Thursday, December 10, 2009

Climategate vs. Boxer: We Need To Stop Cap-&-Trade Tax

On Monday, the EPA moved to regulate six “greenhouse gases” by finding that their contribution to Global Warming constitutes a hazard to human health. One of those gases is methane, the lightest and most abundant hydrocarbon, chemical symbol CH4.
This finding by the EPA unmasks an unscientific charade and a regulatory power-grab.

U.S. Agency to Regulate Greenhouse Gases

The announcement was made late Monday and paves the way for federal regulation of emissions of six gases, including carbon dioxide and methane from refineries, chemical facilities and power plants - even if Congress rejects climate change legislation.
EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson made the ‘endangerment finding’ announcement and also said that she believes it is “necessary to move ahead on new emission standards for cars, while potentially opening up large emitters such as power plants, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants to limits on their output of carbon dioxide and other gases.”…
“The endangerment finding means that we arrive at the climate talks in Copenhagen with a clear demonstration of our commitment to facing this global challenge,” Jackson said.
That’s one of the silliest — and scariest — things I’ve ever heard.
Methane, CH4, makes up about 1800 parts per billion, or less than 2/10,000ths of 1% of the atmosphere.
(By comparison, carbon dioxide, CO2, makes up about 375 parts per million of the atmosphere, or less than 4/100ths of 1%. We all know about CO2.)
Methane is a completely non-toxic, non-carcinogenic by-product of animal digestion and vegetation decay. It also vents to the atmosphere in natural seeps from underground reservoirs. The gas is much lighter than air and is the main constituent of the natural gas we burn in our houses. When burned, its residue gases are CO2 and H2O. That’s it.
Methane is supposedly 22 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2, so it’s included in the EPA power-grab. Even considering that, methane’s impact is less than a tenth of that of CO2 because it’s so dilute in the atmosphere.
Unlike CO2, methane doesn’t have much staying power in the atmosphere. Almost all , of whatever source, either escapes into space or reacts with hydroxyl ions to form, again, CO2 and water vapor.

While the graph above might appear scary at first glance, note the scale. The rate of increase over the 20+ year period covered by the graph is about 6 parts per billion methane per year, and the recent trend is nearly flat. That tells you that the natural processes that regulate atmospheric methane are working.
The primary sources for the additional methane added to the atmosphere (in order of importance) are:
  1. rice cultivation;
  2. domestic grazing animals;
  3. termites;
  4. landfills;
  5. coal mining;
  6. oil and gas extraction.
If oil and gas extraction (which, incidentally, is already regulated by the various states and by the MMS in Federal waters) is the #6 source of methane, why are we subjected to pictures like the one below, as the EPA makes its case for regulation?

It’s because EPA knows how to regulate and tax domestic producers. Nobody should expect this to have a meaningful, or even measurable, impact on the environment. It will, however, make transportation, electricity, and every product made with oil and gas more expensive. And it makes for a bigger and more powerful EPA.
As for the meaningful sources of anthropogenic methane, note that more than 60% of all rice paddies are found in India and China where scientific data concerning emission rates are unavailable, and, oddly enough, the EPA can’t regulate or tax them.
Cows they can tax. Termites, however, may prove slightly more challenging.


  1. Bears are eating their youngs since they are unable to find pups.

  2. Are you really as stupid as your posts, Chris? Do you agree global warming is man made? Or are you just upset Democrats are trying to do something about it that will save your sorry ass and your children and grandchildren?

    (CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.
    A survey of more than 3,000 scientists found that the vast majority believe humans cause global warming.

    A survey of more than 3,000 scientists found that the vast majority believe humans cause global warming.

    Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem incongruous.

    However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

    The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

    Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

    About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

    The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

  3. Oh my GOD, is Bruce posting the SAME tired old article that he did earlier?!! Bruce, did you see where two people died in LA last night from the COLD?! If anything we need MORE global warming you dipshit. Now Bruce, what I want you to do is to go back a few blog topics to where ALLLLL of your stupid next coming ice age ... er ... global warming ... er ... climate change religion is refuted. Come on back when you have something new. You are the biggest idiot I have ever seen.

