Replies

• 

  Phylos January 28, 2014 at 10:07pm

  Global warming is very real.  The highest yearly average temperatures in all the time since records have been kept have all been in years beginning with the number 2.  Chunks of ice larger than some New England States have broken off the polar caps.  It may be a tax scam for Big energy, but the argument for warming to be a fraud is the disinfo, not the other way around. 
  • 

    Malcolm > Phylos January 28, 2014 at 10:14pm

    It's a tax scam for SELECTED energy companies who contributed to Obama's campaign, such as G.E., who are exempt from the carbon taxes that you and others claim are so needed. Where's your undeniable proof that global warming is real, other than a video that fails to correlate with actual temperature data or a nice video of Green Peace claiming that polar bears will drown due to lack of ice and an inability to swim?? 

    THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING GOING ON IN THIS CENTURY OR THE PREVIOUS ONE. Al Gore's "Hockey Stick" used to sell the global warming agenda was proven to be a fraud. Read this and weep, and make sure you wipe your tears (since the weather may be freezing, and your tears may freeze on your face):

     

    History Of How The Hockey Stick Was Manufactured

    Posted on July 25, 2012by stevengoddard

    There wasn’t any hockey stick prior to the year 2000.

    The 1990 IPCC report showed that temperatures were much cooler than 800 years ago.

    

    www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

    Briffa’s trees showed a sharp decline in temperatures after 1940

    

    The 1975 National Academy Of Sciences report also showed a sharp decline in temperatures after 1940

    www.sciencenews.org/view/download/id/37739/name/CHILLING_POSSIBILITIES

    NCAR reported a sharp drop in temperatures after 1940

    

    denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

    The USHCN daily temperature data showed a sharp decline in temperatures after 1940

    

    GISS graphs from the eastern Arctic showed a sharp decline in temperatures after 1940

    

    Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

    GISS US temperature graphs showed a sharp drop in temperatures after 1940

    

    NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

    The Directors of CRU and NCAR forecast a continuing drop in temperatures.

    Hubert Lamb CRU Director : “The last twenty years of this century will be progressively colder“

    http://news.google.com/newspapers/

    John Firor NCAR director : “it appears we are going into a period where temperatures will be low and variable“

    http://news.google.com/newspapers/

    The CIA reported a sharp drop in temperatures, floods, droughts, dramatic climate change, and expansion of Arctic ice

    

    www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

    Everyone agreed that temperatures had plummeted since 1940, and no one doubted that the tree ring data accurately reflected the decline in temperature.

    So Hansen and Mann had a huge problem. They had to create a spike in temperatures, get rid of the tree-ring data, get rid of the Medieval Warm Period, get rid of the 1930s, get rid of the 1970s ice age scare, and get rid of the Little Ice Age.

    Warming the 1970s didn’t make much sense, so they instead chose to cool the 1930s. Step one was for Hansen to whack a few tenths of a degree off the pre-1950 temperatures.

    

    Black line is the 1975 National Academy of Sciences Northern Hemisphere plot. Red line is the current GISS northern hemisphere plot.

    Hansen getting rid of the 1910-1940 warm period gave Mann cover to claim that something was wrong with Briffa’s trees – and throw them out. This opened the door for the creation of hockey stick.

    Once the flood gates opened, they went nuts – erasing the MWP and LIA, erasing the 1930s and jacking up recent temperatures. All over the world, the past got cooler and the present got warmer.

    

    

    

    

    Over the past decade, Hansen has made massive alterations to the historical US temperature record.

    

    And now we have this completely manufactured temperature trend. The spike that we see is indeed Mann-made, and Hansen-made.

    There was never anything wrong with Briffa’s trees. Mike’s Nature Trick was much worse than it seems. The red below shows the trees that were removed. They were very similar to the uncorrupted temperature graphs, and there was never a valid reason to doubt their accuracy.

    

    The Deleted Portion of the Briffa Reconstruction « Climate Audit

    

    Of course it is all good science, and all for the good of the planet.
    • 

      Malcolm > Malcolm January 28, 2014 at 10:19pm

      
• 

  Pet Rock January 28, 2014 at 2:28am

  thank you Malcolm 
  • 

    Malcolm > Pet Rock January 28, 2014 at 5:04am

    I AM NO DIFFERENT THAN ANYONE ELSE. THE EXCEPTION IS I CAN ADMIT THAT I HAVE BEEN FOOLED BEFORE BY GLOBALIST BULLSH!T CON ARTISTS (regardless of how good looking or certified non-racist or non-homophobic the con artist may be per political credentials, or regardless of how good they make me feel about myself  that I voted for them).

    I think it's about time people get off of this "trendy" and "non-racist/non-homophobic" bandwagon and call these people out for what these people really are:

    CON ARTISTS WHO SEEK TO GRAB YOUR WALLET AND DRAIN YOU BANK ACCOUNT. 

    And it has nothing to do with their skin color or the style of sex they like, regardless of whether such sex involves their wife in the White House or with a Satan-worshiping same-sex partner who is also a mayor of a major United States city (top three per population).

    I find nothing to LOL about this, except for the bullsh!t evidence displayed on Ashtar from a government source that still claims that the Roswell incident was due to a weather balloon and that MLK was murdered by a good-ole boy with possible KKK roots (and no possible connection to the U.S. government). 
• 

  Malcolm January 28, 2014 at 2:25am

  The truth hurts.

  Al Gore Getting Rich Spreading Global Warming Hysteria With Media’s Help

  

  Americans willing to look at the manmade global warming debate with any degree of impartiality and honesty are well aware that those spreading the hysteria have made a lot of money doing so, and stand to gain much more if governments mandate carbon dioxide emissions reductions.

