It's the title of an article in yesterday's Investors.com by Phelim McAleer. It contains some stunning example of what we can expect if so-called "cap and trade" legislation ever passes in the US and what is currently going on in Britain that we can soon look forward to here. Some excerpts....
"Last week at the Society of Environmental Journalists conference in Wisconsin, former Vice President Al Gore took questions from journalists about global warming for the first time in years. I attended to ask him about factual errors in his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth."
You wouldn't know it from the sparse media coverage, but the British High Court found so many errors in Gore's movie in 2007 that British schools no longer can show the film without the equivalent of a health warning. I asked Gore if he intends to correct the record. He dodged the question, and the so-called reporters defended his right to be evasive by shutting off my mic.... The Senate is now considering a bill that Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., co-authored to create a European-style "cap and trade" system for carbon dioxide emissions, and he just won the endorsement of a key swing senator. International pressure on the United States to adopt such legislation also will increase in December at climate talks in Copenhagen.
That's bad news for taxpayers. The Obama administration reluctantly admitted last month that cap-and-trade would cost the average American family $1,761 a year.
That is a rosy prediction. A Heritage Foundation analysis pegs the cost at an average of $2,979 a year and as much as $4,600 a year by 2035. Jobs will disappear, energy prices will skyrocket, and the American Dream will become an unattainable fantasy for many......The British government is now spending nearly $10 million to air ads that feature an animated puppy drowning, a rabbit crying and a carbon monster spewing soot from the sky.
The ad is so laughable that even the journal Nature mocked it. But Britain wouldn't be spending that kind of money unless it expected a return on the investment in the form of new converts to the false doctrine of global warming."
You wouldn't know it from the sparse media coverage, but the British High Court found so many errors in Gore's movie in 2007 that British schools no longer can show the film without the equivalent of a health warning. I asked Gore if he intends to correct the record. He dodged the question, and the so-called reporters defended his right to be evasive by shutting off my mic.... The Senate is now considering a bill that Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., co-authored to create a European-style "cap and trade" system for carbon dioxide emissions, and he just won the endorsement of a key swing senator. International pressure on the United States to adopt such legislation also will increase in December at climate talks in Copenhagen.
That's bad news for taxpayers. The Obama administration reluctantly admitted last month that cap-and-trade would cost the average American family $1,761 a year.
That is a rosy prediction. A Heritage Foundation analysis pegs the cost at an average of $2,979 a year and as much as $4,600 a year by 2035. Jobs will disappear, energy prices will skyrocket, and the American Dream will become an unattainable fantasy for many......The British government is now spending nearly $10 million to air ads that feature an animated puppy drowning, a rabbit crying and a carbon monster spewing soot from the sky.
The ad is so laughable that even the journal Nature mocked it. But Britain wouldn't be spending that kind of money unless it expected a return on the investment in the form of new converts to the false doctrine of global warming."
The IS no warming. The last year in which tempuratures actually rose was 1998. Why do you think you hear so much about "climate change" these days as opposed to "warming"? Amidst all of the blather and hysteria, we can see in today's edition of Pennsylvania's Centre Daily Times that they are forecasting the possibility of "the earliest local snowfall in recorded history."
9 comments:
I've long been suspicious of the evidence for global warming.
Another article of interest on this topic that came out today is:
http://www.switched.com/2009/07/02/epa-may-have-suppressed-anti-global-warming-study/
I am with you 100% on this, but I am truly curious as to the mindset of a Gore, Kerry or Obama, or any of the rest of the lemmings, both within and without the USA. They have to know that it is all a crock, so why are they pushing this?
Hey JD!
Finally something we seem to agree on :-D
Well partly at least...
I never watched Al Gore's movie an Inconvenient Truth because it seemed too childish and propaganda-style. As time passed by, I saw bits of it here and there and noticed for myself many of the mistakes and misleading comments that are put in the movie.
Two I can remember were a small comic strip showing a Donald Duck with a melting ice cream in his hand... another being a random graph, without any axis on it, showing how CO2 emissions go up; what a piece of trash...
I learned a lot about the issue last year when I decided to spend some free time researching, spent a couple of months actually...
However, it's only quite recently that I found a video that was giving a good summary. It's quite long however since it's a 4 part series so make sure you have some time if you start watching it ;)
I am sure you're going to like it because it starts with Al Gore being portrayed as NOT being a good source!
Plus, it does show both sides of the debate, as there are scientits presenting alternative explanations to man made global warming, and they also suggest other possible outcome of climate change.
Here's the link for the first part.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo
Oh and by the way, I also agree on the danger with "cap and trade" legislation. Not sure what would be the best thing to do however; it's so hard to predict what will be best for us all... Kyoto protocol for example was a good idea in my opinion, but only in term of targets!