  4. Chris - With these EPA findings, they now will be able to regulate what we BREATHE. Can you believe that?

    The EPA needs to inform trees that CO2 is toxic.

    Bruce, what is the ideal temperature here buddy? Should we get England back to the point where they can grow wine grapes again? Because that would require MORE warming, not less... hmmmm...

    LORD you are the dumbest Bruce. Really. And before you think I say that to everybody, really, you are the only one of all the libs that post on here that I think really has had sever head trauma resulting in reduced capacity to think. I have never called Joey dumb or stupid or an idiot, because I don't think he is. But you ... man Bruce, you are dumb.

    So anyway, even NPR had a piece a few months back about the advantages of more CO2 in the atmosphere. For one, plants actually LIKE CO2, so they grow faster. Tree, and other shit you know Bruce, that actually then take the CO2 OUT of the atmosphere?! You would think the greenies would be all for higher CO2 concentrations, but it isn't really about THAT, is it? It's about power. Specifically gaining power over others, and telling them how to live their lives.

    But I digress. More CO2, plants and specifically trees used for manufacturing, paper, etc grow faster. Shorter turn-around, greater efficiency, less energy used in production. I'll see if I can find the piece, but it was a few months ago so no guarantees.

  5. Yagmur, what are you talking about? I'm not following your statement.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. John, that's the problem with you and those that think like you, all your thinking is short term thinking. Short term thinking has gotten us to the point where we are in America today.

    The Japanese and the Chinese are long term thinkers and that's why they've kicked our asses economically. All you Republicans/Conservatives/Tea Partiers only think about the next quarter's profits or if it's cold out today.

    So, two people died from the cold is your evidence that global warming is a hoax? That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard, John.

    When 97% of scientists agree on something, I'd call that a consensus and certainly a vast majority. I don't even understand why we are having this argument.

    As Al Gore said recently, man-made global warming is in the same category as gravity. It is irrefutable. Now the only question is whether we're going to ignore it or do something about it.

    I guess you are in the group that wants to do nothing.

  8. MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING bruce.Do you not know the difference between global warming and man made global warming? Cap and trade will do nothing for the environment. How do you explain the 8 yrs of global cooling then? Since we now know that some of the science is fake lets take another look at it. Bruce you might be the dumb one in the mix since the rest of the world wants to take another look at the data since so much of it was FAKE. John is right you on the left treat climate change as you religion and Al Gore and other liberals are the gods that can fix the mess we created. Did you also know that the number of polar bears is up not down? Hey Bruce did you also notice that your servey id almost 1 year old? A lot has come out since then but I'm sure you just don't like looking like a buffoon with your electric Prius. Is that why you are so crazy about climategate? Because you were chicken little saying the sky is falling and now you look like a man that should be wearing a helmet. Why do you libs always go so crazy over every little stupid fad the libs come up with?

  9. Somehow the Democrats have found a way to even tax thin air. This is a new tax low even for the Democrats. And bruce is doing their biding lock and step. He listened to Gore even when Gore doesn't follow his own advice. You liberal sheeple will buy anything.

  10. Bruce the Chinese already said they are in for the cap and trade so how is that for long term thinking. Your liberal house of cards is falling and the rest of the world isn't buying your liberal BS.

  11. The Colorado scientist described by the Washington Post as “the World’s Most Famous Hurricane Expert” says the “ClimateGate” e-mails from the United Kingdom that revealed possible data manipulation are evidence of a conspiracy among “warmists,” those who believe man’s actions are triggering possibly catastrophic climate change.

    “The recent ‘ClimateGate’ revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years,” said Colorado State University’s Dr. William Gray.

    His are the annual hurricane forecasts that are the standard for weather prognostications. His work pioneered the science of forecasting hurricanes and he has served as weather forecaster for the United States Air Force. He is Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at CSU and heads the school’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences Tropical Meteorology Project.

