Global Warming - the truth

[ErikViking]

I will stick my nose out and tell you the truth.

Slight warning: This will be a moderate post.

First of all. Look at my Avatar. That is a Mandelbrot fractal with a Julia attractor. My daughters name is Julia. It is also representation of chaos - beautiful like the ocean, forrest or flowers. Chaos is woven deeply into us and our world and the temprature changes are no exception.

The concept of chaos rhymes perfectly with our brains but it connects badly with our abstract and linnear science. Almost anything related to chaos can be proven with linnear thinking if you change your field of view.

So what have scientists done?

OUR NARROW MINDS - I
They have for a brief moment taken a look at temperature changes. They all know that fluctuations can't hardly be predicted. They also know that historical data can't be statistically compared. Most scientists agree that the planet is going through climate changes. The extent and reasons is up for suggestions. Our small narrow science is not yet capable of any real conclusions. Has man contributed to this? And if so, - how much? It could be the case that the first human who set a piece of wood on fire started a chain reaction that was both disasterous and irreverible. Or maybe our doings contribute to nothing.

I AM GOD?
There is a lot of talk about what to do and what not to do in order to set things straight. This is pure nonsense. If you belive in a god you can pray for his intervensions, otherwise - hold your breath. Humans have done a very poor job in controlling nature. In fact we do it so poorly that almost any effort creates some unforseen effect on a totally unrelated matter. Those effects take some time to understand - retroperspectivley. Scientists are often very blind to those effects and pretend to be surprised. They aren't. Well, they couldn't know what to expect - but they knew that something would happen. Their arrogance and almost god like behaviour could be dangerous. If a cure for cancer was developed it would be "tested" and deployed. If the human race then ceased to exist in 150 years it wouldn't surprise me. I know chaos.

JUST STOP IT?
So what am I saying? Should progress stop, just to ensure we don't do things we will regret later on? No, of course not. This is the price we pay for being thinking beings. Chaos got no morale. Not curing cancer might also lead to disaster in yet another unforseen way. But we do need to be more careful. We need to be more humble about our position. This planet is redundant. We could probably do anything we like here, life would still get back on track. Possibly without any humans around - but to think we can wipe out all life is as arrogant as anything else.

OUR NARROW MINDS - II
Yet all this uncertainty leads people to belive that we know less than we do. The uncertainty discussed by scientists is not for use in political or economical debates. There is a strong possibilty that our current lifestyle is actually going to effect the climate. This possibility - or risc - is instantly drawn into a contemporary political and economical debate. Voices cry out against or for scientific work for reasons not even remotely linked to climate. This sub-debate make us unworthy of "owning" this planet. The only logical step now is NOT to do nothing until we know. Instead we should try to reduce our impact - just to play it safe - on this planet. People tend to think that "doing something" is to stop driving big cars. It isn't. Relative to earth and climate "doing something" is to drive big cars. By doing stuff we increase the risc of messing things up even worse.

BOTTOM LINE
Accept the possibility of ourselfs messing the system up.

Don't see money as wasted if spent on reducing the risc of this possibility. But do this wisely. Economy is also a resource - if we waste it we have no more room for actions. Let economical experts deal with how to integrate climate into economy.

Stop using climate as an economical or political tool. Can you imagine the verdict placed upon us if we fail now? Calling devoted and concerned people nuts is terrible. And making single persons look like climate-busters is equally bad. What we need to realize is that this issue can't be solved without adding environment to the charts of assets. Gold, silver, environment, industry or tourism.

For our everyday lives:
You do NOT have to support the rescue of the endangered Speckled Owl. The effort might as well fail or render the Striped Mouse extinct.

You DO have to support the thought of climate as valuable as gold. The rest will in time sort it self out. Encourage attempts in economical-climate connections. Like the Kyoto protocol. But don't forget you must make a good deal out of it, otherwise you misuse economical resources and thus reduce the possibility to act.

 

[red states rule]

I will stick my nose out and tell you the truth.

Slight warning: This will be a moderate post.

