Posts Tagged ‘IPCC’

200 Global Warming Cartoons

April 25, 08

The title of the post explains itself.

Head on over to Global Warming Editorial Cartoons where you will find 200+ of cartoons like the sample below:

Kudos to Tom Nelson for the linkage.

10000 Hits For Global Warming Editorial Cartoons

January 26, 08

My all time top post Global Warming Editorial Cartoons has reached 10000 hits all by itself:


There are currently 163+ cartoons poking fun at the global warming hystrical hoax. Head on over and enjoy the lol!



                         Yes, lot’s of Gore-bashing there!

The Sun: An Inconvenient Cold

January 9, 08

From The Sun Speak Up! 9 Jan 2008:


An inconvenient cold

THREE cheers, hip hip hurray! For global warming has finally been defeated!

Many thanks and congratulations must go to Al Gore, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the signatories of the Kyoto Protocol – for their efforts to combat global warming have shown astounding success.

Even though restrictions on carbon emissions are just being implemented and carbon dioxide levels are still rising, the wave of good intentions alone seems to be enough to lower global temperatures.

In Buenos Aires, it snowed for the first time in 89 years. Chile lost hundreds of millions of dollars in crops and livestock due to the harshest winter in 50 years. Hundreds of people died from cold in Peru.

Australia had its coldest ever summer. Johannesburg, South Africa finally had significant snowfall in 25 years. Cities across the US experienced record or near record snow, as much as 1.13m thick.

Globally, this year has been the coldest since 2001, with record high ice levels in Antarctica. Even the poor polar bears can stop worrying now, as their population has increased by 20,000 since 1940.

This amazing reversal of the much-touted warming trend must certainly be the result of enough people watching An Inconvenient Truth and wishing global warming away – and not due to patently absurd explanations such as natural fluctuations in solar activity, or shifts in the tilt of the Earth’s axis.

The above fact is undeniably proven by IPCC-style scientific consensus, as global warming activists were observed getting caught off-guard by the instantaneous effects of their efforts. Their anti-global warming awareness campaigns were so successful, they had to be called off midway due to frostbite, blizzards or their yatch getting trapped by sea ice.

Scott Thong


The fun title of this piece is completely courtesy of The Sun! Haha! It joins the NST on my list of local papers not afraid to buck the global warming hysterian trend!

The editors left out my last line: 

Truly, Al Gore deserves his Nobel Peace Prize for curing the planet’s fever so quickly! Now we must just be careful not to overdo the war on carbon emissions, in case we return to the global cooling scare of the 1970s.
Scott Thong, sarcastic global warming skeptic


Bonus! After I sent in this letter, there was a blizzard in Iransnow in Iraq and extreme cold in desert kingdom Saudi Arabia!

Big hat tip goes to Moonbattery, whose own sarcastic postings Global Warming Farce Deflated by Facts and Weather Report formed the basis of my letter.

Also highly recommended is Twilight Zone Predicted Global Warming Hoax, seeing as how the world will soon perish from an eternal ice age.

I also mocked the way the MSM portrays minor weather fluctuations in 2007 Global Warming Report: Pure MSM Fiction, which also has lots of cartoons poking fun at the over-effectiveness of Al Gore’s speeches in reducing world temperatures!

For the global cooling hysteria in the ’70s (and soon, the 2000s), see Global Cooling: The Impending Catastrophe of Our Times.

For Al Gore’s fatally factually flawed film, see 35 Scientific Errors (or Intentional Lies) in An Inconvenient Truth (and An Inconvenient Truth 2: Suggested Film Titles for some suggested sequels!).

For his Nobel Oh-Pleeeeze Prize, see Al Gore 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Editorial Cartoons.

Kyoto Protocol: A STUPIDLY Expensive 10-year Old Child

December 12, 07

With all the hoo-hah about the Bali climate talks, and finding a successor to the Kyoto Protocol Fail-Us-All Bankrupt-Us-All, it slightly miffs me that my letter on the worthlessness of Kyoto was not published in any of the papers.

So imagine my extra incensedness after I read the following from PhysOrg:

Japanese Environment Minister Ichiro Kamoshita, whose country is having difficulty meeting its Kyoto targets, referred to these troubles at the pact’s “birthday party” in Bali.

“It’s only 10 years old yet, it’s still a child,” he said. “At the age of 10, children can be quite difficult, and so it is with the Kyoto Protocol.”

Get that. To excuse the hopeless failings of Kyoto, despite all the hype and massively huge expense, Kyoto should be forgiven because ‘it’s only a 10 year old child.’ Give the Chosen One a while to grow up, and all will fall into pre-destined place.

Utter and total bullcrap.

All that will happen as Kyoto grows older is more failure and more expenses. Read my unprinted letter below for the INSANE EXPENSE of Kyoto that accomplished NOTHING.

And for all you global warming fearmongers who watch one debunked movie and suddenly consider yourselves experts whose job it is to go around criticizing skeptics for lack of research, links are provided to prove to your sorry faces that the ones who lack real research are YOURSELVES.

But of course, you won’t click them to check and see. Because followers of the Goracle are much more brainwashed, dogmatic and religiously faith-based zombie-sheeped than any theistic fundamentalists.


Successor to Kyoto Protocol: What Cost?

