Global Warming propaganda and this White House- Article by American Thinker

[Bfgrn]

One of the authors referenced in the OP as an 'expert'.

Bjorn Lomborg is associate professor of statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus, Denmark; his books have been "hugely influential in providing cover to politicians, climate-change deniers, and corporations that don't want any part of controls on greenhouse emissions".

Lomborg is not a climate scientist or economist and has published little or no peer-reviewed research on environmental or climate policy. His extensive and extensively documented, errors and misrepresentations, which are aimed at a lay audience, "follow a general pattern" of minimizing the need to cut carbon emissions.

 

[Oddball]

One of the authors referenced in the OP as an 'expert'.

Bjorn Lomborg is associate professor of statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus, Denmark; his books have been "hugely influential in providing cover to politicians, climate-change deniers, and corporations that don't want any part of controls on greenhouse emissions".

Lomborg is not a climate scientist or economist and has published little or no peer-reviewed research on environmental or climate policy. His extensive and extensively documented, errors and misrepresentations, which are aimed at a lay audience, "follow a general pattern" of minimizing the need to cut carbon emissions.

From which universities did Algore and James Hansen get their degrees in climatology?

 

[Freewill]

Here is the thing. Climate is changing. It has been changing or over 4 billion years.

It cannot be disputed.

There have been 5 mass extinction events on this planet due to climate change. Some say we may be in the beginning of another one.

It may be we can do something about it, it may be that we cannot.

But lets all be honest here. When we talk climate change in places like this, what we are doing is advocating that mankind is causing it (so ludicrous its laughable), or we are arguing that mankind is not causing it.

Given the overwhelming historic facts of climate change on this planet, I simply cannot believe people are willing to give up prosperity for a fantasy that mankind can affect climate in any manner whatever.

You're missing the point in two instances.

A) When you're talking about climate change in the past, you're talking about changes that occurred over tens of thousands to millions of years. AGW talks about changes over ~200-300 years.

B) If it's ludicrous that humans couldn't possibly be having an effect on climate, please explain where the 30-40% increase in CO2 observed since the advent of the Industrial Revolution is coming from.

1. present the evidence to support your supposition.

2. Since we know, by Gore's own graph, that CO2 follows temperature change by quite a bit it seems obvious that CO2 does not drive the change. Yes, there are explanations as to why the obvious is not obvious but to me it is more obvious that a temperature change drive CO2. Like your cola bottle you open, as it warm more CO2 is released. So yes, it may be naturally warming and an increase in CO2 is a natural result.

 

[Oddball]

Let's explore your theory regarding human motives a little bit. You don't think that fossil fuel owners, and producers, and all the people who have massive financial interests (trillions of dollars) in maintaining the status quo wouldn't do whatever they thought was required (including lying about the existence and dangers of climate change), in order to maintain their control over the current system?

If that's what you think, you're their bitch!

Maybe.

But here's the facts of the matter.

There are two great powers in the world today.... Big Government and Big Business.

Let's think about Big Government for a minute....

Hitler, Stalin, Mao. A few dead there, huh? Nearing a hundred million murdered.

But so far as I can tell, Big Business hasn't murdered anyone yet. Maybe one or two or a dozen or accidentally or through negligence cause a few hundred deaths, but sure as FUCK not anywhere near 100,000,000.

You choose to side with Big Government. The side that has murdered hundreds of millions of people throughout history.

You're their bitch.

If you want to say I'm the bitch of Big Business? I can live with that.

My pimp doesn't go around murdering people by the Millions and hundreds of Millions.

Yours does.

Think about it.

How many human beings do you think pollution kills every year?

Has any government recently killed 2 million people every year?

Red herring.

CO2 isn't a pollutant.

 

[Oddball]

Energy is everything. I mean.... Everything.

Whoever controls it, controls life on Earth.

Think about it.

We use energy to farm and grow our food. We need energy to take that food to market and process it. We need energy to transport the finshed products to the store.

You need energy to drive to the store to get the food. You need energy to cook the food. You need energy for your hot water, for lighting, for transportation, for clothing.

Life on this Earth would not be possible without energy. Oil, coal, gas... You name it.

If dimocrap scum can place restraints on energy, if they can control energy -- They control life on Earth itself. Every single aspect of your life will be under their control

THAT is what this is about. Control.