I am not in favour of hard legislation at all. I think it's just much better to encourage the reduction of pollution, in general, by giving incentive maybe, or investing in alternatives, and that will inevitably lead to less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, without affecting the economy.
Who likes pollution anyway? Shouldn't that be the core idea?
Let me know what you think of the vid!!
cheers
Hum, links not showing on my side, just to make sure...
Part 1
I think it was a few years ago but there was supposed to be a meeting held in the our nations capital on global warming that was canceled due to in climate weather, it was real cold and snowy?
Later, feeno
Thank you for your comments. Global warming is like a religion. It takes faith to believe in it. I'm certain that globalists would be much further along in promoting their agenda if they had approached this matter from an air/water quality issue than putting all of their eggs into the basket of the fairytale for adults known as anthopogenic global warming.
Hum, wait a minute, it's not because Al Gore is a douche who tells lies that the opposite is true however...
For Greenpeace losers who dress like polar bear to go protest, yes, I think global warming is a "religion", and they are wrong for putting so much "faith" in it. But again, the opposite is not necessarily true...
What I am getting at is that anthropogenic global warming IS true. The evidence is there, there is no doubt about it. Just to name one point:
We all agree that the Sun is the most important factor for driving the climate, right? Obviously, the energy we receive from it is enormous and therefore only a small change in the Sun's activity has an impact on Earth.
This can be observed easily by comparing the global temperature with the Sun spots, a good indication of solar activity. If you start looking at the data from 1900 and going up, you see a pretty good correlation. It's never perfect of course as there are so many factors involved, but you see that the Sun must be the main driver here.
The problem is that the correlation stops after 1980, and it becomes completely out of synch after 1990...! Of course, this does not mean, right away, that humans are responsible, that would be foolish to say of course...
That's why climatologists look at various causes and analyze their possible impacts. Up to this day, after analyzing various factors such as the natural phenomenon El Nino in 98, they arrived at the conclusion that yes, it is man-made emissions that add that little extra rise in temperature that we have been getting for decades now, as there are no other natural known causes.
It is a very slow process however, and that's why I hate hearing about catastrophic scenarios such as big coastal cities being flooded! just to name that one... The water rise right now is so slow that it would take something like 1000 years to get the level rise Al Gore and company talk about...
Watch the video I proposed ;-)
Any sort of anthropogenic global warming would be highly localized due to concentrations of asphalt, concrete and different types of exhaust emisions (IMO). I don't believe a word of it otherwise. It's cyclical.
just last week there were stories about a scientific paper in the Journal of Climate which admitted that Greenland’s supposed “extreme melt” of the past decade wasn’t even a record for the past 100 years, let alone all time – the study found a warm period in the 1920s and 30s in Greenland was 33% higher than it is now, and for entirely natural reasons that have nothing to do with CO2. Ian Wishart, author, Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming, on August 9th, 2009. Link to the full article.
@JD
Remember the hole in the ozone layer? (mentioned in the article you suggested, YES I do read what you suggest, UNLIKE you :P)
That's a good example of something that humans caused, and kind of fix (not perfectly unfortunately) by reducing the use of CFC in cooling devices.
The hole was over the south pole. Are you claiming that penguins were putting CFC into the air? ;-)
The atmosphere is always moving, no need to prove you that I hope... so the CO2 emitted at one place will not remain there. Your point is ridiculous... Plus levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are something everybody agrees on, sceptics of anthropogenic climate change or not.
So you mean you disagree with everybody on both sides of the issue?
You are right about something though, the air is warmer in cities so that's a kind of local anthropogenic warming. I live in a big city and each time I go visit my parents a few kms out of the city I always notice the difference in temperature. Only a few degrees of course but it's never the other way around, they never have warmer temperature for the same cloud conditions...
Concerning the article and its interview I would say that the book seems interesting, because it mentions the fact that the author used peer-reviewed articles to make up his mind.
However, I have doubts on the reasoning process behind his search. Take for example what he says about Greenland glaciers:
"the study found a warm period in the 1920s and 30s in Greenland was 33% higher than it is now, and for entirely natural reasons that have nothing to do with CO2 "
I don't doubt that an article in a peer-reviewed paper would say such thing. But what does it have to do with denying human made climate change?
Everybody agrees that natural causes are much more stronger than any human made process, so giving examples of warming not caused by humans is pointless.
So if the author of the books used many of these claims, he is not only cherry picking, as he said himself, but he is also misinterpreting the data!
Anyway, I think I could have stopped that answer at my CFC example, as you clearly showed once again that you have no idea what you are talking about JD, even though I agree with you for the most part on that issue.........
Post a Comment