John Coleman, KUSI meteorologist and Weather Channel founder, has written a post called The Amazing Story Behind Global Warming Scam. Mr Coleman provides us with a history of how this global warming scam started and how one of its founders of this myth, Roger Revelle, may at the end of his life realize that CO2 may not be a problem after all. It is a good read, since Algore is getting his ego inflate at the hearings yesterday and today in Washington DC today [story here]. It is sure funny that everytime there is a big discussion on this subject, it get rather cold all of sudden. Make you wonder if mother nature is trying to tell us something. 🙂
At FoxNews, there is a story in the Junk Science section called Bush Beats Gore on Climate?. It questions whether Bush has beaten Gore on the climate issue. Written by Steven Milloy, he states that “Bush appear to have beaten Al Gore again.”
He writes that climate alarmist Tom Wigley endorsed President Bush’s approach on climate change while criticizing the IPCC.
In an article entitled “Dangerous Assumptions” published in Nature on April 3, Wigley writes that the technology challenge presented by the goal of stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations “has been seriously underestimated by the IPCC, diverting attention from policies that could directly stimulate technological innovation.”
Wigley, even though he is a lead author of the most recent IPCC report, describes that document as relying on “unrealistic” and “unachievable” CO2 emissions scenarios — even for the present decade. For the period 2000-2010, the IPCC assumes that energy and fossil fuel efficiency is increasing.
Whereas the IPCC assumes in its emissions scenarios that CO2 emissions in Asia are increasing by 2.6 percent to 4.8 percent annually, China’s emissions actually are increasing at a rate of 11 percent to 13 percent annually.
Yes, a growing economy like China or even India, their emissions will go up. But, the politicians always gives these countries a pass when developing a new treaty on emissions.
Algore has been preaching to us to change our lifestyles, although he probably won’t change his, to save the earth. But, what is Bush proposing to do?
In contrast, President Bush since 2005 has promoted technological development in the form of the Asian-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate Change.
In this non-U.N. group, Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea and the United States have agreed to work together and with private-sector partners to meet goals for energy security, national air-pollution reduction and climate change in ways that promote sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction.
Hmmm. A very good approach. I found that I have to agree with the author on this point:
You almost have to feel bad for Al Gore — being outsmarted on his own home turf by George Bush. But there still might be time for Gore to set things right.
So, Algore should spend his money on something else beside his global warming rhetoric crusade. Which the story suggests. What should he spend it on? The UN’s World Food Program. It has difficulties raising fund because of the rising food prices and push to get us to use alternative fuels like bio-fuels.
I hate to tell this to Algore, that I do believe that the earth is round and man did land on the moon. I have been saying this debate needs to continue, but Algore will not have none of this. As James Murray shares:
Apparently rather than debating the merits of his argument in a rational and reasoned manner, Gore is left only with ad hominem attacks and smug condescension toward his critics.
And I would also agree with Mr Murray about Algore:
He basically calls critics insane, but that only demeans them a little bit.
But, these questions proposed by Noel Sheppard at the end of the post, should be asked to Algore by Leslie Stahl. But, they won’t.
Think she’ll ask him:
- Why he refuses to debate folks on the other side of this issue?
- How much money he’s already made selling this issue?
- How much money he stands to make if G-8 nations including the U.S. adopt carbon cap-and-trade policies?
- How tied he is directly to the primary carbon trading exchanges around the world?
- How much his presentation in “An Inconvenient Truth” is nullified by the fact that Mann’s Hockey Stick, a central component to manmade global warming theory, has been proven totally erroneous?
- That a British judge found nine factual errors in Gore’s movie?
Think any of these questions is on Stahl’s list?
No, I don’t either.
Check out my past posts:
Global Warming Cool Down?
Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore to expose Global Warming – FoxNews
The Epicycles of Global Warming
Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore to expose Global Warming – Newsbusters
Global Warming: Is it Really a Crisis?
Although I stopped taking a daily paper, I miss George Will column in the newspaper. But, I stopped taking the paper because they reduced the number of columns from the conservative perspective. So, I found Mr Will’s latest column, Conservatives Are Really More Compassionate, via Mary Katharine Ham’s blog.
Here is excerpt on how compassionate a conservative is versus a liberal:
Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.” The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
• Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
• Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
• Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
• In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
• People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and “the values that lie beneath” liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
What was the major factor – religion. A lot of conservatives’ attitude is due to the fact it is an individual responsibility rather than government responsibility. Government does a poor job at helping the poor. Just look at all the entitlement programs and what they cost. It is better that people help people. A lot gets done that way. The liberal attitude can be reinforced by the closing paragraph:
In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore‘s charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore “gave at the office.” By using public office to give other people’s money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.
Gives a new meaning on giving at the [government] office.
The disastrous hurricanes of recent years have become what some critics call the “poster child of global warming.” But an environmental policy expert at the University of Colorado says that shouldn’t be.
Roger Peelky analyzed 207 hurricanes that hit the United States between 1900 and 2005 and found that greenhouse gases had little to do with storm damage. In fact, Peelky says it boils down to a simple equation: If you build more, then you will lose more.
His findings — which are published in the Natural Hazards Review — show that had it occurred today, the most devastating storm would be the great Miami hurricane of 1926. Its path through the developed southern tip of Florida would have caused $157 billion in damage if it occurred today.
Peelky says that with each decade the potential damage for any storm doubles because of development.
This seems to make sense. Not our climate, but our development of this area leads to the potentially larger financial damage. Too bad those who believe in the global warming hoax of Algore will not be listening.
At Newsbusters, Noel Sheppard shares this blog entry: New TV Ad Addresses Dangers of Al Gore’s Global Warming Policies.
He posted two commercials by Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) that are challenge Algore and his fellow global warming activists. Check out the blog and commercials belows:
I liked how they tied this issues with the classic Wendy commercial.