Copen' With Copenhagen - Grab a Hagen Das, and Enjoy

[The Old Fogducker]

The time for debate is over ... the science is settled.

We have mere hours left to prevent the destruction of mankind as Mother Earth extracts revenge for her brutal gang rape by a steady parade of greasy, smelly men from drilling platforms, and drag lines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzjlK1hpF6M

[beaverbob]

I am very glad to hear that speech. I hope there are many more like it. I want the truth brought forward and the Gorey lies exposed.
Bob

[canwhitewolf]

.

[2R]

I called bullshit on Suzuki ,Gore and his gang of fearmongers years ago.
The same type of false science told us the world was flat at one time.
Although if Griffin the head of the BNP agrees with what i have been saying for years,i must be wrong again

For those who accused me of not understanding science ,i hope you enjoy the revealations coming out about the perversion of science that these climite fearmongers used to scare children and those stupid enough to agree with them.

Have a nice day,i know i will

[Siddley Hawker]

This article in McLean's should be required reading for the attendees on their flights to Copenhagen.

The Science Of Global Warming.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/03/the- ... l-warming/

[Widow]

Does this mean my Häagen-Dazs® isn't going to get smaller?

mmmmmmmmm, Häagen-Dazs®

[The Old Fogducker]

Looks like some extra creamy Hagen Das ended up in a few of those!

[trampbike]

There's a pattern and a way of "arguing" that is all too common with people trying to find conspiracies everywhere. You guys surely sound like you are deep down into that pattern.

I'm not interested in the debate over the science, because anyway most of us don't know a thing about the subject an make our opinion with what media and people refuting the main medias say. I would just like to know WHY you seem so angry at people trying to reduce pollution? Because let's say humanity does not affect climate changes, why would you be against worldwide policies that would reduce pollution?

It's very sad that wanting to protect the environment is considered "left wing" and is said to be opposing the economy, which is considered "right wing"... This is a useless dichotomy and is very far from reality.

I'm feeling depressed reading stuff here. No matter you are left, center or right wing, there is stuff that we all should worry about.

[The Old Fogducker]

Trampbike:

You miss the point completely.

If this were an episode of Saturday Night Live and I were Dan Aykroyd .... I'd be starting this counterpoint with "Jane, you ignorant slut!"

http://www.strimoo.com/video/10258739/S ... ideos.html

This issue is the radical approach the environmental demi-gods took to try and gain a foothold for their position. After that beachhead was gained, they spread alarmist hysteria like Al Gore scaring children in schools, etc based upon information was was .... plain and simple ... a lie.

You are a prime example of someone well-meaning, and wanting to do something positive and are to be applauded for that sentiment. Of course nobody wants polluted water supplies, or smoke-choked air, we aren't idiots. That is an argument that isn't worth engaging in.

But if the world is not in the imminent danger of dying and becoming the last generation or two to inhabit its crust as the exceptionally well paid pundits have been telling us, why should we ruin our economy, roll back our standard of living, cause massive levels of unemployment, etc in a willy-nilly fashion?

Yes, we are all for the reduction of REAL THINGS THAT WILL HURT US ... lots of noxious stuff out there to work on before going after methane from cattle farts.

The money that the "wackos" would have us spend IMMEDIATELY could be better spent on more pressing social issues like ... for example ... malaria cures, drunk driving, cigarette smoking, or a whole host of other things that won't be given their fulkl weight because of stupid things like "Cap and Trade" that will force average Joe and Jane Public to pay falsely high prices for energy.

Outta time and gotta run Trampbike....wish I could expound on this in this post, but alas ... it is not to be.

The Old Fogducker

[The Old Fogducker]

The Prince of Flim Flam cancels out of an appearance at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference

The Washington Post reports Senator Al Gore has abruptly cancelled out of his planned personal appearance at the conference. No reason has been given as of yet.

