Heh. The Gore-acal scores!



Hey!

Whatzzzz up?

Gore was brilliant today. I hope he runs. We need a President that looks to the future.

See the related post in the China Rising forum. What/how China chooses to go is, due to its size and the size of its population of IMMENSE significance. In these things (as in others, perhaps) SIZE matters.

Good choice. A bloated fatass, with his piggish busybody wife, their overpopulating ways and energy hog lifestyle preaching to me why I ought to sell my truck and buy energy credits from his carbon scheme.

I'd vote for an honest environmentalist first. Ted Kazynski perhaps.

I'll give you the priggish wife part, but hardly any more priggish than Nancy or Laura.

The rest of your emotional rant is unmitigated cowdoody.

I'd think you'd be embarassed posting debunked claptrap as if you believe it.

Or are you REALLY that stupid?

That's a distinct possibility.

My favorite little Bee!

I know that you and I seldom agree on anything (except the New York Giants), but on this topic you are
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off target. Gore is a frakking moron, and I thought his statements on global warming were pathetic...just as I think he is.....pathetic.

Did you read the links that I posted on this topic 2-3 days ago? I would highly recommend that you read them. They contain many SCIENTIFIC FACTS....that directly conflict with Gore's hysteria. Maybe Gore can explain why the Earth's temperature was greater during the Med-evil era than it is now? And that would be only one of about 100 questions I would ask the idiot!

Scientific evidence has concluded that the peak of the ice age occured 20,000 years ago and we have been in a overall warming trend since that period. IMHO, it is totally idiotic to believe that we (mankind) can stop a natural occurance. Ranks right up there with a mouse trying to stop the forward motion of a bulldozer.

FYI, I am all for eliminating fossil fuels and anything carbon related..but living in the realistic world....it won't happen for ....long....long time. However, in the meantime we got to live with what we have and do the best we can for the enviroment. I just don't buy into this hysteria that Gore and others like him are preaching.

Environment

An Inconvenient Hoax



Al Gore may be warning of climate breakdown, but what hope the truth when he's up against such a well-oiled machine? asks Paul Sheridan

Scientists at "world leading" organisations keep banging on about how we humans have pumped all that stuff into the air and that droughts are worse because of it and ice caps are melting and it will only get worse if some big changes don't happen soon. Scary stuff and hard to stomach, right?

What about then those other organisations, like the 39 of them in the UK and US that ExxonMobil last year generously gave US$2.9 million to, to tell us what's really going on - like that the carbon dioxide that comes from the things Exxon's sells can't really be blamed for anything other than making our lives easier? Ckn' oath. Clears things right up, right?

Then there's the politicians. Our Prime Minister, John Howard, says that he's accepted that climate change, or global warming, is real and does represent a challenge, but says he's sceptical about a lot of the more gloomy predictions. He wouldn't be alone in that view, would he?

Because then there's Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor of California, and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair getting together recently and instead of shooting some Commies like Arnie used to on screen, they laid down some targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They're checking the earth's pulse and are worried about those gloomy predictions.

So where do we start with this climate change thing when there's politicians telling us its full on and others telling us its not? There's scientists and then there's scientists too, right? There's so many 'what ifs' involved, how do average punters sort out what's what?

Watch the movie.

In An Inconvenient Truth, failed presidential candidate Al Gore (I mean, 'robbed' isn't as obvious a word to use as he obviously didn't work out that Jeb Bush would give his brother a hand in 2000 did he? He's his BROTHER, work it out) takes us on a graphic tour of how smart scientists came to realise man made climate change is alarming enough to tell us that unless significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions - the main culprit - are achieved worldwide within the next decade or so, damage will be irrevocable and life threatening.

Gore's documentary of a lecture series that he has been traveling the US, Europe and parts of Asia with gives a complex issue much needed historical perspective. For many viewers, climate change is a recent phenomena. Most people born before 1980 would think it the same thing as the hole in the ozone layer, while those born after 1980 think global warming and globalisation are the same thing.

Gore is surprisingly engaging as he carefully explains the studies that have been occurring since the 1950s of the planet's heating and cooling cycles and the growing concern about the contribution of carbon dioxide from man made sources to disruptions in that natural cycle.

Luckily, An Inconvenient Truth is not really about Al Gore. He does shed some of the stiffness that made him the butt of jokes while he was, as he describes himself, the man who "used to be the next President of the United States".

The focus of the film is Earth and the drama builds to the point where, for the first time in history, viewers gasp in horror at a graph. That graph, admittedly, is an impressive one as it charts the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere over the past 650,000 years found in ice cores. From way back then to recently the concentrations of Co2 vary from season to season in a regular pattern until Gore hops onto a forklift and rises up many feet off the ground to point out where our man made contributions have sent the graph and indeed where it will keep heading - up - unless action is taken.

