Dottore,

If you believe so much in conferences run by third world banana republics intent on extorting money from the U.S., then why don't you write them a big check and tell them to keep their greasy little fingers out of my wallet and the wallets of hard-working, responsible Americans.

Since not one of those countries has yet to demonstrate that socialism, communism and totalitarian government works, maybe there are better things for them, and you, to think about.

Al Gore is the poster-child for the biggest lie ever forwarded by the eco-fascists. When all else fails, they simply concoct a bigger and more outrageous lie to beat into people's heads.

However, if real science prevails, man-made global warming will be thrown on the same scrap heap that stratospheric ozone depletion was cast on. Unfortunately, untold economic harm was done by that equally unfounded scam.

The founder of Greenpeace has already revealed the play-book. Once the "sky is falling" lie has been accepted by enough mushy skulls, a new more serious problem has to be imagineered or the movement will lose traction.

Laugh? I nearly died.

Of course you did.

Just don't call when your homeland gets invaded next time.

rjp

Holy crap.

The knuckle draggers are out in force tonight.

Time for a trip to my local bar for some serious conversation.

Here, this should be a good conversation piece. A pelican oldie but goodie

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?p=1219298&highlight=french+military +history#post1219298


The Complete Military History of France


- Gallic Wars

- Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

- Hundred Years War

- Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." Sainted.

- Italian Wars

- Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

- Wars of Religion

- France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

- Thirty Years War

- France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

- War of Revolution

- Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

- The Dutch War

- Tied

- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War

- Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

- War of the Spanish Succession

- Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

- American Revolution

- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

- French Revolution

- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

- The Napoleonic Wars

- Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

- The Franco-Prussian War

- Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

- World War I

- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

- World War II

- Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

- War in Indochina

- Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu

- Algerian Rebellion

- Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

- War on Terrorism

- France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.

The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not be "Can we count on the French?", but rather "How long until France collapses?"

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. All you do is leave behind a lot of noisy baggage."

Or, better still, the quote from last week's Wall Street Journal: "They're there when they need you."

Talk about hypocracy...Nobel prize host, Norway had their carbon emissions rise 80 percent from 1990 to 2004
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2157059.ece

Looks like if we get much more "global warming"...we might freeze to death...

Year of global cooling
The Washington Times
December 19, 2007
By David Deming
- Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.

Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.

Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.

In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver's temperature records extend back to 1872.

Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.

Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are just emerging from a destructive ice storm that left at least 36 people dead and a million without electric power. People worldwide are being reminded of what used to be common sense: Cold temperatures are inimical to human welfare and warm weather is beneficial. Left in the dark and cold, Oklahomans rushed out to buy electric generators powered by gasoline, not solar cells. No one seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of polar bears, penguins or walruses. Fossil fuels don't seem so awful when you're in the cold and dark.

If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.

Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

IMO Everyone who is supporting this man-made global warming scam is doing it because they are either too stupid to know any better or they are doing it to line their own pockets.

So, Dottore, how much money are you going to make off this scam?

edit: I'm going to start a thread with this one . . . :D

"U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007"

excerpt:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

Source for complete report:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

--------------------------

Best,

Kurt

Hold on now, a couple of days ago the low temp here was 42, last night it only got down to 44. There ya go, proof positive the world is getting warmer! Now where's my check?

This about sums up what I've been saying for a long time:

France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming - Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. "Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up' - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts' and ‘sea level rises,' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac*ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!"

Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction."

Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. "The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases. "

Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. "I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong," Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article.

Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: "To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process."

Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid," Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.

"First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today.

There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity."

Anyone care to guess who spoke these words? And when?

George W. Bush, and it was at least a year ago, maybe more.

The same folks who deny the possibility of human activity contributing to global warming were claiming global warming didn't exist last year. The battle keeps shifting for them. How frustrating it must be... if they think about it.

So Bush said it; what does that prove? :D

I am uncertain who the "them" is you refer to?

I only care what those educated in the sciences say and the jury is still out in this regard. There is no consensus and nothing should be ruled out 100%.

FWIW.

Best,

Kurt

Proves nothing that Bush said it. Haven't seen him speak the truth that much, really.

Consensus does not mean unanimity.

10,000+ scientists agree on global warming and the likelihood that human activity is a contributing factor, and 400 disagree. If you subtract from that 400 the ones being funded directly or indirectly by the oil industry, what's the count?

Doesn't matter to me who spoke those words, he was wrong. probably due to misinformation and those around him feeding him BS. Or maybe he knew it was BS but had to agree to it to prevent political fall out from the enviro-wackos. No sense giving those people any advantage, they already have too much power.

I am skeptical of your numbers and remain skeptical of the current, "popular" global warming hypothesis. I think a major problem arises when "we" are told that the debate is over, that there is no need for more research and one is stupid if one disagrees - real science does not operate that way.

Without question there is serious disagreement regarding what is actually happening regarding the climate here on Earth and what is causing it; this debate will not be ended with a "10,000 vs. 400" statement nor should it.

I am sure more reasonable minds will prevail on both sides of the issue. I will keep a cool head and do my best to use energy more efficiently and plan for a day in the not too distant future when I can unhook from the power grid . . . unless I can feed some power back into it. :D

Best,

Kurt

How much of a contributing factor is the likelihood of human activity? If it is not significant enough, will altering it stop climate change?

Can we(the US) get the rest of the world to agree that "some" alteration in CO2 generation is in fact a good thing in general yet stop short of financial ruin?
Yes/no? Or is the main point to wreck the US economy? I suspect that people like Dottore would prefer to see us in ruins.

Exactly.

Actually, I think even the 400 oil-industry funded scientists agree that human activity contributes to global warming. Their only claim is that human activity is likely not a major factor. And on that slim hope - they criticize everyone trying to address the problem.

Actually he said it in June 2001...

"This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol.

India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto. These and other developing countries that are experiencing rapid growth face challenges in reducing their emissions without harming their economies. We want to work cooperatively with these countries in their efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions and maintain economic growth."

Those were the problems with Kyoto... not the futility of reducing green-house gas emissions. The Republican party sides with pretty much the rest of the known world in citing those gases as contributing to climate change.

The disagreement is over how to restrict their emission, not whether its a good idea or not. Reading comments in this forums makes me wonder who the real wackos are.

(BTW his speech is available here. It toes the party line for both the Repub. congress and the Clinton administration... (Gore signed the Kyoto treaty but Bill neglected to submit it for ratification)).