Things are indeed warming in Mr. Gore's world ... and it may be the end of civilization as he knows it ... people will be after him in the street with tar torches, pitchforks, and feather pillows soon.... he has created a Frankenstein and will suffer the consequences ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTNN5h8CG_Y

The Old Fogducker

Link to the Washington Post article http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/de ... openhagen/


Gore cancels personal appearance in Copenhagen

By Jennifer Harper

Former Vice President Al Gore on Thursday abruptly canceled a Dec. 16 personal appearance that was to be staged during the United Nation's Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, which begins next week.

As described in The Washington TImes' Inside the Beltway column Tuesday, the multi-media public event to promote Mr. Gore's new book "Our Choice" included $1,209 VIP tickets that granted the holder a photo opportunity with Mr. Gore and a "light snack."

Berlingkse Media, a Danish group coordinating ticket sales and publicity for the event, said that "great annoyance" was a factor in the cancellation, along with unforeseen changes in Gore's program for the climate summit. The decision affected 3,000 ticket holders.

"We have had a clear-cut agreement, and it is unusual with great disappointment that we have to announce that Al Gore cancels. We had a huge expectation for the event. … We do not yet know the detailed reasons for the cancellation," said Lisbeth Knudsen, CEO of Berlingske Media, in a statement posted by the company.

The ClimateDepot,com, an online news aggregator that track global warming news reports, referred to the situation as "Nopenhagen", and evidence that popular momentum for the Copenhagen conference "is fading."

There are a few floor shows taking place stateside as well.

Pajamas Media founder Roger L. Simon and independent filmmaker Lionel Chetwynd — both members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and Oscar nominees — have called on the Academy to rescind Mr. Gore's Oscars in light of the Climategate revelations.

"In the history of the Academy, not to my knowledge has an Oscar ever been rescinded. I think they should rescind this one," Mr. Simon said Thursday.

News that British and American scientists had manipulated global warming statistics to suit their agenda was made public two weeks ago after their personal emails were posted on the Internet. of the last two weeks.

Mr. Gore won two Oscars in 2007 for the film version of his book, "An Inconvenient Truth"; he was awarded Academy Awards for Best Documentary Feature and Best Original Song.

[AMM]

OFD, way to call someone an ignorant slut without directly calling them an ignorant slut. That's clever stuff you ignorant slut!

And for all those who love to diss Al Gore, lets see you bring forward a movie that opposes his argument thats backed up by half as much scientific data. Oh let me guess... all scientific data regarding man made global warming is now void in light of a few recent e-mails.

[trampbike]

This issue is the radical approach the environmental demi-gods took to try and gain a foothold for their position. After that beachhead was gained, they spread alarmist hysteria like Al Gore scaring children in schools, etc based upon information was was .... plain and simple ... a lie.

Then prove it wrong, and try not to use any of the pseudo arguments that conspiracies theorists always use. Science, while not perfect and still affected by politic and beliefs, is still a pretty damn good process, and if some real scientific evidence can be found to dismiss most of what you claim to be lies, then don't worry, science will say you are right.

BTW, I understand your point, I also think this global warning has been given too much attention while the rest of the pollution has been put aside.

[scm]

I don't think it's worth arguing climate change on this forum. People arguing for/against global warming will rarely change their minds once made up. Aviation stands to lose a lot if global warming is - without doubt - proved true, and much like the tobacco companies, oil and large corporations standing to lose from global warming carbon cutbacks will fight against it, regardless of the truth.

I don't foresee any significant action on the part of any countries to limit carbon emissions happening until significant and tangible events affecting large populations occur on a routine basis. The government will do what the people want, and even if many of us believe anthropogenic global warming is occurring, we don't want a reduction in our quality of life.

At some point in the future, I imagine there will be rapid advancement in green technology, much like the advancement from coal to oil.

[vrrotate]

Not sure why OFD or anyone else on this forum should have to prove Global Warming wrong when there have been many scientists and organizations who have already done this. If you were to do a little research of your own it doesn't take long to find the science debunking Global Warming.

If you'd like a jump start, go here http://www.nipccreport.org/.

If you don't feel like reading all 800+ pages of their report, the preface is a good place to start.

Here is a quote from the report.