First of all. Look at my Avatar. That is a Mandelbrot fractal with a Julia attractor. My daughters name is Julia. It is also representation of chaos - beautiful like the ocean, forrest or flowers. Chaos is woven deeply into us and our world and the temprature changes are no exception.

The concept of chaos rhymes perfectly with our brains but it connects badly with our abstract and linnear science. Almost anything related to chaos can be proven with linnear thinking if you change your field of view.

So what have scientists done?

OUR NARROW MINDS - I
They have for a brief moment taken a look at temperature changes. They all know that fluctuations can't hardly be predicted. They also know that historical data can't be statistically compared. Most scientists agree that the planet is going through climate changes. The extent and reasons is up for suggestions. Our small narrow science is not yet capable of any real conclusions. Has man contributed to this? And if so, - how much? It could be the case that the first human who set a piece of wood on fire started a chain reaction that was both disasterous and irreverible. Or maybe our doings contribute to nothing.

I AM GOD?
There is a lot of talk about what to do and what not to do in order to set things straight. This is pure nonsense. If you belive in a god you can pray for his intervensions, otherwise - hold your breath. Humans have done a very poor job in controlling nature. In fact we do it so poorly that almost any effort creates some unforseen effect on a totally unrelated matter. Those effects take some time to understand - retroperspectivley. Scientists are often very blind to those effects and pretend to be surprised. They aren't. Well, they couldn't know what to expect - but they knew that something would happen. Their arrogance and almost god like behaviour could be dangerous. If a cure for cancer was developed it would be "tested" and deployed. If the human race then ceased to exist in 150 years it wouldn't surprise me. I know chaos.

JUST STOP IT?
So what am I saying? Should progress stop, just to ensure we don't do things we will regret later on? No, of course not. This is the price we pay for being thinking beings. Chaos got no morale. Not curing cancer might also lead to disaster in yet another unforseen way. But we do need to be more careful. We need to be more humble about our position. This planet is redundant. We could probably do anything we like here, life would still get back on track. Possibly without any humans around - but to think we can wipe out all life is as arrogant as anything else.

OUR NARROW MINDS - II
Yet all this uncertainty leads people to belive that we know less than we do. The uncertainty discussed by scientists is not for use in political or economical debates. There is a strong possibilty that our current lifestyle is actually going to effect the climate. This possibility - or risc - is instantly drawn into a contemporary political and economical debate. Voices cry out against or for scientific work for reasons not even remotely linked to climate. This sub-debate make us unworthy of "owning" this planet. The only logical step now is NOT to do nothing until we know. Instead we should try to reduce our impact - just to play it safe - on this planet. People tend to think that "doing something" is to stop driving big cars. It isn't. Relative to earth and climate "doing something" is to drive big cars. By doing stuff we increase the risc of messing things up even worse.

BOTTOM LINE
Accept the possibility of ourselfs messing the system up.

Don't see money as wasted if spent on reducing the risc of this possibility. But do this wisely. Economy is also a resource - if we waste it we have no more room for actions. Let economical experts deal with how to integrate climate into economy.

Stop using climate as an economical or political tool. Can you imagine the verdict placed upon us if we fail now? Calling devoted and concerned people nuts is terrible. And making single persons look like climate-busters is equally bad. What we need to realize is that this issue can't be solved without adding environment to the charts of assets. Gold, silver, environment, industry or tourism.

For our everyday lives:
You do NOT have to support the rescue of the endangered Speckled Owl. The effort might as well fail or render the Striped Mouse extinct.

You DO have to support the thought of climate as valuable as gold. The rest will in time sort it self out. Encourage attempts in economical-climate connections. Like the Kyoto protocol. But don't forget you must make a good deal out of it, otherwise you misuse economical resources and thus reduce the possibility to act.

We are getting about 10 inches of global warming here today - 48 hours ago it was 75 and sunny

If the planet is heating up - send some fucking heat to my area

 

[ErikViking]

We are getting about 10 inches of global warming here today - 48 hours ago it was 75 and sunny

If the planet is heating up - send some fucking heat to my area

No way - butterfly effect!

 

[red states rule]

No way - butterfly effect!

