Y2Kyoto: The Cost Of Inaction

Ah yes, but the Warmists are entitled to point to any and all weather conditions as explaining climate change. Any extremes are uncontested, peer-reviewed evidence.

And any weather that is static is also so unusual as to be considered climate change.

We must pay through the nose to save the planet from this fearsome threat.

The global cooling deniers are such linear thinkers. What dolts.

Over at Al Gore’s Journal, after quoting the LA Times about (what?) ill effects of warming on corn crops, “based on government and university data”—now, doesn’t that fill one with confidence?—The Man, Himself, weighs in: “Nearly every industry will be impacted by our planet's warming. The costs of inaction far out way any expense incurred to repower America.”

Would he mean “outweigh”? This poseur can’t write 50 words of his own without a grade three level spelling error. (Where’s his editor?) As Bugs would say, “What a maroon!”

I wanted to leave a comment and made it to page two of Al’s Journal: but, before I could comment, I had to “Join our effort to end the climate crisis”. No thanks.

Also noticed the "out way" statement, thinking it probably meant "way out". They speak of corn from the northern mid-west states, forgetting that in probability corn originated in Mexico. Mexico still grows corn, there are many varieties of corn with many different characteristics not the least of which is length of season. The most prevalent arguement for the enviro-nazis is that the climate will warm but the populous will be to stupid to adapt their crops to suit. These planet savers just hate humans.

The warm-alarmists must lie awake at night kicking themselves - POed at their blowing their chance.

If they would have went with a cold-alarmism scam they may have had better "success".

After all, in the past warm has been good for life on earth, cold has been brutal.

A warmer climate resulted in a tropical paradise, even at the high latitudes that Canada lies in.

Colder climates resulted in two kilometers of ice.

Which one would have scared the sheeple more ?

As I was rinsing containers before putting them in the (*)recycle bin ,
it suddenly occured to me that I am using gallons and gallons of water every year to recycle a few plastic containers. ( have you ever tried rinsing off peannut butter?...)

We're emptying a lake to save a stream...

It does not make ANY sense.

(*) I have no choice but to pay a tax for recycling... I may as well recycle...

Not just ClimateGate is under-reported......
Recently Consumers Glass, in the GTA, a manufacturer of glass jars etc, closed. One comment was that finding an alternative to dispose of recyled glass was in order.
The reality was that very little glass was recycled because it cost too much to haul any distance....it mostly goes to land fills.

Spot on, Sasquatch - and the loyal earthsavers of Nanaimo Regional District recently announced that they won't be recycling glass any more - while eminently recyclable, it just doesn't take up all that much room in a land fill.

I'm beginning to suspect that very very little of anything is actually recycled - like most earthsaving schemes, "recycling" is just another excuse for adding a tax.

The greenies will eventually self destruct. Logic and common sense have to prevail in the long term.

Sasquatch,

here in the Montreal region, journalists have followed the recycling trucks and about 80 % of the stuff ends up in the dump ( mostly glass ),

we are paying an extra recycling tax but we are being robbed.

Most green things are either a scam or so inneficient that they are useless.

Damn global warming with its minus temperatures and white, fluffy snow....

Penn and Teller have an interesting video about recycling. The language is a little off, but it does get you thinking. It used to be on youtube, but the whole episode isn't there anymore. Part though. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7czKngCUASM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC3CZBDz7Wg

To those who point to 'out way', when you critique the other side's spelling and grammar, you'd better be bulletproof.
The word 'populous' should have been populace.
Populous refers to the relative density of the people in an area.
Populace refers to the population of an area as a group.

Maybe We need peer review on our comments.
I am laughing about that but not kidding.

If we want to beat the other side then we have to present good arguments in a way that is beyond criticism of our language skills.
It's already obvious they have this weakness.

lookout:

It depends on what your definition of "the climate crisis" is, to paraphrase Fat Albert's old partner in crime. To me, the crisis is stopping this nonsense before they ruin our economy, raise our taxes, and force our children to live in poverty so African dictators can fatten their bank accounts. I'd want to stop that!

D'accord, KevinB! That was one of the points I was going to make to Big Al—that my idea of climate crisis is diametrically opposed to his overblown fantasy—if I hadn’t had to give him all my personal information and get on his mailing list first. (What a con man he is!)

G.,,, you seem to be saying that those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. IF there were an equivalency between His Billionaire Perfectness, at his very public, extra special web site, and the lowly sda poster, uuess—uuess, I loved your right on, “way out” comment!—your comment, G.,,, would have more merit.

The lefties mercilessly commit character assassination re those of us on the right—ad hominem all the way, all the time. Giving them a dose of their own medicine, which underscores their utter hypocrisy and arrogance, even if we don’t do it perfectly, is fair game.

(Though, I agree with you: when making fun of lefties’ spelling mistakes, it IS a good idea to try not to make any oneself, However, G.,,, though your point—“If we want to beat the other side [,] then we have to present good arguments in a way that is beyond criticism of our language skills.”—is valid, it’s ironic that you made errors in paragraphing, capitalization, punctuation, and the use of quotation marks. Go figure! But I understood perfectly what you were saying.

Peer review’s a nice idea, but impractical. I guess if some are prone to making errors, it would be a good idea to use spell check—not helpful for homonyms—and have someone help with editing.

Re accountability and credibility, I think the standard to which [especially, anonymous] posts of a member of the public are held is quite different from that expected of the posts made by the blog owner him/herself. And then, when the blogger’s an egomaniac, the bar goes even higher: if Al Gore thinks He’s perfect—as He’s indicated many times—He’d better BE perfect! But, schadenfreude: isn't it fun and ever so satisfying when he's not?)

" Join the CONverstaion " equates to -let us harvest your e-mail address that we may use it to our own benefit... we're not actually asking you to join the conversation, he he he~