Y2Kyoto: Didn't You Notice The Flags Were Waving?

This is one small step for a man, one giant laugh for mankind.

Will the debunking of this farce start the populous to thinking that the liebrals were not on the proper path when implementing their social engineering projects of the past 40+ years? Will the people see that Taliban Jack is only interested in his own wellbeing and not interested in this country or it's "kitchen table" issues?

Someday soon, someone close to Big Albert (perhaps Tipper even) will blow the whistle, flee the sinking ship, suggest that Mr Gore should seek help for his mental condition.

Facades have a way of falling apart unexpectedly, quickly and in a surprising way. Think Berlin Wall. (BTW, the fall of Socialism then and the rise of the Global Warming movement are related events)

*

[ The Rise of Eco-Extremism

Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or "liberal" approach to ecology and the new "zero-tolerance" attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former "enemies" or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of "sustainable development" and took a strong "anti-development" stance.
Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.

These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. ] Greenpeace Founder, Patrick Moore

" It is basically anti-civilization. In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden." PM

http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues.cfm?msid=34&page=3

I predict the climate at the next International Conference on Climate Change will be "cold"....particualrly for practitioners of legitimate scientific method.

When GW first became an MSM issue, back about 7 or 8 years now, the talk was that if the present rate of temperature increases continued then GW could raise the average temperature of the planet by 1 to 2 degrees fahrenheit by the end of the century. That was the science. Now, only a few years later, Global Warming has become Climate Change and every left wing moon-bat in the country is screaming about the polar bears dying because the Arctic is melting. (The only time the left isn't screaming about climate change is when they are screaming about Israel.)

I have been to the far north, 22 kms south of the Arctic Circle, in 2005, 2006 and 2007, and believe me that 1 or 2 degrees warmer wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference.

The science is settled.

It's freakin' cold out there.

All that cold air can't be coming from the place where all the polar bears are drowning. Can it?

Hope the astronaut guy wears a helmet at the climate conference. And a cup. The global warmers are getting shrill.

This morning while flossing my teeth I noted the length of the material I unspooled was quite a bit longer than the amount I really required for obtaining a good grip to accomplish the task.
My next thought was would the length of a person's flossing material become a global warming issue?
Would Mr. Gore establish a predetermined guide for flossing length as an item for sale?
How would the circumference of a person's finger be allowed for?
Just thinking! cheers

I think Gore's biggest defense of his position is still to come, under the Rico Act. Time will tell.

Ah So, Gore says the debate is over and the International Consensus is it's Global Warming.

Hmmmm, when did International Consensus replace Scientific Data ?
,

Obama announcing 3 million new jobs making wind turbines and solar panels.

no word on who will make the batteries , the invertors or the rest of the system, my bets is they will have to send the contracts to China and Japan.

this just gets more riduculous by the day.

I actually heard Gore make this comment about non-believers. I tried to approach that particular interview with an open mind, but when he made that statement, I concluded he was full of B.S. If he had said something moderate like "well, there are some who still disagree, but we think, blah, blah . . .", but his response to Rose was SO over-the-top. I thought it was actually quite amateurish.

Did Obama say 3 million jobs building wind turbines or 3 million jobs winding turbans?

climate change and
AlGore rank right up there with

Scientology

Id like to unwind a few on a pull start attempt myself. 8>P

Id like to unwind a few on a pull start attempt myself. 8>P

cal2

I'm a kick start kid of guy:-))))

Id like to unwind a few on a pull start attempt myself. 8>P

cal2

I'm a kick start kind of guy:-))))

The Gore family weren't complete unknowns at the Kremlin in the old days, but it must have grated just a bit being on one of Armand Hammer's many farm teams.

I just listened to some of the 'dull as dirt' town hall flop that Icky, scotty B and the old Puffin finance critic (forget his name) were hoisting in the city of Halifax.

My ears perked once, Scotty B announced that Canada WOULD be paying for carbon credits! Did anyone here hear the Prime Minister or any members of the government announce that Canadians were going to be charged for carbon credits?

In the light of the deep freeze that we are all in I think the overtaxers would get more mileage out of 'ice credits'...oops I should not be giving tax loving members of the troika coalition ideas. If they dream my idea up you can say you heard it 1st at SDA.

If we don't want the climate to change, I'd at least like to know what level we should set the climate at? I have fond memories of 1986, the weather was great when my class went to Expo:-p

The upcoming conference in Manhattan is put on by the same people who started this petition http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html which has the signatures of over 30,000 scientists (all skeptics) including over 9000 PhDs. This conference will be ignored again by the MSM as it exposes the grand political narrative of significant AGW as the watermelon power grab that it is rather than having the support of science.

Al Gore and climate change are not one and the same. To debunk Al Gore is not to debunk climate change. We change the planet in more ways than just releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

Deeznuts at 9:10. Al Gore and climate change are not one and the same. Joe Stalin and communism are not one and the same. Go on, pull the other one.

A testable, physical, scientific topic and a political ideology are hardly comparable. And one cannot argue against the basic principles of communism by solely arguing against the actions of Stalen.

"A testable, physical, scientific topic and a political ideology are hardly comparable."

Except when the scientific topic becomes politicized, which in this case, it has.