    He was referring to e-mails and other information that had been obtained by a hacker and posted on a Russian web server that included e-mails among scientists who are part of the cadre of researchers who believe man-made global warming is an impending catastrophe for the world.

    One e-mail said: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd (sic) from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

    Another expressed internal doubts: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

    Global Warming or Global Governance? What the media refuse to tell you about so-called climate change

    Further, an e-mail exchange suggested the suppression of information: “Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re (Assessment Report 4)? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.”

    Gray said, “This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publically funded climate research groups of the U.S. and of foreign governments were ever made public.”

    His comments are in a commentary at the online Climate and were posted just as officials from around the globe are conferencing in Copenhagen on the issue of “global warming” and what taxes should be imposed on those who use energy.

    “The Cap-and-Trade bill presently before Congress, the likely climate agreements coming out of the Copenhagen Conference, and the EPA’s just announced decision to treat CO2 as a pollutant represents a grave threat to the industrial world’s continued economic development,” Gray warned. “We should not allow these proposals to restrict our economic growth. Any United Nations climate bill our country might sign would act as an infringement on our country’s sovereignty.”

    He said he probably would have been “concerned” over the possibility people are causing serious global climate degradation “had I not devoted my entire career of over half-a-century to the study and foreasting of meteorological and climate events.”

    “There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide … induced global warming disaster,” he said. “These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards.

  12. “These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation.”

  13. Republicans/Conservatives/Tea Partiers only think about the next quarter's profits or if it's cold out today.

    Bruce - The fact is the global temperature trend is COOLING. You are a stoop. AS I said, we need to WARM the earth if you want to get it back to where it was when they were growing wine grapes in England. Is that long-term enough for you dipshit?

    Furthermore, Antarctic ice, which is 90 PERCENT of the world's ice and 70 PERCENT of its fresh water supply is GROWING. Not melting. If you would read more than your idiotic CNN article, you would see that.

    Keep your STUPID head in the ground you Hypocrat Ostrich. Meanwhile the big kids will get things done.

  14. Here Brucetard, an article from TWO DAYS AGO. So you can get caught up with us here in present reality:

    Part 1/2:

    Surprise, Surprise, Many Scientists Disagree On Global Warming By John Lott

    There is hardly unanimity among scientists about global warming or mankind's role in producing it. But you wouldn't know it if you just listened to the Obama administration.
    As the Climate-gate controversy continues to grow, amid charges of hiding and manipulating data, and suppressing research by academics who challenge global warming, there is one oft-repeated defense: other independent data-sets all reach the same conclusions. "I think everybody is clear on the science. I think scientists are clear on the science ... I think that this notion that there's some debate . . . on the science is kind of silly," said President Obama's Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, when asked about the president's response to the controversy on Monday. Despite the scandal, Britain's Met, the UK’s National Weather Service, claims: "we remain completely confident in the data. The three independent data sets show a strong correlation is highlighting an increase in global temperatures."

    But things are not so clear. It is not just the University of East Anglia data that is at question. There are about450 academic peer-reviewed journal articles questioning the importance of man-made global warming. The sheer number of scientists rallying against a major intervention to stop carbon dioxide is remarkable. In a petition, more than 30,000 American scientists are urging the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto treaty. Thus, there is hardly the unanimity among scientists about global warming or mankind's role in producing it. But even for the sake of argument, assuming that there is significant man-made global warming, many academics argue that higher temperatures are actually good. Higher temperatures increase the amount of land to grow food, increase biological diversity, and improve people's health. Increased carbon dioxide also promotes plant growth.

    Let's take the issue of data. The three most relied-on data series used by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report came from the University of East Anglia, NASA, and the British Met Office. As noted in my previous piece for the Fox Forum, the problem of secretiveness is hardly limited to the University of East Anglia. NASA also refuses to give out its data. NASA further refuses to explain mysterious changes in whether the warmest years were in the 1930s or this past decade. The British Met office, too, has been unable to release its data and just announced its plans to begin a three-year investigation of its data since all of its land temperatures data were obtained from the University of East Anglia (ocean temperatures were collected separately), though there are signs that things might bespeeded up.