The sort of action needed is, according to those leading scientists, nothing less than a 60 per cent reduction in current carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. To do this is going to take leadership, not risks, because the business case for this type of action has been made by a coalition of leading companies, such as BP, Westpac, Visy, Origin Energy and the Insurance Australia Group.

Early action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be delivered while GDP grows at a strong rate of 2.1 per cent per annum over the period to 2050, those businesses argue.

But the sad reailty is that An Inconvenient Truth will become fodder for the cynical, ideologically facile sniping that often passes for political discourse these days.

There is no doubt it has opened more eyes, started more conversations and sparked new debate but at the end of the day An Inconvenient Truth is a film that should never have been made.

It is, after all, the job of political leaders and policymakers to protect against possible future calamities, to respond to the findings of science and to persuade the public that action must be taken to protect the common interest.

But you only have to glance over to our own Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane who was unimpressed by the film's assertions. He said that Al Gore was just here to sell tickets to a movie. "It's just entertainment," he said. What a hoax.


Al Gore: the hypocrisy grows and grows
March 7th, 2007 — budsimmons


Al Gore: the hypocrisy grows and grows

Thomas Lifson

Kudos to Dan Riehl for his continuing stream of excellent work on Al Gore. His latest: “Al Gore: an inconvenient tax scam“



From taxation web UK - looks like something of a tax dodge.

Investors

Investors in Carbon Credits Partnerships are generally likely to be persons with substantial income or capital gains that they wish to shelter from tax - Premiership footballers, investment bankers and directors of the top 100 companies are prime candidates. The potential savings in any example are calculated on the taxpayer being liable at the 40% tax rate.

Partnerships are effectively transparent for UK direct tax purposes, as is a Limited Liability Partnership, in that each partner, or member of the LLP, is usually treated for tax purposes as if he incurred his proportionate share of any partnership trading profit or loss himself. A member of a trading partnership which incurs a loss would usually be able to relieve his share of the trading losses against his income or capital gains.

Expenditure in the first year will almost inevitably give rise to losses which will be, with most partnerships, close to 100% of the investor’s subscription.

I remain convinced that Al Gore will become even more of a laughingstock, and ultimately discredit his cause with the grst majority of Americans.
Hat tip: Larwyn

Posted in Gore hypocracy, Hollywood green celebs, global warning hoax, Al Gore, Global Warming, Gore.





Gore And The Great
Luddite Hoax Of 2007


rense

By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.



This article appears in the March 9, 2007 issue
of Executive Intelligence Review
3-6-7


We must never forget that former Vice-President Al Gore's 2000 Gore-Lieberman campaign was the midwife of the Bush-Cheney Presidency.

The issue to be considered here is no mere difference of policy. The issue is existential. At issue is a choice between one policy, under whose influence our civilization would soon cease to exist, that of Gore's policy, against the directly opposite choice of policy required, if civilization is to continue to exist during the immediately foreseeable future.

Let us now proceed in the confidence that the issue treated here is of no lesser importance than just that.

Essentially, after Al Gore's marbles are counted, his recent Hollywood, pulp-science-fiction-style production, on the theme of "Global Warming," is, obviously, a fraud designed by someone. Whoever that someone was, Al's fraud was done, apparently, for the pleasure of what were, obviously, swindlers, and has served to titillate many among our nation's, and others' current crop of the more excitably credulous, middle-class "bio-fools."

Stated for the record, the essentials of the relevant scientific evidence against Gore's latest version of the "Global Warming" hoax, are adequately summarized, in the weekly Executive Intelligence Review's March 2, 2007 edition.[1] Some people, no doubt, will also see the ironical hand of Mother Nature (no Hard Gore Luddite herself) in the great winter storm which chose to wrack entire regions of North America, at just the time that Gore's off-season Hollywood Hallowe'en party was being staged. Since those of us whose attention is focused more intently upon the actual dynamics of the U.S. political landscape, have never considered Al Gore the brightest bulb in the cloakroom, the question for us, is: who is using the notoriously mean, dumb, and clearly fat-headed Al "Ozymandias" Gore, again, and why, this time, in this way? [2]

However, our duty in this matter does not end there. In addition to the first issue, the evidence that Gore's package itself is a hoax, there are two elements of scientific method which must be addressed, if the larger, much more crucial issues involved are to be settled.

Second on the list of three, is the larger scientific issue: Gore's fraud aside, what are the considerations which actually govern the principal features of the Earth's cycles of alternate warming and cooling? What about the pattern of recent intensification of Solar radiation hitting the Earth? Does this year's early report from Denmark on the role of cosmic rays, answer the question, at least in significant part? [3] If so, what is the relationship to the earlier indications of the concentration of cosmic rays received from the area of the Crab Nebula?

Or, what about the movement of population out of traditional family-farm agriculture and productive employment in industry, into the ruin of a so-called "post-industrial society," all of which post-1968 trends of change away from a science-driver, agro-industrial economy, have had pernicious effects on the environment which we manage and inhabit? What about "Bio-Fuels," which are inherently energy-inefficient, and which will, if continued, cause a generations-long ecological disaster, and pro-genocidal food-crisis for our nation in particular, and the planet as whole?