Anybody that doesn't see that is just too stupid to live and should commit suicide immediately

Let's explore your theory regarding human motives a little bit. You don't think that fossil fuel owners, and producers, and all the people who have massive financial interests (trillions of dollars) in maintaining the status quo wouldn't do whatever they thought was required (including lying about the existence and dangers of climate change), in order to maintain their control over the current system?

If that's what you think, you're their bitch!

Oh, and what would all the pointy-headed ivory tower dwelling scientists do tomorrow, if they came out and said "We fucked up....there's really nothing to worry about."?

They'd be working the fryolator at McDonald's, that's what.

Vested financial interests indeed.

 

[Freewill]

Maybe.

But here's the facts of the matter.

There are two great powers in the world today.... Big Government and Big Business.

Let's think about Big Government for a minute....

Hitler, Stalin, Mao. A few dead there, huh? Nearing a hundred million murdered.

But so far as I can tell, Big Business hasn't murdered anyone yet. Maybe one or two or a dozen or accidentally or through negligence cause a few hundred deaths, but sure as FUCK not anywhere near 100,000,000.

You choose to side with Big Government. The side that has murdered hundreds of millions of people throughout history.

You're their bitch.

If you want to say I'm the bitch of Big Business? I can live with that.

My pimp doesn't go around murdering people by the Millions and hundreds of Millions.

Yours does.

Think about it.

How many human beings do you think pollution kills every year?

Has any government recently killed 2 million people every year?

Red herring.

CO2 isn't a pollutant.

Ah but...how many people have red herrings killed????

 

[Bfgrn]

Maybe.

But here's the facts of the matter.

There are two great powers in the world today.... Big Government and Big Business.

Let's think about Big Government for a minute....

Hitler, Stalin, Mao. A few dead there, huh? Nearing a hundred million murdered.

But so far as I can tell, Big Business hasn't murdered anyone yet. Maybe one or two or a dozen or accidentally or through negligence cause a few hundred deaths, but sure as FUCK not anywhere near 100,000,000.

You choose to side with Big Government. The side that has murdered hundreds of millions of people throughout history.

You're their bitch.

If you want to say I'm the bitch of Big Business? I can live with that.

My pimp doesn't go around murdering people by the Millions and hundreds of Millions.

Yours does.

Think about it.

How many human beings do you think pollution kills every year?

Has any government recently killed 2 million people every year?

Red herring.

CO2 isn't a pollutant.

Name some pollutants?

 

[Oddball]

Irrelevant.

CO2 isn't a pollutant.

 

[Mustang]

Maybe.

But here's the facts of the matter.

There are two great powers in the world today.... Big Government and Big Business.

Let's think about Big Government for a minute....

Hitler, Stalin, Mao. A few dead there, huh? Nearing a hundred million murdered.

But so far as I can tell, Big Business hasn't murdered anyone yet. Maybe one or two or a dozen or accidentally or through negligence cause a few hundred deaths, but sure as FUCK not anywhere near 100,000,000.

You choose to side with Big Government. The side that has murdered hundreds of millions of people throughout history.

You're their bitch.

If you want to say I'm the bitch of Big Business? I can live with that.

My pimp doesn't go around murdering people by the Millions and hundreds of Millions.

Yours does.

Think about it.

How many human beings do you think pollution kills every year?

Has any government recently killed 2 million people every year?

Red herring.

CO2 isn't a pollutant.

How 'bout mercury? You consider that a 'pollutant' seeing as how tons of mercury is released into the atmosphere every year as a byproduct of the burning of coal. Naturally, if finds it's way into the soil and our lakes (and the fish we eat) as well as everywhere else.

 

[Bfgrn]

Irrelevant.

CO2 isn't a pollutant.

The death of 2 million people per year is 'irrelevant'?

Tell me Jethro, WHY are ALL the climate change deniers funded by the biggest polluters on the planet? Has your tiny little brain ever contemplated that inconvenient truth?

Could there possibly be a $motive$???

 

[Edgetho]

Higher CO2 has also caused deserts to shrink, vegetation to spring up and crops to increase their yields exponentially.

If Man is contributing to Global Warming, Climate Change or the increased size of my dick, how much are we contributing?