Oh, yes we did. I just finished digging ,y car out and clearing the drive. We got about 12 inches outside

Here is another gem from the last snow the area got.................


HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER SNOW/ICE STORM
HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.

DC WEATHER REPORT:

Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning...then a chance of snow in the afternoon. Ice accumulation of less than one quarter of an inch. Highs in the mid 30s. Northwest winds around 20 mph. Chance of precipitation 80 percent.

Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.

 

[red states rule]

This article tells you all need to know about the fraud and manufactured crisis known as global warming


Global warming swindle
By Thomas Sowell
March 17, 2007


Britain's Channel 4 has produced a devastating documentary titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." It has apparently not been broadcast by any of the networks in the United States. But, fortunately, it is available on the Internet.
Distinguished scientists specializing in climate and climate-related fields talk in plain English and present readily understood graphs showing what a crock the current global warming hysteria is.
These include scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and top-tier universities in a number of countries. Some are scientists whose names were paraded on some of the global warming publications being promoted in the media -- but who state plainly that they neither wrote those publications nor approved them.
One scientist threatened to sue unless his name was removed.
While the public has been led to believe "all" the leading scientists buy the global warming hysteria and the political agenda that goes with it, in fact the official reports from the United Nations or the National Academy of Sciences are written by bureaucrats -- and then garnished with the names of leading scientists who were "consulted," but whose contrary conclusions have been ignored.
There is no question the globe is warming, but it has warmed and cooled before, and is not as warm today as it was some centuries ago, before there were any automobiles and before there was as much burning of fossil fuels as today.
None of the dire things predicted today happened then.
The British documentary goes into some of the many factors that have caused the Earth to warm and cool for centuries, including changes in activities on the sun, 93 million miles away and wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the Kyoto treaty.
According to these climate scientists, human activities have very little effect on the climate, compared to many other factors, from volcanoes to clouds. These climate scientists likewise debunk mathematical models used to hype global warming though hard evidence stretching back over centuries contradicts these models.
What is even scarier than seeing how easily the public, the media and the politicians have been manipulated and stampeded, is discovering how much effort has been put into silencing scientists who dare to say the emperor has no clothes.
Academics who jump on the global warming bandwagon are far likelier to get big research grants than those who express doubts -- and research is the lifeblood of an academic career at leading universities.
Environmental movements around the world are committed to global warming hysteria and nowhere more so than on college and university campuses, where they can harass those who say otherwise. One of the scientists interviewed on the British documentary reported getting death threats.

In politics, even conservative Republicans seem to have taken the view that, if you can't lick 'em, join 'em. So have big corporations, which have joined the stampede.
This only enables the green crusaders to declare at every opportunity that "everybody" believes the global warming scenario, except for a scattered few "deniers" who are likened to Holocaust deniers.
The difference is that we have the hardest and most painful evidence that there was a Holocaust. But, for the global warming scenario causing such hysteria, we have only a movie made by a politician and mathematical models whose results change drastically when you change a few of the arbitrarily selected variables.
No one denies that temperatures are about a degree warmer than a century ago.
What the climate scientists in the British documentary deny is that you can mindlessly extrapolate that, or that we are headed for a climate catastrophe if we don't take drastic steps that could cause an economic catastrophe.
"Global warming" is just the latest in a long line of hysterical crusades to which we seem to be increasingly susceptible.
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20070316-084745-4182r.htm

 

[red states rule]

No way - butterfly effect!

Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth
COPENHAGEN, Denmark, March 15 (UPI) -- A Danish scientist said the idea of a "global temperature" and global warming is more political than scientific.

University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen has analyzed the topic in collaboration with Canadian Professors Christopher Essex from the University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph.


It is generally assumed the Earth's atmosphere and oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years because of an upward trend in the so-called global temperature, which is the result of complex calculations and averaging of air temperature measurements taken around the world.


"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth," said Andresen, an expert on thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".


He says the currently used method of determining the global temperature -- and any conclusion drawn from it -- is more political than scientific.