Third on the same list, we have the principal subject taken up in the body of this report: what is the actual strategic motive for the continuing persistence of the promotion of the Kyoto hoax at this particular time? This third point, is the crucial point addressed in this present report.

The case of Gore himself, is a simple one, in every sense of the word. Whatever the intended implications of simple-minded Gore's travesty, the motive for his being used in the way he has been used most recently, takes us to much deeper political issues, as in the issues treated in the body of this present report, after the immediately following, additional prefatory remarks.

Unfortunately, Al Gore is not the only fool of his type among our republic's and Europe's political classes. Were he the only such fool, we might treasure him, even despite his bad temper, vicious fits, and silly Hallowe'en pranks, as we would value an endangered species of Madagascan forest lemur.

Unfortunately, Gore's type of so-called "Baby-Boomer" generation of North America and western and central Europe, is not a lovably rare species. It is a generation already represented by a great excess of the modern Sophist types from among the so-called "68er" generation, sometimes regarded justly as a "de-generation," born during the 1945-1956 interval: a species which proliferated between the close of World War II and the culturally shocking advent of the 1957-1960 U.S. economic recession. Therefore, we have that third point which I shall address in this present report: I explain.

On That Third Point

It is most notable, on account of this third point, that, today, those representatives of the professions of honest scientists and political historians who were capable of seeing, truthfully, the future actually embedded in the present, are those who, in the case of those nominally considered scientists, are a precious minority of their profession, and, who, among historians, appear to be almost a vanishing species.[4] When compared to the school of American historians, for example, even into the early parts of the post-World War II decades, the greater part of the currently reigning "Sixty-Eighter white collar" political class, has shown itself, with remarkable exceptions, as now, as a generation of the astonishingly credulous, which avoids any actual knowledge of science, and yet expresses opinions about science and its effects, which reveal either the influence of the most evil man of the Twentieth Century, Bertrand Russell, or simply a generation virtually incapable of thinking either historically or scientifically.

This has been a persisting, increasing challenge in my dealings with even some among my own associates who have expressed the characteristic moral failing of the predominantly Sophist Baby-Boomer generation, albeit on different issues than Gore's Luddite followers.[5] In my experience, today's usual Baby Boomer refuses to recognize what is happening to our nation, or even his, or her own generation. He or she is therefore a member of what had been called, ironically, "the Now Generation," the representative of a kind of species which recognizes moral accountability to neither a predecessor generation, nor a follower. It is a social stratum, unique to this interval of our national history, which is relatively hostile to the generation of its own parents, and, also, like the typical President George W. Bush, Jr., is blind to what are, in fact, the essential interests of the present young and future adult generations, and beyond.

The typical representative of that Baby-Boomer type, usually lacks even a semblance of the standard of comparison which the history of ideas had provided to the able scholars, scientists, and strategists of earlier generations. It might be said, that he, or she, as the "68er" and former Vice-President Al Gore illustrate the type, is a Luddite fanatic, or, if you prefer Classical references, an heir of the ancient, pro-Satanic, Delphic cult of Dionysus.

Therefore, those cases, like Gore, very rarely think in terms of a successful period of history as a process of an emergence of an added phase of the lawful evolution of human culture, to higher states out of a preceding one. Rather, all too typically, cardboard, or wind-up-toy personalities like Gore, think in terms of arbitrarily adopted "rules of thumb," as merely current fads in styles of "fashions"; typically Sophists, they think in terms of opinions about opinions: Athens' Pericles should blush. These are opinions which they tend to treat in a more reckless and hostile disregard for discoveries of any actual notions of principle, as this hostility to principle was expressed in the emergence of even such cults of Sophistry as ancient followers of Euclid, or, a grim, medieval Sophist variety of theologian among those of the Scholastic persuasion.[6]

I encounter this same problem in the course of reviewing the briefings produced among today's usual political figures, commentators, and so forth. The relevant types to which I refer have few principles, or even none; but, nonetheless, they produce an abundance of opinions, and curious "assessments" of sets of alleged facts, such as momentary opinions about the auspicious implications of an ephemeral item of news, or the like.

This pattern of behavior is typical of a stubborn persistence of the kind of sophistry we might associate with today's typical representatives of the Baby Boomers among North Americans, or those from western and central Europe. Those types are reacting to their narrowly defined immediate experience, but evade the reality of that process of those long waves of historical change, within which merely current events and decisions are trapped, often as passing exceptions.

It is, in other words, as we read, in Plato, the report of the ancient Egyptians, warning the ancient Greeks that "you have no old men among you." Today's leading political classes, and most others, too, rarely show any sense of an historical process as being anything more than a kind of mechanistic-statistical system of percussive interactions, interactions occurring chiefly within the confines of the local time of a certain generation's hope of rising to political and related ascendancy. They are Sophists, who think in terms of trend-lines in mere opinions, not realities. Therefore, usually, their assessment of almost any situation of significance, as in economic forecasting, is tragically wrong-headed, and stubbornly so.