    Neither the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia nor the British Met are able to provide their raw data to other research scientists because of the confidentiality agreements that Professor Phil Jones at CRU entered into. Unfortunately, Jones did not keep records of those agreements and, according to the British Met, can neither identify the countries with the confidentiality agreements nor provide the agreements. Earlier this year the British Met wrote the following to Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit:

    "Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released and it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept."

  15. Part 2/2:

    A press spokesman for the British Met, John Hammond, confirmed this statement in a telephone conversation on Monday to But the claimed confidentiality restrictions have hardly been followed consistently. When asked why the University of East Anglia was allowed to release the data to the Met but not to other academics, Mr. Hammond e-mailed back: "This is a question for the UEA." Unfortunately, however, neither the University of East Anglia nor anyone associated with the CRU was willing to answer any questions about the climate research conducted at the university.

    But why would countries want confidentiality agreements on decades old data that they are providing? "Climate data continues to have value so long as it is commercially confidential," Mr. Hammond says. But when pushed for evidence that this was in fact the concerns that countries had raised, Mr. Hammond said: "Although I do not have evidence to hand at the moment, some nations, especially in Africa for example, believe that the information does have commercial value." Earlier, in July, the Met had raised a different issue -- that scientists in other countries would be less willing to share their scientific research if the Met could be expected to pass on the data to others.
    However, professional meterologists are unimpressed by the claimed reasons for confidentiality. "Research data used as the basis for scientific research needs to be disclosed if other scientists are to be able to verify the work of others," Mike Steinberg, Senior Vice President, AccuWeather, told In addition, while the data access may be restricted in some countries because they sell data and forecasts, that doesn't explain why the data isn't released for all other countries.
    It is not just the University of East Anglia that has been accused of massaging the data (what they called creating "value added" data). Recently, New Zealand has also had its temperature series from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) challenged. Still the NIWA continues to insist that the "Warming over New Zealand through the past is unequivocal." Indeed, the institute claims that the New Zealand warming trend was 50 percent higher than the global average. But the difference in graphs between what NIWA produced after massaging the data and what the original raw data showed was truly remarkableand can be seen here. As the Climate Science Coalition of New Zealand charged: "The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below." Similar concerns have also been raised about Australian temperature data.
    Global warming advocates may believe that if they just keep shouting that everyone agrees with them, they will be able to enact their far-reaching regulations before everyone catches on. With President Obama's -- and the Democrats' -- fondness for more spending and increased regulations, our hope may have to rest with Indiaand China to finally bring the Copenhagen conference to its senses.

  16. John, I'll go with the 97% of scientists that believe that in fact the data show that the global temperature is going up and that is INDISPUTABLE! Man-made global warming is like gravity. If you can disprove gravity, then maybe you can disprove man-made global warming.

    Let me know when you can do that, John.

  17. Like gravity? Really? Only 97% of scientists believe in gravity Bruce?!

    Nice stealing Al Gore's talking point. Is that the only talking point you got from Gore? Gore is only in it for the planet is he?!! BWAAAAHAHAHAHA

    You are truly truly truly the dumbest man alive Bruce. Got anything to dispute all the information I posted? Keep on believing your old-assed article Bruce. You little Hypocrat ostrich with your head in the sand. What a sucker!


  18. There is in some respect SOME man Made warming BUT Mother Nature has MUCH more to do with it THAN man.Man tends to put themself Above Mother Nature. Climate Change/Global Warming/Ice Ages have been going on since TIME began. I beleive with all that has happened through the Billions of Years this Planet has been here that CHANGES have Occurred and WE are NOT going to STOP it! Volcanos which I have read put more Pollutants in the Air than MAN ever has. Now if this is true, I guess it Depends on who you Beleive. DATA is FACT and as of now I think to MANY fingers are in the Pie to Beleive the DATA!
    I wonder if through the Centuries if a Polar Bear has EVER eaten its young before,my guess is Yes they have. Donner Pass Settlers had NO problem eating own when LIFE depended on it,just a Thought!

