April 12, 2007
Hollywood & the Oscar’s make me sick, in fact nothing else makes me sicker. Over-Inflated Al Gore & millionaire movie star cronies living in extravagance telling me what I must do to save the environment. How smug. How benevolent. How convenient. How arrogant they are, reinforcing their self-delusional superiority by telling us what we need to do (because we are too stoopid to live w/out their guidance) to save the world.
Why can’t we have politician’s like Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus who recently said in The Washington Times, March 10, 2007, that ”global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. The IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment…other top-level politicians” do not express their global warming doubts because “a whip of political correctness strangles [their] voice.” If you think Klaus is just some stoopid eastern european dictator, think again and read what he wrote about transforming his country out of 3rd worldism via the installation of a free market economy here http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n2/cj14n2-1.pdf, in the Cato Journal, Vol 4, #2, Fall 1994.
My suggestion to bloated Al Gore. First, let’s deal with all the extra weight his over-inflated body is carrying around. What about his “food footprint”? He might wanna donate some of his caloric allowance to feed a small African nation or two. A diet might do him some good. You don’t’ need to be a doctor to tell that he’s on the fast track to a heart-attack anyway. Isn’t he eating more than his “fair share” (a clinton-gore slogan) of food anyway? But he, and those like him, can tell us we need to cut out the transfats and force us to by making laws that tell private property owners (restaurant owners) what they can and can’t serve (transfatty oils) in their own restaurants. Gore is more filled with hot air than our Co 2 filled globally over-heated atmosphere. And if he, or anyone else don’t like certain fried foods (and you know Gore must), who the fudge is forcing them down their (or anyones) throats? In otherwords, they dont’ have any self control, or don’t believe you have any, so they force rules and laws on the rest of us to assuage their guilt. Why can’t grown adults decide for themselves what to eat or what to serve at their own restaurants? Why? Because Al Gore knows better, that is why.
And didn’t you just love the video playing behind Melissa Etheridge’s performance telling us that we should ride a bike to work. Did any of these rich, arrogant asshole rock or movie stars ride their bikes to the Oscars instead of taking jets (a major waste of oil, since other more efficient means of transportation are readily available) and limos? Hasn’t anybody noticed that most of them have half a dozen or so fancy cars and one or two multi-million dollar houses, yet they have the nerve to tell me i need to set my thermostat lower? What arrogance. What horseshit. When they give up their luxuries (they ain’t living in log cabins at the end of dirt paths in the woods growing their own tomatoes fertilized with goat dung) I’ll think about trying to sacrifice some of my luxuries too, like the recommended lowering of 2 degrees on my thermostat from 70 to 68 degrees, when Melissa Etherige rides a bike to the Emmys or Oscar’s or whatever the heck the name of that crappy show was.
What about all the extra resources used and the pollution created in the production of all their fancy limos, extra cars, oversized mansions and swimming pools, jets and things that these *sswipes have no guilt over enjoying? What about the waste and resources used in the creation of that stoopid show? If this show wasn’t a waste then I dont’ know what is. Why should the average American family that has one or two cars, one house of normal size and square footage have to conserve so the extra resources can be used (and pollution created) to allow the Gore-Set to take limos, fly around in jets, have multiple large (vacation) houses and pools and expensive cars? The answer is obvious and President Klaus of the Czech Republic said it as well as anyone.
”Environmentalism only pretends to deal with environmental protection, the global warming movement was just the latest environmental scare campaign, following on the short-lived fears of a population explosion in the 1970s and the expanding ozone hole in the 1980s. They keep shooting at a moving target. Behind the terminology is really an ambitious attempt to radically reorganize the world.” .” Mr. Klaus said this in an address for the libertarian Cato Institute.
The Czech president is right. They want to control your lives in a very total and complete way, and this is the foot in the door, and they’ll use any excuse necessary. The pattern has always been the same, create a crisis, get everyone scared, proclaim yourself the enlightened savior and use this as the excuse to seize power. Remember “the beast” in the Lord of the Flies? Remember WMD’s? Remember only 10 years left of oil supplies in the 70′s? Remember the red scare and the domino theory? Remember Fascism? That’s too far? It is? Did you read what Gore has done to intimidate opponents of his theories? If not read on. The fact is that this is nothing new, and that’s what’s so scary.
“Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are.”
(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland’s glaciers are melting.
(Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) at the…
First International Conference on Global Warming and the Next Ice Age; Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, sponsored by the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and the American Meteorological Society, August 21-24, 2001.
Al Gore also has multiple natural gas lanterns in his yard, a large heated pool, and electric gates. In 2006 the Gores averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414 kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours in 2005. During that time, Nashville Gas Company billed the family an average of $536 a month for the main house and $544 for the pool house in 2006, and $640 for the main house and $525 for the pool house in 2005. That averages out to be $29,268 in gas and electric bills for the Gores in 2006, $31,512 in 2005.
[Source for the above is TennseePolicy.org .]
Make what you want out of this information. But the truth is that Al gore doesn’t exactly live by the rules he sets for others whether or not you feel that is fair. Sure, the Gore people say that he buys “green” energy and that is more expensive (actually for Gore it isn’t as the figures from Gore’s power bill, reported by the AP, show Gore paying about 7.5 cents a kilowatt-hour – pretty much exactly what he’d be paying if he bought his juice from the big coal-fired plant up the road). But does that account for a bill that is 20 times what the average family has? And, did you know that Gore just happens to be the Chairman of the company from which he buys this “green” energy, Generation Investment Management? So, he pays a bit more for his energy from a company in which he is heavily invested in, in essence buying the electricity from himself. And what is “green” energy anyway? Well, basically it means the company (and remember Gore is the chairman) gets it’s energy from some higher percentage of solar, wind or hydroelectric sources and plants some trees (but Gore’s electric company is NES, which gets its electricity from TVA, and most of TVA’s electricity is from the fossil fuel and Co2 emitting coal). Does this justify his excessive use of utilities? Well, Gore still uses lots of energy and the fact that a higher percentage of his electricity comes from “renewable” resources than the average person does not excuse or change this fact. His excessive use means he creates a shortage for others that in turn drives up the price. Is he a hypocrite? I’ll leave that up to you to decide, but he uses a hell of a lot more energy than the average family, whom he tells to conserve, does.
(Gathered by me with the sources at end of list)
1. Rises in CO2 and the activities of man DO NOT cause global warming.
a. More Co2 does NOT lead to warming. The global average rise in temperature is roughly one degree Celsius or less at equilibrium for a doubling of the air’s carbon dioxide concentration.That is meager warming for so profound a change in the air’s carbon dioxide content. Indeed, it is within the range of climate’s natural variability.(1)
b. Any warming from the growth of greenhouse gases is likely to be minor, difficult to detect above the natural fluctuations of the climate, and therefore inconsequential. (2)
c. The last ice age ended approximately 10,000 years ago. This was followed by a period of significant global warming that lasted —5,000 years. The average temperature in this time frame was 2 to 3 degrees Celsius HIGHER THAN WE FIND TODAY. (4)
d. A whole study showing a completely insignificant relationship between C02 and global warming can be found here ( http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm ). This research has numerous graphs of climate and Co2 rates documenting it’s findings. It also has temperature and climate graphs showing the fact that NO WARMING has generally occured that can be significantly linked to the “unatural activities” of man. (12)
e. Rises in CO2 FOLLOW rises in temperature. An EXCELLENT presentation by Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, State Geologist and Director of the Kansas Geological Survey showing information gathered by Khilyuk, L.F. and Chilingar, G.V. 2006 shows that spikes in CO2 in the atmosphere FOLLOW rises in the climate temperature, and DO NOT PRECEED it! (14)
Find it Here —->
2. Global warming if it does exist, is most like the result of natural phenomenon.
a. 98% of the Co2 put into the air is put there by NATURE. (3)
b. In July 2004, the London Telegraph reported on a study by Swiss and German scientists suggesting increased radiation from the SUN – not human activity – was to blame for climate changes. (2)
c. Twentieth century temperature changes show a strong correlation with the sun’s changing energy output. (1)
d. The main greenhouse effect is natural and is caused by water vapor and clouds. (1)
e. “Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance.” (7)
3. Global Warming & GLOBAL COOLING has intemittantly and alternately been predicted repeatedly by the “experts” for over a century. (5) Popular magazines like Time, Newsweek, Fortune and other magazines carried articles in the 1970′s that fortold of a coming ice age the result of manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun. (5)
4. Al Gore’s home electric bill is 20 times more than the average American household. (6)
Like it or not, it is what it is. Draw your own conclusions.