The eggheads can't answer that question because they don't have a clue.

IS Man contributing to increased CO2 levels? Of course. But how much?

Most CO2 emissions that are man-caused rise into the air and quickly fall back down into the soil or the Water.

What's that hurt? I thought all life on Earth was Carbon Based?

One other thing while I'm at it....

Know how many phony-assed PhD's have been given out on this bullshit subject?

Know how many MILLIONS in University Grants have been handed out to study this insanity?

Know how rich ManBearPig has gotten off of this (He is now richer than Mitt Romney, at least Romney did something for his money)

dimocraps are just plain stupid. They'll swallow any lie, push any meme as long as it's the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM telling them to. Pop Culture retards

And who is the DISGUSTING FILTH of the LSM in bed with politically?

The very people who just can't seem to get enough power over the people...

dimocrap scum.

How about that.

Forgot why I called.... Oh yeah

Scientist Tells Dem Senators During Hearing There Is No Evidence Linking Global Warming To Extreme Weather…

Still won’t stop them from making those claims.

Via Daily Caller:

In a Senate hearing Thursday, environmental scientist Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado said it’s “incorrect” to claim that global warming is spurring more extreme weather disasters.

“It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally,” Pielke said in his testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.”

“Hurricanes have not increased in the U.S. in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900,” Pielke added. “The same holds for tropical cyclones globally since at least 1970.”

Senate Democrats pointed to the increase in extreme weather events like hurricanes and tornadoes as evidence of global warming. California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer said that “climate change is real” and human activities were the cause, adding that people can “look out the window” to see evidence of it.

“Heat waves, droughts, wildfires and floods — all are now more frequent and intense,” said President Barack Obama in his State of the Union address.

Pielke, however, notes that U.S. floods have not increased in “frequency or intensity” since 1950 and economic losses from floods have dropped by 75 percent as a percentage of GDP since 1940. Tornado frequency, intensity, and normalized damages have also not increased since 1950, and Pielke even notes that there is some evidence that this has declined.

Pielke noted in his testimony that droughts have been shorter, less frequent, and have covered a smaller portion of the U.S over the last century. Globally, there has been very little change in the last 60 years, he said.

- See more at: Weasel Zippers | Scouring the bowels of the internet | Weasel Zippers

 

[freedombecki]

Here is the thing. Climate is changing. It has been changing or over 4 billion years.

It cannot be disputed.

There have been 5 mass extinction events on this planet due to climate change. Some say we may be in the beginning of another one.

It may be we can do something about it, it may be that we cannot.

But lets all be honest here. When we talk climate change in places like this, what we are doing is advocating that mankind is causing it (so ludicrous its laughable), or we are arguing that mankind is not causing it.

Given the overwhelming historic facts of climate change on this planet, I simply cannot believe people are willing to give up prosperity for a fantasy that mankind can affect climate in any manner whatever.

You're missing the point in two instances.

A) When you're talking about climate change in the past, you're talking about changes that occurred over tens of thousands to millions of years. AGW talks about changes over ~200-300 years.

B) If it's ludicrous that humans couldn't possibly be having an effect on climate, please explain where the 30-40% increase in CO2 observed since the advent of the Industrial Revolution is coming from.

go dig it up. there have been plenty of instances in which CO2 has increased by more than that in very short times.

Tell Me, are you aware that climate change without the aid of mankind manged to take a lush green region of the world and turn it into the largest desert on the planet in less that a 100 years? all on the basis of a minor warble in rotation.

Save yourself the time in this argument. You have an agenda to follow and it will not allow for you to see reason. Climate changes. It is proven that it changes with or without us. Only arrogance thinks that we are responsible for it.

Another scientist says the Sahara extended into lush green areas because of eliminating animals from the area. When they reintroduced animals into a limited number of areas the green returned according to him. I'll see if I can find the article on reversing desertification. BRB.

I found him: Allan Savory, in his own words:

[ame="http://youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI"]Allan Savory: How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Wyatt earp]

Irrelevant.

CO2 isn't a pollutant.

The death of 2 million people per year is 'irrelevant'?

Tell me Jethro, WHY are ALL the climate change deniers funded by the biggest polluters on the planet? Has your tiny little brain ever contemplated that inconvenient truth?