So much for the unfortunate Gore and his sociological type; the question is: Who is using him now, in that way, and why? The answer is to be found within the realm of Riemannian dynamics.

(snipt)

Sen. Inhofe: ‘Gore Is Full of Crap,’ ‘All Recent Science…Confirms This Thing Is A Hoax’

Yesterday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) attacked Al Gore and global warming science, claiming that Gore was “full of crap” on global warming.

Appearing on Glenn Beck’s radio show and CNN television program, Inhofe said that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which concluded that global warming was real and caused by humans, used “one scientist.” Inhofe added: “[A]ll of the recent science…it confirms that I was right on this thing. This thing is a hoax.” Watch it:



Actually, “all of the recent science” — without exception — accepts that global warming is real and caused by humans. The IPCC didn’t involve “one scientist.” It involved thousands of scientists from over 120 countries, including so-called “climate skeptics” and industry representatives. The National Academy of Sciences recently concluded that the one study singled out by Inhofe for criticism, which was authored by Michael Mann, “has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence.”

Full transcript:

Senator James Inhofe has been very vocal in saying that a lot of the statistics used by proponents of the man-made global warming theory are either misleading or just plain wrong. In fact, I think he said on my radio show earlier today that Al Gore was full of crap.

Now, from Washington, D.C., Senator James Inhofe.

As I pointed out to the radio listeners, you`re a pretty brave guy, because, you know, if you come out against global warming you`are either a nut job or you`re just clearly in bed with big oil, and thus you should have no credibility.

SEN. JAMES INHOFE ®, OKLAHOMA: Yes, well, you know, I have to say this, and I`d say that probably 75 percent of the viewers that are watching this right now have bought into this thing, this global warming thing, in saying that it was manmade gases. And I was the same way 3 1/2 years ago when I became of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. And so I thought — right then, you might remember the Horton econometrics survey…

BECK: Oh, who doesn`t?

INHOFE: … that came out. And they said how much it would cost America if we signed onto the Kyoto treaty, about $2,750 per family per year in the price of energy and all that.
Anyway, I saw that, and I thought, “Well, it`s my responsibility as a chairman to make sure that the science justifies this kind of loss.” And the more I checked into it, the things started with the United Nations, the International Panel on Climate Control, and they used one scientist. And his name was Michael Mann, the famous hockey stick — remember that — where he plotted the temperatures that went all the way across on a horizontal line, then you got to the 20th century and it started going up.
Well, one thing they forgot to do is put in the medieval warming period, which was from about 900 to 1400 A.D., when it was warmer then than it is now.

BECK: Well, and here`s the thing. When you see…

INHOFE: So in all of the recent science, as I`ve mentioned on your radio show, it confirms that I was right on this thing. This thing is a hoax.

GT

Loved this line: "Ranks right up there with a mouse trying to stop the forward motion of a bulldozer."

Sadly, that event has happened and with regularity here in Colorado. The sad case of the [possibly a sub-species but maybe not, possibly endangered but again maybe not - all depends on which study is cited] "Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse". Said mouse has stopped developments, and even flood plain improvements to preserve other habitat or protect exisiting watercourses and human dwelling and safety, because it might be in an area that looks like its potential habitat, all without any evedence that the aforementioned mouse actually does live in the area. Simply because it could - you can't.

LOL!!!

Very interesting.....and I just pulled that phrase out of 'thin air'.
I should have known.

Information on.....mouse!

http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/preble/

Has any politician in Colorado considered passing a law banning cats from entering the mouse's habitat?


The news is just filled with 'funny stuff' today!



http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Sen._Inhofe_...utely_0322.html

I think what Inhofe was trying to say was.......Gore has blown so much HOT (and smelly) air out his ass that Gore alone is responsible for 'global warming'!

pave the world.

March 23, 2007, 0:00 a.m.

Turning Up the Heat on Gore

The former VPOTUS wants to change attitudes more than he wants to solve problems.

By Jonah Goldberg


As fate would have it, the same week Al Gore was testifying before Congress, I was doing a little testifying myself. Admittedly, there were a tad fewer paparazzi in the Madison, Wis., classroom where I was giving a talk on global warming (sponsored by Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow, or CFACT). The debate in Washington offered some familiar echoes.

One student asked a long and rambling question that went basically as follows: He understood why I think Al Gore is dishonest and misleading. But how can I criticize Gore when all he wants to do is make people change their behavior and take care of this planet?

Translation: Gore is on the side of the angels and therefore it’s mean-spirited to throw inconvenient truths back at the Oscar winner for An Inconvenient Truth. “Yeah, exactly,” the kid responded when I rephrased the question thusly.