  19. The Sound Of Settled Science

    Barbara Oakley says -

    Each year, I get invited to Washington DC to serve as a pimp. A scientific pimp. I’m expected to join a small legion of volunteers to beg my senators and representatives to spend tax money on a program called the Math and Science Partnerships. This program is supposed to help improve how math and science is taught in this country. What could be wrong with that?

    Climategate gives us a whole new way of understanding what’s wrong with that.

    The breathtakingly dishonesty and incompetence of climatology’s intellectual leadership clearly reveals that a discipline can become dominated by a small group of ideologically-motivated intellectual gatekeepers.[1] So much so that these gatekeepers can cut off the ability of dissenters to publish in a peer-reviewed journal. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal, of course, is the sine qua non of grants, which in turn leads to careers in academia.[2] No publications—no career.

    Narrow intellectual gatekeeping is omnipresent in academia. Want to know why the government wastes hundreds of millions of dollars on math and science programs that never seem to improve the test scores of American students?[3] Part of the reason for this is that today’s K-12 educators—unlike educators in other high-scoring countries of the world—refuse to acknowledge evidence that memorization plays an important role in mastering mathematics. Any proposed program that supports memorization is deemed to be against “creativity” by today’s intellectual gatekeepers in K-12 education, including those behind the Math and Science Partnerships. As one NSF program director told me: “We hear about success stories with practice and repetition-based programs like Kumon Mathematics. But I’ll be frank with you—you’ll never get anything like that funded. We don’t believe in it.” Instead the intellectual leadership in education encourages enormously expensive pimping programs that put America even further behind the international learning curve.

  20. The Green Left Goes After Children... Again
    by Gregory of Yardale at December 9, 2009

    Australian Ecothug Clive Hamilton shows the typical tactics of the Cult of Gaia by publishing an open letter directed at the children of Manbearpig skeptic Andrew Bolt.

    Hi there,
    There's something you need to know about your father.

    Your dad's job is to try to stop the government making laws to reduce Australia's carbon pollution. He is paid a lot of money to do that by big companies who do not want to own up to the fact that their pollution is changing the world's climate in very harmful ways.

    Because of their pollution, lots of people, mostly poor people, are likely to die. They will die from floods, from diseases like dengue fever, and from starvation when their crops won't grow anymore.

    The big companies are putting their profits before the lives of people. And your dad is helping them.

    Sadly, this is not the first time the progressive left has attempted to intimidate skeptics by targeting their children for harassment. ACORN targeted the children of bankers for similar harassment. Animal rights activists routinely target the families of those they disagree with for harassment.

    In other news of Progressive Left intolerance, a reporter in Maine has been fired at the demand of homosexual activists for a personal email in which he pointed out that Same Sex Marriage Activists were intolerant.

    Irony much?

  21. Oh Bruce, as for your INDISPUTABLE claim, well that is all it is, a CLAIM. Here ya go (just a link, as there are graphs involved). But let me just summarize it like this: Cooling big fella, cooling.

  22. Keith - Typical lieberal Hypocrat crap. They never let a thing like the facts stand in their way. Also typical lieberal Hypocrats, writing those kinds of things. They'll write that crap and then say they are scared of conservatives?!? They are a bunch of whack-o's.

  23. So in Bruces little head Gravity is MAN-MADE??????????

    Well in my reasoned mind GRAVITY was created by nature which was created by God.Following my logic,God therefore controls nature and in turn nature controls our enviroment be it warming,cooling or just plain change.

    So if the 97% of scientists Bruce likes to reference believe gravity is man-made this not only stupid but shows the lack of education Bruce has recieved to buy into that.

  24. Bruce global warming is out with the mullett haircut. Get with the times. It was a hoax and you can't face it even when the rest of the world is blowing the lide off the whole thing.

  25. You do know that if they find out that this global warming thing is a huge scam the liberals and Democrats are all done. The Democrats like Al Gore will loose it all. And Moore did do well with his last movie. Remember the good old days my Democrat friends as they were short but friutless for you.