The argument is presented in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.


http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Danish_scientist_Global_warming_is_a_myth/20070315-012154-7403r/

 

[jodylee]

the only thing that needs to be is, yes there is a relation between co2 and temp. when the temp goes up, co2 goes up. not the other way round. ie, man is not responsable for global warming.

 

[red states rule]

the only thing that needs to be is, yes there is a relation between co2 and temp. when the temp goes up, co2 goes up. not the other way round. ie, man is not responsable for global warming.

Libs do not want to adjust their lives or lower their lifestyle so there must nt be a problem

The libs preach to us how we need to live our lives but they never do the same in their own lives


Limousine Liberal Hypocrisy

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Goldman Sachs has been one of the most aggressive firms on Wall Street about taking action on climate change; the company sends its bankers home at night in hybrid limousines.

--The New York Times, Feb. 25

Written without a hint of irony--if only your neighborhood dry cleaner sent his employees home by hybrid limousine--this front-page dispatch captured perfectly the eco-pretensions of the rich and the stupefying gullibility with which they are received.

Remember the Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore global-warming pitch at the Academy Awards? Before they spoke, the screen at the back of the stage flashed not-so-subliminal messages about how to save the planet. My personal favorite was "Ride mass transit." This to a conclave of Hollywood plutocrats who have not seen the inside of a subway since the moon landing and for whom mass transit means a stretch limo seating no fewer than 10.

Leo and Al then portentously announced that for the first time ever, the Academy Awards ceremony had gone green. What did that mean? Solar panels in the designer gowns? It turns out that the Academy neutralized the evening's "carbon footprint" by buying carbon credits. That means it sent money to a "carbon broker," who promised, after taking his cut, to reduce carbon emissions somewhere on the planet equivalent to what the stars spewed into the atmosphere while flying in on their private planes.

In other words, the rich reduce their carbon output by not one ounce. But drawing on the hundreds of millions of net worth in the Kodak Theatre, they pull out lunch money to buy ecological indulgences. The last time the selling of pardons was prevalent--in a predecessor religion to environmentalism called Christianity--Martin Luther lost his temper and launched the Reformation.

A very few of the very rich have some awareness of the emptiness--if not the medieval corruption--of ransoming one's sins. Sergey Brin, zillionaire founder of Google, buys carbon credits to offset the ghastly amount of carbon dioxide emitted by Google's private Boeing 767 but confesses he's not sure if it really does anything.

Which puts him one step ahead of most other eco-preeners who actually pretend that it does--the Goracle himself, for example. His Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the electricity used by the average American home. Last August alone it consumed twice as much power as the average home consumes in a year. Gore buys absolution, however. He spends pocket change on carbon credits, which then allow him to pollute conscience-free.

What is wrong with this scam? First, purchasing carbon credits is an incentive to burn even more fossil fuels, since now it is done under the illusion that it's really cost-free to the atmosphere.

Second, it is a way for the rich to export the real costs and sacrifices of pollution control to the poorer segments of humanity in the Third World. (Apparently, Hollywood's plan is to make up for that by adopting every last one of their children.) For example, GreenSeat, a Dutch carbon-trading outfit, buys offsets from a foundation that plants trees in Uganda's Mount Elgon National Park to soak up the carbon emissions of its rich Western patrons. Small problem: expanding the park encroaches on land traditionally used by local farmers. As a result, reports the New York Times, "villagers living along the boundary of the park have been beaten and shot at, and their livestock has been confiscated by armed park rangers." All this so that swimming pools can be heated and Maseratis driven with a clear conscience in the fattest parts of the world.

The other form of carbon trading is to get Third World companies to cut their emissions to offset Western pollution. The reason this doesn't work--and why the carbon racket is a farce--is that you need a cap for cap-and-trade to work. Sulfur dioxide emissions in the U.S. were capped, and the trading system succeeded in reducing acid rain by half. But even the Kyoto treaty doesn't put any cap on greenhouse gases in China and India, where billions of these carbon credits are traded. Sure, you can pretend you're offsetting Western greenhouse pollution by supposedly cleaning up a dirty coal plant in China. But China is adding a new coal plant every week. You could build a particularly dirty "uncapped" power plant, then sell hundreds of millions in carbon credits to reduce it to a normal rate of pollution. The result? The polluter gets very rich. The planet continues to cook. And the Gores of the world can feel virtuous as they burn up the local power grid.