The press and the Democrats seem to share this kid’s sensibility. Covering Gore’s congressional testimony, The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank portrayed Gore as a man of science versus a bunch of creationist nutjobs. Milbank wrote: “... instead of giving another screening of An Inconvenient Truth, the former vice president found himself playing the Clarence Darrow character in Inherit the Wind.” It’s an unintentionally accurate comparison, because the movie completely distorted the reality of the Scopes trial. The real Clarence Darrow contentedly lost the open-and-shut case after a nine-minute jury deliberation. The movie was about something bigger than the facts. So is Al Gore. And that’s why his fans love him.

Gore says global warming is “a crisis that threatens the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth.” It’s graver than any war. He compares it to the asteroid that allegedly killed the dinosaurs.

But here’s the thing. If there were an asteroid barreling toward earth, we wouldn’t be talking about changing our lifestyles, nor would we be preaching about reducing, reusing and recycling. We would be building giant wicked-cool lasers and bomb-carrying spaceships to go out and destroy the thing. But Gore doesn’t want to explore geo-engineering (whereby, for example, we’d add sulfate aerosols or other substances to the atmosphere to mitigate global warming). Why? Because solving the problem isn’t really the point. As Gore makes it clear in his book, Earth in the Balance, he wants to change attitudes more than he wants to solve problems.

Indeed, he wants to change attitudes about government as much as he wants to preach environmentalism. Global warming is what William James called a “moral equivalent of war” that gives political officials the power to do things they could never do without a crisis. As liberal journalist James Ridgeway wrote in the early 1970s: “Ecology offered liberal-minded people what they had longed for, a safe, rational and above all peaceful way of remaking society ... (and) developing a more coherent central state.”

This explains Gore’s relentless talk of “consensus,” his ugly moral bullying of “deniers” and, most of all, his insistence that because there’s no time left to argue, everyone should do what he says.

Isn’t it interesting how the same people who think “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” when it comes to the war think that dissent when it comes to global warming is evil and troglodytic?

“If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor,” Gore said this week. “If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say, ‘Well, I read a science fiction novel that told me it’s not a problem.’ If the crib’s on fire, you don’t speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action.”

True enough. But if your baby’s crib is on fire, you don’t run to a politician for help either.

You can tell that Gore’s schtick is about something more than the moderate and manageable challenge of global warming when he talks of sacrifice. On the one hand he wants everybody to change their lifestyles dramatically. These are the sacrifices the voracious energy user Al Gore won’t have to make because he can buy “carbon credits” for his many homes and his jet-setting.

But when asked this week about the enormous and unwise costs his plan would impose on the U.S. economy (according to the global consensus of economists), Gore said that his draconian emissions cuts are “going to save you money, and it’s going to make the economy stronger.”

Wait a second. This is the gravest crisis we’ve ever faced, but if we do exactly as Gore says (but not as he does), we’ll get richer in the process as we heal Mother Earth of her fever? Gore’s faith-based initiative is a win-win. No wonder so many people think it’s mean to disagree.


— Jonah Goldberg is Editor-at-Large of National Review Online.

Oh, I see. Gore is not an expert on global warming but jonah goldbrick and the rest of the bush ass kisses are.

Sadly Canada isn't doing enough either.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/03...nvironment.html


'Green' budget falls short for environmental groups
Last Updated: Monday, March 19, 2007 | 8:33 PM ET
CBC News

The federal budget's $4.5 billion in environmental spending on green cars, clean water and renewable fuels didn't impress opposition parties and did little to ease the concerns of environmental groups.

"Today we act to improve our environment," Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said while introducing the budget.

While the budget represents a change in Conservative policy on "green" spending, opposition parties criticized it for containing no mention of the Kyoto Protocol, and said it didn't amount to a significant change in government policy.

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said the new programs amounted to less than the $5.6 billion cut from environmental programs that were put in place by the previous Liberal government.

"They cut so much last year, they are recreating some programs, but it's not a plan," Dion said.

Green party Leader Elizabeth May called the budget a disappointment.
Continue Article

"This government hasn't changed its tune on the climate-change issue," May told CBC News.

"It's a repeat of the same target and that would mean climate disaster.

"They are reannouncing some of the Liberal programs with less money and less cohesion."

The government introduced a rebate of up to $2,000 for buying fuel-efficient vehicles, and a levy of up to $4,000 on gas-guzzling vehicles like SUVs and Hummers.

The government also plans to spend $36 million for a program to get old and inefficient vehicles off the road that will include incentives for car owners.

The total also includes:

* $2 billion over seven years to aid in the production of renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel.
* $250 million to conserve ecologically important lands and implement the Species at Risk Act.
* $417 million for a clean water strategy: $324 million for six new coast guard vehicles and $93 million to improve the quality of water in lakes and rivers.