  26. One should be a 'moron' so as not to believe that global warming is human made. Are you?Who made it? Cows? Where do you live? In another world? Stop accusing Democrats or the others and DO something. Oh heavens!!!

  27. Yagmur, actually some scientists are trying to blame global warming ... oops, I mean CLIMATE CHANGE (see, the planet is in all actuality COOLING, so the Gorebots had to change the name of their religion to Climate Change) on methane emitted from cows. So, to some scientists, yes, cows DID make it. When presented with this evidence, Al Gore still refuses to reject meat and go vegan. Will you do it Yagmur, to save the planet?

  28. i am already a vegan.hah! u can't beat me with such a stupid response. if there is a cow to blame, it is the ones who can be catastrophically blind or booby to reject this truth. i can't believe this happening.


  29. and the last note: to save the planet isn't related to be a vegan or not. those who eat meat can also do something to save our future. the only thing we need is wit and effort. Do you, john?


  30. Climategate -

    The kid has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar, but insists that he was just counting the cookies, regardless the fact that he was chewing.

  31. Those who demonize carbon only do so because it would sound even dumber to demonize water vapor, which makes up 90% or more of greenhouse gases.

  32. Is the plante warming? Yes, has been ever since the Little Ice Age.

    Does CO2 contribute to the warming? Yes, somewhat.

    Does man contribute to the total CO2 in the atmosphere? Yes, very minimally.

    Is it clear what effect greenhouse gases have on the planet warming and cooling? No

    Do clouds have an effect on cooling and warming? Yes

    Does the scientific community know exactly what effect clouds have on warming and cooling?

    Can clouds cause a positive and negative effect on warming (both amplify and decrease)?
    the warming? Yes

    What have ALL the IPCC Models used in regard to clouds? They have chosen to use the positive feedback method, whereby the clouds enhance the warming.

    Is there a scientific reason why they only use positive feedback? NO

    Is there a political/agenda driven reason why they DO NOT use negative feedback ON A SINGLE MODEL? MAYBE BECAUSE THE RESULTS DO NOT FIT THEIR NARRATIVE??????

  33. Yagmur, I'm not belittling your English, but I am having trouble following what you say. Google has a great language translator, perhaps you can throw your sentences in there and translate to English?

    Yagmur you asked what was causing your pretend global warming, the cows? And I replied that there are a LOT of scientists out there that indeed do blame cows. I don't even believe the earth is getting hotter, as the evidence is that for the last 10 years the earth has actually been cooling. I think if CO2 causes warming we need to dump more into the atmosphere, because it is getting colder and colder, and I am getting worried about global cooling and the onset of a glacial period, just like the scientists were worried about in the 70's.

    So I'm going to have me a nice big 1/2 lb Fuddrucker's buffalo cheeseburger and a beer tonight and toast suckers like you. Cheers.

    And just like anonymous says, water vapor is the biggest likely cause of global warming, by far. I guess the EPA is going to have to outlaw that. Stupidity.

    Oh, and yagmur, all we need is wit and effort? Really? Because according to Al Gore we need to spend trillions of $$$. Can I cash my wit and effort in for some carbon credits? Wake up Yagmur my friend.

  34. Anonymous, I totally agree with you, but can you write in a name, even if it's a fake one, just for clarity?

  35. In the wake of the Obama administration’s brazen move earlier this week to bypass Congress and enact cap-and-trade via regulatory fiat, the Obama administration has now taken to actually threatening Congress to (further) harm the economy if Congress does not cover their backside by passing unwanted legislation.

    The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn’t move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a “command-and-control” role over the process in a way that could hurt business.

    The warning, from a top White House economic official who spoke Tuesday on condition of anonymity, came on the eve of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s address to the international conference on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark.

    But while administration officials have long said they prefer Congress take action on climate change, the economic official who spoke with reporters Tuesday night made clear that the EPA will not wait and is prepared to act on its own.

    And it won’t be pretty.