Chairman Kaga: Yes, I agree...however the conversation would then be concentrated on politics, not the scientific reality (or lack of reality) of climate change.

Indiana Homez said "I have fond memories of 1986, the weather was great when my class went to Expo:-p"

Yeh me too I.H., I LIVE here (Vancouver)http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090105/bc_school_cancellations_090105/20090105/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome
It's all good now; the mess is pretty well melted.
Oh wait! This is only the 2nd week of January...:(

I do have to say, I'm enjoying rubbing all my 'AGW'nonsense spouting friends' noses in it...:)

DaninVan: I hope your friends have pointed out that weather extremes are not proof against climate change.

I hope your friends have pointed out that weather extremes are not proof [of] climate change.

There, fixed.

BTW, nice spelling of Josip Djugashvili.

Deeznuts:
I hope your friends have pointed out that weather extremes are proof against AGW/climate change.

Yes, I agree...The money scam would then be concentrated in politics, wealth transfers and mobilizing useful tools as myself, not the scientific reality based community.
There, fixed that for you

Kate

At the link,

One of the speakers includes the principle researchers of the NASA Aqua satellite.

That's a biggie as that satellite -which was anticipated excitedly as being the first objective 'proof' to support the theory, actually shows that the forcing model (at the very heart of the "science"), is the opposite of what was believed to cause the warming.

In short: the first scientific data by NASA to "prove" the theory, actually disproves it.

For whatever reason the results didn't get quite the splash. For the life of me I just can't figure out why the media didn't cover it, why it was almost.....hushed up.

Deeznuts - As Chairman Kaga pointed out, when those arguing for the science have become so inter-twined with the politics of it, yah debunking one kind of becomes the same as debunking the other. Especially when the political side has so heavily dominated the science side that unbiased science has become nearly extinct.

Perhaps it's just me, but when someone pizzes on my foot and tells me its raining, he's gonna get his azz kicked whether its raining or not (along with anyone else who presumes to say the same thing)!

It may indeed be raining, but it's the guy pizzing on my foot that has got my attention! I'm gonna take care of him first before I focus on getting an umbrella. Now, if you don't mind someone playing rainmaker on your toes, well then here's to life with wet stinky feet!

As for the communism thing, that's beautiful logic as well. Guess I could follow-up with just because the KKK were racists, that doesn't make racism bad. As when racists comparisons are made, it's always with the KKK as the example.

Besides, who really is stupid enough to argue against communism using just stalin as an example when EVERY instance of a communist country has turned into a death trap for its citizens.

Frenchie77: I'm sorry, but they are not one and the same. No matter what way you put it.

The rain/piss thing...I apologize, I don't quite follow.

The KKK analogy...no, you've confused it. It would go along the lines of just because I prove a KKK member, who's racist, is a bad person doesn't mean racism is bad. This is true..racism doesn't need a spokesperson to know the negativity of it.

If someone wanted to argue the practicality of communism, or it's history of success, then yes, examples like that might help. But if you want to discuss the concepts that makeup the ideology, examples of leaders who confused the concept and/or were influenced by outside powers would not be nearly as relevant.

Got any ice skates Ratt?

Some agriculture websites are predicting that temps will go into the single digit range for the Delta next week.

Ie, 9F or lower.
Snow again in New Orleans?

Deeznuts: let me put it another way.

Al Gore, by virtue of his own pomposity, useful idiots in the media, incompetent scientists looking for easy funding, or politically motivated scientists, all riding his coattails.

Now, if groups of AGW scientists, the media, would accurately and regularly call Gore on his BS, then maybe the science would have some credibility.

But they don't, they are complicit in the scam. Go to CNN, BBC, real climate, etc, etc and see what they say. They are no less AGW zealots than Gore is.

Arguing that Gore is separate from the science is useless when he is, de facto, the mouthpiece of the science. If you can't understand that, then I am truly sorry for you.

Deeznuts, you also say "And one cannot argue against the basic principles of communism by solely arguing against the actions of Stalen."

Now try the same with

And one cannot argue against the basic principles of racism by solely arguing against the actions of KKK.

Now what exactly did I miss here???

Sorry, 1st sentence was incomplete, should add:

and let him take centre stage!

"Arguing that Gore is separate from the science is useless when he is, de facto, the mouthpiece of the science."

That's the way I see it. He's leading the charge of the AGW theory and built an empire off of it, not to mention won a Nobel prize with it. He's dictating to governments on how they should operate to combat this theory he is selling. Debunking him may not fully debunk the theory or the science, but it will help.

Frenchie77: Scientists aren't in a position to call Al Gore out, that's not what they do. The media not calling him out has nothing to do with the science. Why would I go to BBC, CNN, or any other such media outlet for scientific info when I don't even go to or trust them for news on current events or politics.

He is not the mouthpeice of science, he was never voted so, the scientific community doesn't acknowledge him as such.

No, you can't argue against the principles of racism (which I take would be its definition) by solely arguing against the actions of the KKK.

"Racism, by its simplest definition, is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Show me how you argue against that belief using the KKK.

Chairman Kaga: Built an empire off it? It appears you need to look at Al Gore a little closer..he owned an oil company long before any Nobel prize..Occidental Petroleum. He also has an Arts degree in government, nothing that would make him the mouthpeice of science. Debunking him does nothing to science.