The spending on biofuel research was praised by Barb Isman, president of the Canola Council of Canada, who said the announcement would be "good for the environment, good for farmers and good for the Canadian economy." Canola is used in the production of biofuels.
Oilsands industry takes a hit

The budget also included news that the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance tax break for oilsands projects will be phased out by 2015.

The Canadian Coalition of Energy Trusts, which represents more than 40 energy trusts across the country, said the move will come as a major blow to the oilsands industry.

"Oilsands producers will be disappointed," said coalition spokeswoman Sue Riddell Rose. "This [tax break] for these very capital-intensive projects is a very significant component of the economic driver for doing the projects in the first place.

"So the large multibillion-dollar projects that we're seeing will have to be re-evaluated, almost for sure."

The tax break, which has saved the oilsands industry about $1.4 billion annually, was introduced by the former Liberal government in 1997, when the industry was considered experimental and in need of support.

Since 1997, the industry has expanded significantly.

In the mid-1990s, industry experts predicted the oilsands would produce a million barrels a day by 2020. The industry reached that target 16 years ahead of schedule, in 2004.

Environmental critics, concerned about greenhouse gas emissions produced by the oilsands, have attacked the federal government in recent years for giving a tax break to an industry that seems to be thriving.

Total greenhouse gas emissions in Alberta increased by 39.4 per cent between 1990 and 2004, from 168.17 megatonnes to 234.51 megatonnes, according to Environment Canada.

On the basis of what expertise was Jonah Goldberg giving a talk on global warming?

On the basis of what expertise CAN Jonah Goldberg give a talk on much of anything that requires any non-political or rhetorical expertise? Seriously.

Be sure to catch his talk on alternative sources of energy, next. Or new alloys in car-manufacturing . . .

Antarctic melting may be speeding up



Global warming puts Canada's hunted seals on thin ice

http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?ID=15357

Global warming on trial
Sixth-graders decide that humans aren’t to blame

By Ben Ready
The Daily Times-Call

LONGMONT — Humans don’t cause global warming, a jury of sixth graders at Trail Ridge Middle School concluded Thursday after hearing opposing arguments from their peers.


“They’re pretty young for this kind of thinking. They did great,” paleontology teacher Ken Poppe said after the 40-minute “trial” in his classroom.


With Earth’s warming accepted as a tenet, pre-teen “lawyers” and “scientists” debated whether humans have caused it.


Eleven jurors listened intently as prosecutors and defendants flashed contradictory graphs tracking global temperatures, carbon dioxide levels, polar ice cap statistics, volcanic activity and sea surface temperatures — all of which were found Wednesday in the school’s computer lab.



“The earth has warmed and cooled over many years. If it’s caused by CO2, why haven’t the charts shot up?” Poppe’s son and lead prosecutor Caleb argued during a rebuttal.


In a climax that sent half the class to its feet and forced the judge to call for order, opponent Monique Nem slapped a contradictory graph onto the prosecution’s table.


“We’ve proven you wrong! The CO2 levels have shot up,” she said.


The jury responded more warmly, however, to Caleb Poppe’s response: The graphic cited a Hawaiian source; Hawaii has volcanoes; volcanoes emit CO2.


In closing arguments, Alexia Hegy said global temperatures actually decreased in the 1960’s, while the global population rose. Humans cannot be at fault, she concluded.



With the final word, defense attorney Sarah Steed countered: “It all comes back to us, the people — not the sun, not the weather. We need to turn off lights when we don’t need them. Bikes can work. The environment can be richer.”


Seven of 11 jurors decided humans are not to blame, but everyone agreed classroom debates make for fun learning.


“It was a hard decision, because both sides made good points,” said student Samantha Roberts.


Ken Poppe said he let students choose which side of the debate to argue. Poppe personally believes global warming is cyclical and not affected by humans, while his Colorado State University student aide David Richards believes the opposite. Both, however, said they presented both sides equally to the students leading up to Thursday’s debate.


“What I think is not the issue. It’s what the students dig up and how they present the case,” Poppe said.


Only one parent questioned Poppe’s decision to hold a global warming debate. That mother expected him to present Al Gore’s global warming movie “An Inconvenient Truth” as indisputable facts, Poppe said. After he explained his neutrality in the classroom, the mom allowed her child to participate in the debate, he said.


“You don’t understand someone’s position until you can argue it to their satisfaction,” Poppe said, quoting a famous physicist. “I don’t believe in Darwinism either, but I can argue it as well as any Darwinist.”

There are over 6 1/2 billion on earth. The worst prediction is something like half of that meter in a century, so just guessing only 50 million people will have to "go somewhere". I'm not great at math, but that sounds like only less than 1 in 120 people will have to move, and they have a century to do it. All that assuming there isn't some other change in the meantime.

The coming ass age
By Ann Coulter
Wednesday, March 21, 2007

No matter how much liberals try to dress up their nutty superstitions about global warming as "science," which only six-fingered lunatics could doubt, scratch a global warming "scientist" and you get a religious fanatic.