Earth’s temperature/climate over the last few THOUSANDS of years:
Last 100 Years of Earth’s temperature (not too many trends here):
The temperature has gone DOWN for the last last few decades:(14)
6. Scientists Do/Don’t Agree!
a. “The basic agreement frequently described as representing scientific unanimity concerning global warming is entirely consistent with there being virtually no problem at all.” and, “Intimidation has mostly, but not exclusively, been used against those questioning alarmism.” by none other than Al Gore. (9).
b. One of the most heavily publicized “proof” of scientific consensus in the last decade concerning climate change has been the Oreskes Study [Oreskes, Naomi. “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” Science Vol.306, 3 December 2004 Vol. 1686] as stated by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, when results of a surveys used in these study are looked at IN DETAIL, they suggest just the OPPOSITE. For example, one question on the survey asked “To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes? This question had a mean score of 3.62 (on a scale of 1 to 7 with 1=strongly agree and 7=strongly disagree). THIS is NOT consensus especially when you find out that ONLY 9.4% of the respondents “strongly agree”. with that statement. In other words, 10% is consensus as far as the Oreskes study has been represented.
Detailed results of the (above/Oreskes) study published in Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686 , 3 December 2004 here .
c. The letter about the above results sent to Science Magazine that it refused to publish Here.
d. Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus recently said in The Washington Times, March 10, 2007, that ”global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so”.
e. During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition which states that “the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.” (12)
f. Opposition is suppressed.
“A final aspect of politicization is the explicit intimidation of scientists. It is essential
to discuss this unsavory subject – albeit briefly and incompletely. Intimidation has mostly,
but not exclusively, been used against those questioning alarmism. Victims of such
intimidation generally remain silent for reasons that will become evident. Thus, prior to
1992, then Senator Gore ran at least two hearings in order to pressure scientists who
questioned his views.” (13)
g. “the theory of currently observed global atmospheric warming as a result of increasing anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is a myth,” and has “proved to be an enduring one.” Khilyuk, L.F. and Chilingar, G.V. 2006. On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? Environmental Geology 50: 899-910. (14).
1-Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and deputy directory of Mount Wilson Observatory, received her M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in astrophysics from Harvard University.
2- Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html
4. Michael Heberling (firstname.lastname@example.org) is president of the Baker College Center for Graduate Studies in Flint, Michigan. He is also on the Board of Scholars with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan.
5. Newsweek, Time & Fortune Magazines.
7-Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia/NationalGeographic.com http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html
8. Christopher R. Scotese, Univ. of Chicago 1976 – 1983 1985 (Ph.D.), Univ. of Tx. at Arlington Full Professor 2002-present, http://www.scotese.com/ScoteseCV.htm
9. RICHARD S. LINDZEN,
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
10. Bray, D. and Hans von Storch “The Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change, 2003”
Professor Dennis Bray, GKSS Forschungszentrum, Geesthacht, Germanyhttp://w3g.gkss.de/G/mitarbeiter/bray/BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/WedPDFs/Science2.pdf
11. Benny J Peiser, Faculty of Science – Henry Cotton Campus – Liverpool John Moores University – 15-21 Webster Street – Liverpool L3 2ET UNITED KINGDOM – email@example.com – Phone: 0151 231 4338 Fax: 0151 231 4353 http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm
12. Petition Project
PO Box 1925
La Jolla CA 92038-1925 .
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Rd., Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 firstname.lastname@example.org
George C. Marshall Institute, 1730 K St., NW, Ste 905, Washington, DC 20006 email@example.com January 1998
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth’s atmosphere and climate.
Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth’s plant and animal life.
Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.
Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified.
By the way, “The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition’s organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.
13. RICHARD S. LINDZEN,Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
14. Khilyuk, L.F. and Chilingar, G.V. 2003. Global warming: are we confusing cause and effect? Energy Sources 25: 357-370.
Real global warming charts and truths Here.
Great article here —> http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams082901.asp
If you see or read just one thing on Global warming, let this be it: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Gerhard_Climate_Change.pdf
by Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, State Geologist and Director of the Kansas Geological Survey.