  In fact, just two months ago, ABC News.com estimated soon-to-be-Nobel Laureate Al Gore's net worth at $100 million, which isn't bad considering that he was supposedly worth about $1 million when he watched George W. Bush get sworn in as president in January 2001.

  Talk about your get-rich-quick schemes, how'd you like to increase your net worth 10,000 percent in less than seven years?

  Fortunately for the world's foremost warm-monger - a term I'd love to see become part of the parlance concerning what, in the long run, will likely be viewed as the greatest con ever perpetrated on the American people - his current wealth represents a mere pittance of what it will be if governments around the world are scared into all of his preposterous recommendations.

  With that in mind, Deborah Corey Barnes published a marvelous piece at Human Events Wednesday that would be rather sobering for folks on both sides of the aisle if only a global warming obsessed media would be willing to share the information with the citizenry (emphasis added throughout):

  Al Gore's campaign against global warming is shifting into high gear. Reporters and commentators follow his every move and bombard the public with notice of his activities and opinions. But while the mainstream media promote his ideas about the state of planet Earth, they are mostly silent about the dramatic impact his economic proposals would have on America.And journalists routinely ignore evidence that he may personally benefit from his programs. Would the romance fizzle if Gore's followers realized how much their man stands to gain?

  Of course it would, Deborah. That's why media have largely been mute on this matter.

  With that as pretext, Barnes addressed Gore's cap-and-trade carbon scheme, and how he is well-positioned to benefit if governments across the globe implement it:

  Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. "Generation Investment Management, purchases -- but isn't a provider of -- carbon dioxide offsets," said spokesman Richard Campbell in a March 7 report by CNSNews.
  
  GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.
  
  [...]

  Clearly, GIM is poised to cash in on carbon trading. The membership of CCX is currently voluntary. But if the day ever comes when federal government regulations require greenhouse-gas emitters -- and that's almost everyone -- to participate in cap-and-trade, then those who have created a market for the exchange of carbon credits are in a position to control the outcomes. And that moves Al Gore front and center. As a politician, Gore is all for transparency. But as GIM chairman, Gore has not been forthcoming, according to Forbes magazine. Little is known about his firm's finances, where it gets funding and what projects it supports.

  After addressing how intimately tied to the investment firm Goldman Sachs Gore and his GIM associates are, Barnes presented further nefarious connections that make Ken Lay's Enron network in the '90s look almost amateurish:

  We do know that Goldman Sachs has commissioned the World Resources Institute (affiliated with CCX), Resources for the Future, and the Woods Hole Research Center to research policy options for U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases. In 2006, Goldman Sachs provided research grants in this area totaling $2.3 million. The firm also has committed $1 billion to carbon-assets projects, a fancy term for projects that generate energy from sources other than oil and gas. In October 2006, Morgan Stanley committed to invest $3 billion in carbon-assets projects. Citigroup entered the emissions-trading market in May, and Bank of America got in on the action in June.

   Some environmentalist groups disparage Gore and his investment banker friends. They say the Gore group caters to others who share their financial interest in the carbon-exchange concept. The bulletin of the World Rainforest Movement says that members of a United Nations-sponsored group called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stand to gain by approving Gore's carbon-trading enterprise. The IPCC has devised what it says is a scientific measure of the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming. In fact, the critics charge, the IPCC sanctions a mechanism that mainly promotes the sham concept of carbon exchange. 

  The global non-profit organization Winrock International is an example of one IPCC panel member that seeks out groups and individuals with an interest in carbon trading. Arkansas-based Winrock provides worldwide "carbon-advisory services." Winrock has received government grants from the EPA, USAID and the Departments of Labor, State and Commerce, as well as from the Nature Conservancy (whose chairman used to be Henry Paulson). Winrock argues that cap-and-trade carbon trading is the best way to prevent a climate change crisis. But consider this: When a non-profit group takes money from oil companies and advocates drilling for oil as a solution to energy shortages, it is certain to be attacked as a tool of Big Oil. So far, the groups linked to Al Gore have avoided similar scrutiny.

  Why is that? Why does everything Gore is involved in avoid government and media scrutiny?

  While you ponder, there's more:

  In June 2006, the World Bank announced that it, too, had joined CCX, saying that it intended to offset its greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing emission credits through CCX. The bank says its credits would contribute to restoring 4,600 hectares of degraded pastureland in Costa Rica. Somehow, CCX has figured out that this is an amount equivalent to 22,000 metric tons of emission that the bank calculates are created by its activities.
  
  A World Bank blog called the Private Sector Development Blog regularly features items touting Al Gore and the concept of carbon credits. Its articles typically announce corporate "green" initiatives in which carbon credits are said to cancel out "bad" CO2 emissions released by a company's activities.
  
  In fact, the World Bank now operates a Carbon Finance Unit that conducts research on how to develop and trade carbon credits. The bank works with Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and Spain to set up carbon-credit funds in each country to purchase emission credits from firms for use in developing countries. In addition, it runs the Carbon Fund for Europe helping countries meet their Kyoto Protocol requirements. These funds are traded on the ECX (half of which is owned by CCX, itself a creature of Al Gore's firm, Generation Investment Management). Can we connect the dots?
  
  [...]

  So it seems banks and investment houses are going green, eager to enter an emerging emissions market. Meanwhile, environmentalists are discovering new ways to get rich while believing they are saving polar bears and rainforests.

  Add it all up, Al Gore really is perpetrating a scheme that could end up being much more costly to Americans than anything Ken Lay did. As if that's not bad enough, our media are totally complicit rather than doing their jobs exposing the scam.

  I don't know about you, but suddenly I need another shower.

  
  
  Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/03/al-gore-getti...