These days, new religions are barely up and running before they seize upon the worst aspects of the God-based religions.

First, there's the hypocrisy and corruption. At the 1992 Democratic Convention in New York, Al Gore said: "The central organizing principle of governments everywhere must be the environment." The environment would not, however, be the central organizing principle of Gore's own life.

The only place Al Gore conserves energy these days is on the treadmill. I don't want to suggest that Al's getting big, but the last time I saw him on TV I thought, "That reminds me -- we have to do something about saving the polar bears."

Never mind his carbon footprint -- have you seen the size of Al Gore's regular footprint lately? It's almost as deep as Janet Reno's.

But I digress. As has been widely reported, Gore's Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the energy of the average home in that state. But it's OK, according to the priests of global warming. Gore has purchased "carbon offsets."

It took the Catholic Church hundreds of years to develop corrupt practices such as papal indulgences. The global warming religion has barely been around for 20 years, and yet its devotees are allowed to pollute by the simple expedient of paying for papal indulgences called "carbon offsets."

Americans spend an extra $2.2 billion on gas a year because they're overweight, requiring more fuel in cars to carry the extra pounds. So even with all those papal indulgences, Gore may have a small carbon footprint, but he has a huge carbon butt-print.

Further proving that liberalism is a religion, its practitioners respond with the zeal of Torquemada to any dissent from the faith in global warming.

A few years ago, Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg wrote a book titled "The Skeptical Environmentalist," disputing the hysteria surrounding global warming and other environmentalist scares. Lomborg is a Greenpeace anti-war protester -- or, as he is described on liberal Web sites, he is a "young, gay vegetarian Dane with tight T-shirts." His book was cited favorably in The New York Times.

But for questioning the "science" behind global warming, Lomborg was brought up on charges of "scientific misconduct" by Denmark's Inquisition Court, called the "Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation." I take it Denmark's Ministry of Truth was booked solid that day.

The moment anyone diverges from official church doctrine on global warming, he is threatened with destruction. Heretics would be burnt at the stake if liberals could figure out how to do it in a "carbon neutral" way.

Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball is featured in the new documentary debunking global warming, titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." For this heresy, Ball has received hate mail with such messages as, "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further global warming."

I'm against political writers whining about their hate mail because it makes them sound like Paul Krugman. But that's political writers arguing about ideology.

Global warming is supposed to be "science." It's hard to imagine Niels Bohr responding to Albert Einstein's letter questioning quantum mechanics with a statement like: "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further quantum mechanics."

Come to think of it, one can't imagine the pope writing a letter to Jerry Falwell saying, "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further infallibility."

If this is how global warming devotees defend their scientific theory, it may be a few tweaks short of a scientific theory. Scientific facts are not subject to liberal bullying -- which, by the way, is precisely why liberals hate science.

A few years ago, The New York Times ran an article about the continuing furious debates among physicists about quantum mechanics, which differs from global warming in the sense that it is supported by physical evidence and it doesn't make you feel good inside to "do something" about quantum mechanics. It is, in short, science.

Though he helped develop the theory of quantum mechanics, Einstein immediately set to work attacking it. MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark called the constant testing and arguing about quantum mechanics "a 75-year war."

That's how a real scientific theory operates. That's even how a real religion operates. Only a false religion needs hate mail, threats, courts of inquisition and Hollywood movies to sustain it.

Wow. I am actually genuinely impressed. Take out the rhetoric and the ad hominems, and she actually managed to make a number of excellent points. Her claim that a "real religions operates" as real science does is, of course, preposterous. And, quantum mechanics is not "supported" by physical evidence, is to be tested against physical evidence to see whether, and how 'well' (compared to alternative theories) it predicts, explains and can perhaps control it.

Save forests to fight global warming: Stern



China seen topping U.S. carbon emissions in 2007

Resource race heats up in melting Arctic

I believe I've seen most of those points made elsewhere. Many of them right here.

The thing about religion looks like she's still trying to sell her book.

Most of whose points?

I'll concur on the last point.

Al Gore has been "doing" things about Global Climate change for longer than some posters here have been alive.

Saying he's all talk is ridiculous.

Most of the points Coulter makes aren't new. The buying of indulgences, scientific comparisons, the Danish guy's book.

Ok, so what was the point of your response, then? I praised Coulter's piece. If its good points were repeats of the same points she'd made earlier, "Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfornicator."

The point was that points you say were good have been attacked previously.

you are disregarding "partial agreement?"

I don't see the point in niggling the whole thing to death. Just made a little point to Nomarchy's view of Coulter's article. I didn't really mean to start a federal case over it.

By whom?

I didn't mention the points that I claimed were good. I mentioned the ones that I was were not, plus the mindless rhetoric and the ad hominems.



You didn't quite make a point, little or otherwise.

The points about 'real science' were the good ones, and I have MADE THEM MYSELF HERE.

If he has been 'doing things' about global warming for so long.....then he must not be doing a very good job at it.