If Gore really wants to save the planet, he can try this: Turn off the lights. Ditch the heated pool. Ride the subway. And spare us the carbon-trading piety.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...599714,00.html

 

[jodylee]

yet again your banging on about libs, but im affriad the roots of the global warming phenomina can be traced back to conservative funding at least in the uk, it was used as justificaion to close the coal mines in the 80's a purely political move as the miners had the most powerfull union.

 

[red states rule]

yet again your banging on about libs, but im affriad the roots of the global warming phenomina can be traced back to conservative funding at least in the uk, it was used as justificaion to close the coal mines in the 80's a purely political move as the miners had the most powerfull union.

What global warming. I shoveld 10 inches of global warming this morning of my car and driveway

Why do the libs who bellow the most about how WE need to lower our standard of living do not alter their lives?

 

[jodylee]

What global warming. I shoveld 10 inches of global warming this morning of my car and driveway

Why do the libs who bellow the most about how WE need to lower our standard of living do not alter their lives?

humm, yes, quite, i think im talking to an automated response here

 

[red states rule]

humm, yes, quite, i think im talking to an automated response here

No, you are talking to someone who does not buy into the global warming crap

Now, will you explain why the libs who bellow the most about the global warming problem do the least to copmbat it?

 

[jodylee]

No, you are talking to someone who does not buy into the global warming crap

Now, will you explain why the libs who bellow the most about the global warming problem do the least to copmbat it?

exacly ,and i just explained how i too, do not belive in that crap, unless your saying you don't think its warming, well it is in england, and i'm all for it. try
to post the next one without the word lib in it, dare ya

 

[red states rule]

exacly ,and i just explained how i too, do not belive in that crap, unless your saying you don't think its warming, well it is in england, and i'm all for it. try
to post the next one without the word lib in it, dare ya

There been a fraction of a degree increase in the temps world wide

Still will not answer my question I see

 

[jodylee]

There been a fraction of a degree increase in the temps world wide

Still will not answer my question I see

the only question i can see is 'what global warming', well you just admited a rise of a fraction, this is enough.

 

[red states rule]

the only question i can see is 'what global warming', well you just admited a rise of a fraction, this is enough.

A fraction of a degree is hardly enought to bellow the Earth is dying

I guess you are one of the gullible masses who never question Al Gore and how he is playing you for a fool

and laughing all the way to the bank

 

[jodylee]

A fraction of a degree is hardly enought to bellow the Earth is dying

I guess you are one of the gullible masses who never question Al Gore and how he is playing you for a fool

and laughing all the way to the bank

the earth isn't dying, just warming up a bit, it will probably cool down again in forty years, you havn't lisend to a word i've said.

 

[red states rule]

the earth isn't dying, just warming up a bit, it will probably cool down again in forty years, you havn't lisend to a word i've said.

Still ducking why you do not ask Al Gore and John Edwards (and other global warming nuts) why they do not change their lifestyles

Even the NY TConsensus My Eye: Global Warming Skeptics Win NYC Debate With Believers
Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 16, 2007 - 10:53.
You probably didn’t hear about a rather topical debate concerning man’s role in global warming that took place in New York City Wednesday night.

Want to know why the media will likely ignore this fascinating event? Well, because the panel of skeptics beat the believers.

How large was the victory?

Well, before the debate took place, the tough New York crowd was polled, and the results showed that they believed global warming was a crisis by a margin of 57 percent to 30 percent. However, after the debate, this changed to the crowd feeling it wasn’t a crisis, with skeptics topping believers 46 to 42 percent.

So much for consensus, huh? As reported by Marc Morano at the EPW blog (emphasis added throughout):

Just days before former Vice President Al Gore’s scheduled visit to testify about global warming before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, a high profile climate debate between prominent scientists Wednesday evening ended with global warming skeptics being voted the clear winner by a tough New York City before an audience of hundreds of people.