"Although the IPCC claims to be
unbiased and to have based AR4 on the best available
science, such is not the case. In many instances
conclusions have been seriously exaggerated, relevant
facts have been distorted, and key scientific studies
have been omitted or ignored.
We present support for this thesis in the body of
this volume, where we describe and reference
thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles
that document scientific or historical facts that
contradict the IPCC’s central claims, that global
warming is man-made and that its effects will be
catastrophic."

IPCC is the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change and AR4 is their 4th Assesment Report which was published in 2007.

[Siddley Hawker]

Why should those skeptical of global warming have to prove themselves wrong when they have comments like these, direct quotes from the e-mails between two of the top research scientists do the job for them?

The Settled Scientists have wholly corrupted the process of “peer review.”
Phil Jones, director of the CRU, writing to Michael Mann, creator (le mot juste) of the now discredited “hockey stick” graph, about two academics who disagree with him:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Professor Mann on an academic journal foolish enough to publish dissenting views:
“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”
Professor Jones’s reply:
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
And you’ll be glad to hear they did!

The Settled Scientists have refused to comply with Freedom of Information requests by (illegally) deleting relevant documents.
Phil Jones to Michael Mann on Feb. 3, 2005:
“The two MMs [McKitrick and McIntyre, the latter the dogged retired Ontarian who runs the Climate Audit website] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”
And, indeed, the CRU subsequently announced that they had “inadvertently deleted” the requested data.

The Settled Scientists have attempted to (in the words of one email) “hide the decline”—that’s to say, obscure the awkward fact that “global warming” stopped over a decade ago.
Phil Jones, July 5, 2005:
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi ... rc=ARTCLTH

Love this quote from that article:

The gospel of climate change, once expressed with the messianic fervor of an Elmer Gantry by Al Gore, is now expressed with the stammering incoherence of an Elmer Fudd by the defenders of doctored and destroyed data

[The Old Fogducker]

I am deeply envious of Rex Murphy's education, intellect, and above all ... vocabulary.

Tonight Rex has outdone himself on the topic of "Climategate" and its effect on support from the general public.

I am very familiar with the corporate culture in the news department of the CBC, and many of their TV News writers and presenters are personally highly committed believers in the doctrine of Global Warming. That will make it rather fun to watch how they handle this turn of the tide with respect to their handling of the news content, and how they will extricate themselves from having become Deacons in the religion of Global Warming, now that they are finding they have worshiped craven idols.

Enjoy!

Edit .... the web podcast will not be available until tomorrow morning ... drat. Its a good one too, so well worth you checking back in the morning!

http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthan ... 91203.html

[trampbike]

Not sure why OFD or anyone else on this forum should have to prove Global Warming wrong when there have been many scientists and organizations who have already done this. If you were to do a little research of your own it doesn't take long to find the science debunking Global Warming.

Now come on this is pathetic. With just as much research, I'm pretty sure you could find the Global Warning debunking debunking! Try not to be too biased, and have fun on google...

And for the climategate, it shows again how science is also affected by people's beliefs, hope and political point of view. It doesn't prove anything against the global warming. You really think that the scientists denying climate changes are not biased? Who do you think sponsors their research.

As said previously, it's always the same thing with people trying to find conspiracies everywhere. Same pattern, same false arguments, same paranoia, same "I'm just asking questions".

I'm not even advocating for the global warming, I'm advocating for a bit of critical thinking rather than just going on with anything that differ from the general scientific consensus.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net ... 911_morons

[vrrotate]

You really think that the scientists denying climate changes are not biased? Who do you think sponsors their research.

As said previously, it's always the same thing with people trying to find conspiracies everywhere. Same pattern, same false arguments, same paranoia, same "I'm just asking questions".

I'm not even advocating for the global warming, I'm advocating for a bit of critical thinking rather than just going on with anything that differ from the general scientific consensus.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net ... 911_morons

To answer the first part of your post. I don't think anyone sponsors the NIPCC's research. Here is a quote from the report I posted the link to. I guess you must not have read it.

"What was our motivation? It wasn’t financial
self-interest: no grants or contributions were provided or promised
in return for producing this report. It wasn’t political:
No government agency commissioned or authorized
our efforts, and we do not advise or support the
candidacies of any politicians or candidates for public
office.
We donated our time and best efforts to produce
this report out of concern that the IPCC was
provoking an irrational fear of anthropogenic global
warming based on incomplete and faulty science."