Maybe Gore otta research the 'medieval period' when global temperatures were even HIGHER than now and find out which individual 'cured' global warming and actually sent the planet into a mini-ice age!

http://biocab.org/Global_Warming.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

What is ridiculous is morons like Gore thinking that humans are capable of controlling 'Mother Nature'.

To borrow a phrase from Bob Shaw...
America allows Al Gore's "uncomprehending fingers to rummage through its soul."

Soul and wallet. The cost of his ideas would be staggering, and the benefits unknown. The technology to pull it all off doesn't even exist yet.

In order for capitalism to work, the true cost of doing bidness has to be taken into account.

Bidness knows this, which is why they are already moving forward with Gore's suggestions.

Those of you that just believe the petty pundits are really starting to look daft.

OK you already did, but now you look daft even to successful bidness people (Like The Gore-a-cal).

Quite an accomplishment.

Yeah they're acting on Gore's suggestions just like we're using Gore's internet.

As I research the debate on global warming, one item that shows consistency with 'experts' is the possibility that global warming is being caused by 'solar activity'. If this could ever be proven to be the main cause....we could really create some big bidness....by building a spacecraft and letting Al Gore fly to the sun, piss on some solar flares thus save the world from extinction.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

I'm afraid he'd just add more gas to the fire.

Yep. You can thank Al Gore for the internet. I know it burns your ass to do it, but he did legislate to let all this wonderful chat happen.

You righties can't forgive him for being right and getting more popular votes then the loser YOU salivate over.

Isn't it awful cramped being shoved so high up Bush Juniors tight orifice? It's made you stupd, being there so long. You just keep getting stupider and more cowardly as the years wear on.

Deservedly.

Be careful when fat Al rolls over. Might be a crushing experience.

Your third grade rhetoric signals one thing and one thing only to me.

You have no brain and you have no argument. IOW: You just got bested by a girl, AGAIN. Poor Herr docktor Katz.

Better let the adults be in charge. For your own good.

Vote Democratic.

I've only put you on the spot twice today. You had no answers or proof of claims you made. And I wasn't even trying. Gotcha back in knee jerk stupid retort mode real quick. You really shouldn't let your alligator mouth overload your hummingird brain.

I keep thinking bix will come to her rescue...wonder if he is too embarrassed?

She's not even fun to flame anymore. Dimished capacity it appears.

Ain't been much of a challenge for quite a while.

It appears so.

All of this 'wonderful chat' would have happened without Gore's help. Don't give him anymore credit than he deserves. And the only credit he deserves is giving us someone to laugh at!

Subject: An Inconvenient Truth

A Tale of Two Houses

House 1:
"The four-bedroom home was planned so that 'every room has a relationship with something in the landscape that's different from the room next door. Each of the rooms feels like a slightly different place.' The resulting single-story house is a paragon of environmental planning.
"The passive-solar house is built of honey-colored native limestone and positioned to absorb winter sunlight, warming the interior walkways and walls of the 4,000-square-foot residence.bGeothermal heat pumps circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground. These waters pass through a heat exchange system that keeps the home warm in winter and cool insummer.

"A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof urns; wastewater from sinks, toilets, and showers cascades into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is then used to irrigate the landscaping around the four-bedroom home, (which) uses indigenous grasses, shrubs, and flowers tocomplete the exterior treatment of the home.

In addition to its minimal environmental impact, the look and layout of the house reflect one of the paramount priorities: relaxation. A spacious 10-foot porch wraps completely around the residence and beckons the family outdoors. With few hallways to speak of, family and guests make their way from room to room either directly or by way of the porch. 'The house doesn't hold you in. Where the porch ends there is grass. There is no step-up at all."'

The house consumes 25% of the energy of an average American home." (Source: The Chicago Tribune, April 2001 as published in Cowboys and Indians Magazine.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
House 2:
"This 20-room, 8-bathroom house consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year. The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours
(kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, this house devoured nearly 221,000 kWh,more than 20 times the national average. Last August alone, the house burned through
22,619 kWh, guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of this energy consumption, the average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. Also, natural gas bills for this house and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. In total, this house had nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for 2006. (Source: just about anywhere in the news last month online including Reuters & AP)"

PLEASE Scroll down...



.






.





.



















House 1 is the home of George and Laura Bush, in Crawford,Texas.



House 2 belongs to Al and Tipper Gore, in Nashville, Tennessee.

That's as important as anything to my way of thinking. If we all lived like Gore it would be no laughing matter though. Imagine all of us living in big mansions and getting flown all over the globe every week. Not to mention the overpopulation if everyone had four kids. ZPG was a big environmental issue going back to Gore's younger days.

you're so right...
mansions are for the priveledged few:
elite republicans ONLY

all others stink, right?

Hey, if you don't lecture me, I don't care where you live. Gore lectures everybody.

He could wear a hairshirt, at least.