    “If you don’t pass this legislation, then … the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area,” the official said. “And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.”

    Apparently, the White House feels that now is a good time to brazenly threaten to do enormous economic damage to our already depressed economy for the sake of scoring cheap political points against Congress. What a disgrace. Maybe once unemployment hits 15 or 20% the fifth-graders who run this administration will feel really tough about having made their point to all those pesky elected legislators. And then they will know, in the future, that if they don’t give Obama administration what it wants, the administration will just go ahead and take it anyway, and will harm their constituents in the process.


    Question 1: Mr Gore, isn't it true that three of the four scientific bodies, which take the globe's temperature -- including your own National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration -- say there's been no warming since 1998? That's not what you've predicted, is it?

    Question 2: Mr Gore, Your poster for An Inconvenient Truth starred a hurricane, presumably Hurricane Katrina, and you claimed warming would give us worse and more of them.

    In fact, there have been so few hurricanes in the Atlantic since then that US hurricane insurance premiums this year fell 20 per cent.

    Let me go on: Your film showed seas rising six metres to drown entire cities. In fact, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change this year conceded the seas would at worst rise 59cm this century.

    You said this year, "droughts are becoming longer and more intense". In fact, a new study by University of Wisconsin-Madison scientists says of last century's 30 big droughts, only two occurred in the past two decades.

    Now, you warn that the Arctic's ice melt is "unprecedented". But you ignore that down in our southern hemisphere, as the Illinois University's Polar Research Group now reports, our "sea-ice area is close to surpassing the previous historic maximum". Indeed, Antarctica, since 1975, has had "overall cooling", says a Washington University study published in Geophysical Research Letters.

    Mr Gore, why must you cherry-pick and exaggerate so often if global warming is really as bad as you say? Mr Gore, aren't you just an alarmist?

    Question 3: Mr Gore, aren't you a hypocrite, too? You tell us to make "sharp reductions" to the emissions you say cause global warming because, as your film's website says, "humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb".

    One of the biggest sources of those gases is air travel. Mr Gore, how did you get from the US to Melbourne?

    Question 4: Mr Gore, power utility records last year showed that just one of your three homes used more power in a month than the average American home uses in a year. You even have a heated pool. Shouldn't you set a better example? Or are you telling others to make sacrifices that you've found are actually impossible or inconvenient?

    Question 5: Mr Gore, when asked about your astonishing use of power and air travel, you say you make "carbon offsets", so it's OK if you go on emitting gases that have us on a "ticking time bomb".

    But aren't many of the offsets you claim to make just investments made through Generation Investment Management, a $1 billion outfit that makes money from global warming schemes and is partly owned and chaired by ... gosh, you?

  37. Unless Congress passes a bill to rein in the EPA on CO2, there will be a lawsuit filed by businesses when they are told by the govt. how much CO2 they can emit.

    It will ultimately end up in the Supreme Court, and will be decided in favor of business. As you recall, in the decision to let the EPA regulate CO2 as a pollutant, the EPA argument had IPCC science and recommendations all over it. Climategate has put that argument in grave doubt. I suspect some of the justices who voted for the EPA do not like being shown as gullible or dumb, and will help in reversal of their decision.

  38. Climategate: rounding up a posse - at gunpoint
    Permalink Andrew Bolt Blog
    Andrew Bolt
    Friday, December 11, 2009

    Britain’s compromised Met Office is rounding up people for a petition to pooh-pooh the significance of Climategate. No relevant qualifications are required, and no inquiry beforehand is needed. Oh, and if you don’t sign....

    More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fuelling scepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions.

    One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change…

    Met Office reports on temperature changes draw on the work of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, from which the e-mails were hacked. Phil Jones, unit director, has agreed to stand down while an investigation takes place into claims that he manipulated data to exaggerate the warming trend and tried to block publication of alternative views.

    One scientist told The Times he felt under pressure to sign. “The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming,” he said.

