his tar-paper shack and liberally borrowed from it when writing his anti-humanity treatise. There's even a Web site (http://www.crm114.com/algore/quiz.html) that offers a quiz to see if you can tell Gore's words from Kaczynski's. I bet you can't.
Was that a cheap shot? Maybe, but no more so than Gore's repeated assertion that only oil company stooges dissent from his alarmist views on climate change. At one point he compares scientists who disagree with him with apologists for the tobacco industry.
So what are we to make of (in alphabetical order) Dr. Tim Ball at the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Robert Balling at Arizona State University, Dr. Bob Carter at James Cook University in Australia, Dr. Randall Cerveny at Arizona State University, Dr. John Christy at the University of Alabama, Dr. Robert Davis at the University of Virginia, Dr. Christopher Essex at the University of Western Ontario, Dr. Oliver Frauenfeld at the University of Colorado, Dr. Wibjƶrn KarlĆØn at Stockholm University, and Dr. Christopher Landsea at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)?
And what about Dr. David Legates at the University of Delaware, Dr. Henry Linden at IIT, Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT, Dr. Ross McKitrick at the University of Guelph, Dr. Patrick Michaels at the University of Virginia, Dr. Dick Morgan at the University of Exeter, Dr. Tim Peterson at Carleton University, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. at the University of Colorado, Dr. Eric Posmentier at Dartmouth College, Dr. Willie Soon at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama, and Dr. Boris Winterhalter at the University of Helsinki?
All are respected authorities on climatology, working at respected universities, who appear regularly in peer-reviewed science journals ... and they all dispute Gore's alarmist claims.
So who are you going to believe, politician Al Gore or real scientists?
Slick Propaganda
Gore's movie substitutes vivid images of the alleged effects of global warming for an accurate account of the scientific debate. We see glaciers calving into the sea, giant storms sweeping through resort areas, burning deserts, and even a cartoon polar bear swimming aimlessly, searching for a place to rest.
Problem: All of the events pictured in this movie have been occurring since before human activities could possibly have caused them.
Glaciers have calved into seas for millions of years, storms obviously predate modern civilization and our emissions, and real-life polar bears know better than to head out into open water during the Arctic summer. At any given time in Earth's history, some glaciers have been expanding while others have been shrinking. (We have accurate information on only 42 of the approximately 160,000 glaciers presently in existence.)
Early in the movie, Gore shows us images of the disappearing snow cap atop Mount Kilimanjaro and blames the loss on global warming. Wrong. Scientists know temperatures at the top of Kilimanjaro have been falling, not rising, and the disappearing snow is due to changes in land use at the bottom of the mountain, causing drier air to rise up the mountain's side.
Later we see ice melting in the Arctic, Greenland, and the Antarctic. More evidence of global warming? Not necessarily. Scientists say temperatures in the Arctic were higher during the 1930s and the current melting is probably part of a natural cycle caused by ocean currents, not greenhouse gases. And only small parts of Greenland and the Antarctic are melting: Snow and ice are accumulating as rapidly in other parts, for a net loss of around zero.
More Deceptions
Two of the worst deceptions in "An Inconvenient Truth" involve the global temperature record and rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. Gore walks across the stage as red lines plot temperature and CO2 concentrations, showing a close correlation across many years and a rapid increase in the past century. It is a triumph of data manipulation.
Viewers can't tell from the film whether temperature increases follow or precede rises in CO2. If they precede, then Gore's entire thesis is disproved.
In fact, the historical record shows temperature increases often have preceded increases in CO2.
No mention of that inconvenient fact in this movie.
Viewers also can't see the scales Gore is using for his graph. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased over time, but by only 87 parts per million since 1870 (according to the United Nations Environment Programme). If the vertical scale of Gore's graph started at zero, the increase would have been too small for viewers to see.
The temperature record Gore uses is the so-called "hockeystick"¯ graph produced by Dr. Michael Mann, now at Pennsylvania State University. Mann's methodology has been attacked in peer-reviewed journals, forcing him to issue a partial withdrawal of his findings.
Other, more accurate, reconstructions of the historic temperature record show substantially more variation in the past, revealing that today's temperatures are not unprecedented.
The Debate Is Not Over
There are plenty of other errors and exaggerations in Gore's movie, which people more expert than I are documenting and exposing.
Suffice it to say, "An Inconvenient Truth" contains very little truth, and a big helping of propaganda.
Does Al Gore himself really believe the hype he tries to sell in this movie?
Those who have watched him give his PowerPoint presentation and have discussed it with him say he does.
The Unabomber also was absolutely sincere in his belief that technological progress was an evil that had to be stopped, with violence if necessary.
Fortunately, Kaczynski didn't have access to the incredible powers of the Presidency of the United States. Unfortunately, Al Gore still aspires to that post.
posted on February 4, 2007 11:24:16 PM new
Canada Free Press?
The website where the editor McLeod thinks 9/11 was a Mafia plot and not the work of terrorists?
The website where editor McLeod plagiarized the satirical online journal The Onion in a 2005 article about Cardinal Maradiaga apparently unaware that the source article itself was parody and not a genuine interview.
The website with the silly woman from the O'Reilly Factor who had the phony sexual harassment case at SFU in Vancouver against the swim coach ...... and was then later charged with criminal harassment in another unrelated case.
The website that claimed that Michael Moore would be charged with interfering in Canada's election?
posted on February 4, 2007 11:40:10 PM new
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a leading critic of those who insist that humans are causing global warming, contends the science isn't settled, and he says major policy changes should stem from fact, not consensus.
Critics like Inhofe say media hype and leftist political agendas -- not science -- are steering the national discussion on global warming.
"This is a political document, not a scientific report, and it is a shining example of the corruption of science for political gain," Inhofe said on Friday.
[url]
"The media has failed to report that the IPCC Summary for Policymakers [the document released on Friday] was not approved by scientists but by U.N. political delegates and bureaucrats," he added, noting that the IPCC will release the actual scientific report until May 2007.
posted on February 4, 2007 11:49:35 PM newU.N. Climate Summary Designed to DUPE, Critics say
[url]
Some climate researchers and environmental scientists previously associated with the IPCC claim the public relations summary of the panel's fourth assessment report distorts the actual scientific findings and that the discrepancies are driven by a political agenda.
The IPCC Summary for Policymakers, roughly 20 pages long, is primarily the work of political appointees, not of scientists, according to Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT.
The full text will not be available for another three months, as two further documents making up the fourth assessment report are scheduled to be released in April and May.
Lindzen specialized in the study of clouds and water vapor for IPCC's third assessment report, which was released in 2001.
He told Cybercast News Service the rules for the fourth assessment report specifically require changes to be made to the body that will bring it into line with the summary statement.
"If you were doing that with a business report, the federal trade commission would be down your throat," Lindzen said.
"These people are openly declaring that they are going to commit scientific misconduct that will be paid for by the United Nations," Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl wrote on his website last week.
"If they find an error in the summary, they won't fix it," Motl said. "Instead, they will 'adjust' the technical report so that it looks consistent."
The relevant provision, which appears in an appendix of the IPCC's principles, also attracted the attention of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a global warming skeptic and long-time critic of the IPCC process.
In a statement Inhofe slammed what he termed the "systematic and documented abuse" of the scientific process by the IPCC and called for changes that would mitigate against relevant scientific evidence from being excluded from its reports.
Are YOU a Bunghole?