On the other hand the IPCC is supported by government agencies hell bent on proving that all global warming is a huge concern and that it is all anthropogenic. The IPCC has very obviously skewed their research, findings and data to this end. In fact this is well documented.

It is rediculous of you to compare Global Warming skeptics to the 911 conspiracy theorists. The NIPCC report is based on sound science from leading authorities from around the world and is far more scientific than anything the IPCC has reported.

As for your last statement above regarding critical thinking. I'm pretty sure that's what I have been doing in order to reach my conclusions.

[The Old Fogducker]

Here's a look at one of the researchers looking for data to support the Man-Made Global Warming theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx-_RCwVEqY

[trampbike]

To answer the first part of your post. I don't think anyone sponsors the NIPCC's research. Here is a quote from the report I posted the link to. I guess you must not have read it.

"What was our motivation? It wasn’t financial
self-interest: no grants or contributions were provided or promised
in return for producing this report. It wasn’t political:
No government agency commissioned or authorized
our efforts, and we do not advise or support the
candidacies of any politicians or candidates for public
office.
We donated our time and best efforts to produce
this report out of concern that the IPCC was
provoking an irrational fear of anthropogenic global
warming based on incomplete and faulty science."

And with your super critical thinking, you do buy that ridiculous affirmation? Scientists working with a total separation from any financial incentives or political pressure? Whatever your point of view, it would be lame to think such thing is possible.

Also, you might like to read http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/person ... t.php?id=1, it talks about your all well intended scientist you just quoted to "prove" your point

[trampbike]

Here's a look at one of the researchers looking for data to support the Man-Made Global Warming theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx-_RCwVEqY

This is a classic!

I see your butthole researcher monkey and raise you a skeptical "just asking questions" peeing monkey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DBuk91phkI&NR=1

[Siddley Hawker]

The Canadians who changed the climate debate.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology ... story.html

From the article...

This year, M and M have also raised questions about the accuracy of another hockey stick-shaped graph, this one by a British climatologist. The Canadians showed that the graph -- also showing drastically warmer 20th century temperatures than in the past -- is based on tree ring samples taken from 12 tree cores in a single region of Russia.

Seems like there were something less than twelve trees. Seems like there was just one tree.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... world.html

[canwhitewolf]

yep

[canwhitewolf]

Skeptics score a win against alarmists
Terence Corcoran, Financial Post
Published: Thursday, December 03, 2009




On Tuesday night about 1,100 people participated in a sold-out global warming debate that, in the end, turned downtown Toronto's new concert hall at the Royal Conservatory of Music into a microcosm of a larger tranformation that is sweeping the world. The debate pitted two well known global warming activists of international repute against two well-known skeptics. The skeptics won, shifting the audience's support away from the drastic global warming action demanded by activists and toward the moderate reponse of the skeptics, a move that is rapidly becoming a trend everywhere. If global warming is a problem -- and many have growing doubts about that -- it is not a crisis that warrants draconian policy intervention in Copenhagen or anywhere else.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/col ... a0cd47&p=1

[square]

demi-gods

Not to nitpick cause I don't mind personally but I believe the word you are looking for is 'demagogue' sir. I know he's quite charming and all but Al Gore is not a deity.

lots of noxious stuff out there to work on before going after methane from cattle farts.

This is TOTALLY worth going after. You know one cow emits as much greenhouse gas as a big fat Rangerover driven 20,000km per year? And there are barns out there that literally "cap and trade" cow farts and make energy out of it, turns into natural gas I believe.

That being said, yeah, a lot of attempts to stop global warming are a bit misguided.. Buying a Prius doesn't help because the manufacturing process of the batteries etc is GROSSLY destructive to the environment. It matches up with the Rangerover too, even by the end of their lifetimes.

I think a step in the right direction would be to get a fucking recycling service going all over the country. The past 2 cities I've lived in have no recycling pickup on garbage day. That could be huge.