    By those standards, these 1700 signatories are outvoted by the 31,000 scientists who freely signed this:

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

  39. It doesn't look good for the environmental cults like the electric Prius

  40. That climategate isn't good for the democrats. If it turns out to be fake then the democrats have no one to blame but themselves. I think the poster that said it is karma was right.

  41. I hope you are right Craven.

    LOL, good one Chris. Those suckers driving around in their Prius', powered by their smug attitudes. I'm glad they spent out of their asses for their Prius so that I can buy a cheap gas guzzler and offset their carbon savings! BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA

    Now that I know Bruce's car gets 100 mpg I drive even more. I'm trying to get it to warm up outside, and that a-hole Bruce wants it to get colder, WTF?!?! BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA

  42. GAS and OIL are bad so I am told.

    Electric Autos Good cause we Wont use that EVIL Gas/OIL.

    Question to Libs Where do we get The Largest AMOUNT of OUR Electrical Power from? I am Pretty Sure its COAL. What is the Alternative that fits Libs Agenda,Solar and Windmills? If we get RID of EVIL Coal where do we GET the Electrical Power for OUR Autos? Libs Dont think Nuclear is GOOD Idea either So whats left?

    Auto Companies should build into these Autos Yoke System so they can be PULLED by Horses/Oxens but then we have another POLLUTION PROBLEM dont WE.

  43. BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA ... you've nailed it right on the nose again Al. Those Hypocrat liebertards think that we can run cars on solar panels, hopeychange, rainbows, lollipops, unicorns and puppy-dog farts with just a dash of wishful thinking. They are living in a fantasy world. I tell you how they are planning on creating energy, they're going to burn all those carbon credits that Al Bore sells us. Because that's all they'll be worth is the little bit of heat that they generate when we enter the next glacier age that the alarmists promised us in the 70's. They're only about 4 decades late but they proved they were right!

    Excellent point about the yokes too. Those LIEberals don't realize what a problem pollution from horse manure was in the cities. They think that life was just like in the old western movies with nice clear streets. The automobile is the cleanest transportation ever devised, but these libertards have NO clue. They would shit their pants if they had to live in those conditions, the conditions they want to force on people, now. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for. Although now it should be changed to say be careful what you HOPE AND CHANGE for, you just might get it.

  44. The AP DESTROYS the Phony Climategate Scandal!,-say-Six-Top-Doctors

    I know. I know. The AP is a liberal conspiracy. Don't waste your breath or fingers saying it. I can already hear all you climate deniers denying that these e-mails don't mean shit.

    LONDON – E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

    This is significant because it sweeps away any quasi-legitimacy the Global Warming deniers have had in isolating or trumpeting certain doubts that individual scientists may have had.

    The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

    True, some of the emails show many of the scientists to be cantankerous, overly political, slightly mysterious, or in some cases, downright childish. Nevertheless, the theory that man-made activities are causing Global Warming remains intact, despite the whining of Conservatives.

  45. Thank Goodness for the AP. I wont beleive it unless MSNBC Confirms and Chris Mathews makes the Broadcast from Enemy Camp which is call WEST POINT!

  46. BWAAAAHAHAHA ... Bruce had to dig for that loser story ... in fact he dug so far he must have dug right past the ACTUAL LINK TO THE STORY THAT HE IS CLAIMING TO POST. Bruce, are you seriously ... I mean, have you actually been diagnosed as RETARDED? Like, clinically? Because you are SO UTTERLY STUPID. How do you manage to keep your organs functioning when you obviously have no brain activity.

    So let me get this straight, this story is supposedly brought to you by the AP, brought to you by London, then brought to you by the DailyKos. Well Bruce, I don't see that story anywhere else so I will just have to chalk it up to another one of your LIES. You Hypocrats just keep trying to poo-poo it and sweep it under the rug, but scientists are already starting to bail out and distance themselves from this hoax. You libertards have screwed the pooch on this one big time! BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

  47. For all you climate warming deniers. Check this out.

  48. Having been a part of the Online Universal Work Marketing team for 4 months now, I’m thankful for my fellow team members who have patiently shown me the ropes along the way and made me feel welcome


Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.