[…]

After the stunning victory, one of the scientists on the side promoting the belief in a climate "crisis" appeared to concede defeat by noting his debate team was ‘pretty dull" and at "a sharp disadvantage" against the skeptics. ScientificAmerican.com’s blog agreed, saying the believers in a man-made climate catastrophe “seemed underarmed for the debate and, not surprising, it swung against them."

The evening was not without well-timed jabs at hypocrites like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his adoring fans in Hollywood who preach to the populace the need for a change in energy usage while they use the planet’s natural resources at a staggering clip:

"What we see in this is an enormous danger for politicians in terms of their hypocrisy. I’m not going to say anything about Al Gore and his house. But it is a very serious point," quipped University of London emeritus professor Philip Stott to laughter from the audience.

The audience also applauded a call by novelist Michael Crichton to stop the hypocrisy of environmentalists and Hollywood liberals by enacting a ban on private jet travel.

"Let’s have the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly on private jets. They must get their houses off the [power] grid. They must live in the way that they’re telling everyone else to live. And if they won’t do that, why should we? And why should we take them seriously?" Crichton said to applause audience.

My sentiments exactly. And, Crichton appeared to really want to drive this hypocrisy home:

"I suddenly think about my friends, you know, getting on their private jets. And I think, well, you know, maybe they have the right idea. Maybe all that we have to do is mouth a few platitudes, show a good, expression of concern on our faces, buy a Prius, drive it around for a while and give it to the maid, attend a few fundraisers and you’re done. Because, actually, all anybody really wants to do is talk about it."

"I mean, haven’t we actually raised temperatures so much that we, as stewards of the planet, have to act? These are the questions that friends of mine ask as they are getting on board their private jets to fly to their second and third homes. [LAUGHTER]"

University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott stated:

"In the early 20th century, 95% of scientists believe in eugenics. [LAUGHTER] Science does not progress by consensus, it progresses by falsification and by what we call paradigm shifts."

"The first Earth Day in America claimed the following, that because of global cooling, the population of America would have collapsed to 22 million by the year 2000. And of the average calorie intake of the average American would be wait for this, 2,400 calories, would good it were. [LAUGHTER] It’s nonsense and very dangerous. And what we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes."

"Angela Merkel the German chancellor, my own good prime minister (Tony Blair) for whom I voted -- let me emphasize, arguing in public two weeks ago as to who in Annie get the gun style could produce the best temperature. ‘I could do two degrees C said Angela.’ ‘No, I could only do three said Tony.’ [LAUGHTER] Stand back a minute, those are politicians, telling you that they can control climate to a degree Celsius.”

“And can I remind everybody that IPCC that we keep talking about, very honestly admits that we know very little about 80% of the factors behind climate change. Well let’s use an engineer; I don’t think I’d want to cross Brooklyn Bridge if it were built by an engineer who only understood 80% of the forces on that bridge. [LAUGHTER]”

And, MIT professor Richard Lindzen declared:

"Now, much of the current alarm, I would suggest, is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate."

"The impact on temperature per unit carbon dioxide actually goes down, not up, with increasing CO2. The role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is not directly related to the emissions rate or even CO2 levels, which is what the legislation is hitting on, but rather to the impact of these gases on the greenhouse effect."

"The real signature of greenhouse warming is not surface temperature but temperature in the middle of the troposphere, about five kilometers. And that is going up even slower than the temperature at the surface."

Any questions about why the media ignored this New York, New York debate? After all, to paraphrase Frank Sinatra, if you can make your point there, you can make it anywhere!!!

imes is telling Al to "cool" it on global warming hype

 

[jodylee]

Still ducking why you do not ask Al Gore and John Edwards (and other global warming nuts) why they do not change their lifestyles

how is that relivant to me when im english and don't belive its man made. im sure they have a prepared awnser,listing things they have changed.

 

[red states rule]

how is that relivant to me when im english and don't belive its man made. im sure they have a prepared awnser,listing things they have changed.

Other countries are lecturing the US how we have to lower our standard of living and support Al in what he says

But they ignore how Al does not live by his own words

Global warming is a manufactered crisis by those who envy the US economy and cannot compete on a level playing field