Could there possibly be a $motive$???

Not so much climate change deniers, but a bunch of made made climate deniers.... I swear you folks watch to many movies, get out once in a while..

 

[Freewill]

Irrelevant.

CO2 isn't a pollutant.

The death of 2 million people per year is 'irrelevant'?

Tell me Jethro, WHY are ALL the climate change deniers funded by the biggest polluters on the planet? Has your tiny little brain ever contemplated that inconvenient truth?

Could there possibly be a $motive$???

Can I get in on this funding???/

Tell us how many Climate Change fearists are funded by those who wish to have the desired outcome.

What inconvenient truth are you talking about, your OPINION? Really get f...king real. Present the evidence or it is nothing more then the pollution your computer use causes.

 

[Mustang]

Irrelevant.

CO2 isn't a pollutant.

The death of 2 million people per year is 'irrelevant'?

Tell me Jethro, WHY are ALL the climate change deniers funded by the biggest polluters on the planet? Has your tiny little brain ever contemplated that inconvenient truth?

Could there possibly be a $motive$???

Conservatives see imaginary conspiracies everywhere. But somehow, for some reason, they can't seem to make a connection between the trillions of dollars involved in every aspect of the fossil fuel industry, and a motivation for why coal and oil industry interests are willing to fund 'studies' which deny climate change and any human related connection between burning carbon and our warming planet.

This is all the more amazing to me since it's, at this point in time, it's considered an undisputed fact that the tobacco industry was denying any causal link between smoking and lung disease for decades even as they were manipulating nicotine levels and providing phony 'studies' to bolster their claims.

Now, considering the fact that the money involved in the tobacco industry is just a tiny fraction of the money involved in the fossil fuel industry, is it so farfetched to believe that these powerful men and the companies they own and/or work for would do whatever they thought was necessary to keep the money flowing in from the burning of fossil fuels?

 

[Freewill]

Liberal BS logic,

Make as statement no matter how idiotic or not based on fact. Although if it has just a tad bit of evidence that is better.

Then if anyone argues against their made up reality call them deniers.

The biggest source of pollution in the US is liberal talk.

 

[Freewill]

Irrelevant.

CO2 isn't a pollutant.

The death of 2 million people per year is 'irrelevant'?

Tell me Jethro, WHY are ALL the climate change deniers funded by the biggest polluters on the planet? Has your tiny little brain ever contemplated that inconvenient truth?

Could there possibly be a $motive$???

Conservatives see imaginary conspiracies everywhere. But somehow, for some reason, they can't seem to make a connection between the trillions of dollars involved in every aspect of the fossil fuel industry, and a motivation for why coal and oil industry interests are willing to fund 'studies' which deny climate change and any human related connection between burning carbon and our warming planet.

This is all the more amazing to me since it's, at this point in time, it's considered an undisputed fact that the tobacco industry was denying any causal link between smoking and lung disease for decades even as they were manipulating nicotine levels and providing phony 'studies' to bolster their claims.

Now, considering the fact that the money involved in the tobacco industry is just a tiny fraction of the money involved in the fossil fuel industry, is it so farfetched to believe that these powerful men and the companies they own and/or work for would do whatever they thought was necessary to keep the money flowing in from the burning of fossil fuels?

None of that means a f...king thing it is all just a dodge.

 

[Edgetho]

How will doubling the price of Energy hurt Energy Companies?

Fucking geniuses

I swear to Christ, we really should give IQ tests before allowing people to procreate.

These people, dimocraps..... I don't see how they can even get dressed in the morning

 

[konradv]

Red herring.

CO2 isn't a pollutant.

What do you call total cluelessness? Water isn't a pollutant either, but getting too much of anything can be bad. Just ask New Orleans. Once again, you spout irrelevancies as if they actual arguments. FAIL!!!

 

[Oddball]

Irrelevant.

CO2 isn't a pollutant.

The death of 2 million people per year is 'irrelevant'?

Tell me Jethro, WHY are ALL the climate change deniers funded by the biggest polluters on the planet? Has your tiny little brain ever contemplated that inconvenient truth?

Could there possibly be a $motive$???

How does any of that change the fact that CO2 isn't a pollutant?

Oh, that's right, it doesn't.

Hysterical nincompoop.