Since 1997, the Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by most of the developed nations of the world. Its goal: To reduce greenhouse gas emission levels which are blamed for causing global warming.
In this year of 2008, 185 nations will negotiate a successor to Kyoto Protocol at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Bali. It is foreseen that even more stringent restrictions will be put in place for the new agreement.
But if the new protocols will merely be a stricter version of Kyoto, it might be prudent to first scrutinize what Kyoto has actually accomplished in this past decade. The Kyoto Protocol is directly responsible for:
Almost 23 billion Euros in penalties due to be paid by just three countries for not meeting greenhouse gas emissions limits: Italy (8.8 bil), Japan (8.8 bil) and Spain (5.3 bil), according to Bloomberg.

(Ref: Bloomberg via Moonbattery)
A rise of 6.2 billion Euros in energy costs for Germany alone, in the span of year 2005 alone, according to Canada’s National Post.

(Ref: Canada’s National Post via Classical Values)
A predicted 26% average increase in electricity prices and 41% average increase in natural gas prices, along with 200,000 jobs lost in each of Italy, the UK and Germany and up to 611,000 jobs lost in Spain to meet Kyoto targets for the year 2010.
And the above will be accompanied by a large loss in GDP:  2.1% for Italy (27 billion Euros), 3.1% for Spain (26 billion Euros), 1.1% for the UK (22 billion Euros), and 0.8% for Germany (18.5 billion Euros) according to the International Council for Capital Formation.

(Ref for above two paragraphs: PRNewswire)
Even if Kyoto were adhered to completely – which it clearly isn’t – the predicted benefit according to the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would be a maximum reduction of just 0.07 degree Celsius by the year 2050.
This means that globally, a minimum of USD 150 billion a year is being spent for an annual reduction of just 0.001 degree Celsius. And Al Gore expects us to believe that Kyoto is going to save the world with this bare one thousandth of a degree?

(Ref: JunkScience)
And as the penalties incurred to various Kyoto signatory nations shows, Kyoto Protocol has not even succeeded in reducing carbon emissions as it is intended to. Is this not the very definition of throwing one’s money into a hole?
Kyoto Protocol is not saving the planet. If anything, it is hampering more visionary efforts by draining resources which could be used to build wind and solar power plants, develop more energy efficient technologies, and fund efforts to deal with – not attempt to halt – the natural climate change which has been taking place since eons before humans lit the first cooking fire.
The arguments for and against anthropogenic global warming may go back and forth, but the evidence against Kyoto Protocol – and any like-minded successors – is extremely well documented in the balance sheet of the world economy.
So to the 185 nations gambling the future of humanity on yet another senseless environmental fad, let me just say: Caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware.

NST: Global Warming: Positive Benefits From A Hotter Planet

November 26, 07

I’m becoming more and more convinced that the NST head editors are global warming skeptics. First NST: Nobel Peace Prize: Another Side to Gore’s Efforts to Combat Global Warming, and then especially NST Letters: Global warming: Inconvenient Truths of Another Kind, and now the following. (Although the term ‘positive benefits’ is somewhat redundant…)

The accompanying photo and caption for the latter two, which are chosen by the NST editors, are what really sells the skeptical editors idea to me.

Well, it’s definitely welcome news if at least one of the main local news media has not succumbed to the popular but fallacious consensus myths of anthropogenic global warming.

Kudos to the New Straits Times!


From NST letters (NST removes links after about a week):

   HotterPlanetBenefits1   HotterPlanetBenefits2


Global warming: Positive benefits from a hotter planet


Antarctic ice  comprises 85 per cent of the ice in the world.
Antarctic ice comprises 85 per cent of the ice in the world.

A UNITED Nations scientific panel has just released yet another warning about the perils of global warming. This latest report is the most frightening yet, with predictions of massive flooding, droughts, starvation and extinction.

This is actually nothing new, because over and over, the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Al Gore and other proponents highlight the negative aspects of global warming while ignoring the positive aspects.

They trumpet melting Arctic ice as a portent of rising sea levels, while ignoring the increasing Antarctic ice that comprises 85 per cent of the ice in the world. They warn that less ice means less sunlight reflected into space, while keeping quiet about the increased evaporation, creating more clouds to block that hot sunlight. Warmer temperatures will lead to more sea evaporation, more clouds and more rainfall.

They lament the struggles of human-beloved species that prefer cooler climes, while turning a blind eye to the spread of other desirable species that thrive in warmer temperatures. After all, the warm tropics have the greatest biodiversity of any ecosystem.

They shed tears over the predicted increase in deaths due to hotter summers, while leaving out the reduction in deaths due to less cold winters in the IPCC reports.

They decry the effects that purportedly drier weather will have on agriculture, while neglecting to mention the longer growing season that will be permitted by warmer temperatures, nor the increased precipitation.Greenland today is frozen in ice, but at one time, it was warm enough to plant vineyards in, hence the “green” in its name.

They hysterically point out fractional rises in recent temperatures, while discarding centuries of documentation that show much warmer temperatures.

So, if the majority of people are afraid that global warming is causing catastrophic negative impacts on our way of life, it’s no wonder at all. Talk about the global warming issue is skewed towards alarmism.

Only one side of the climate coin is ever shown to the audience, as the global warming hucksters seek to manipulate public perception to support their flawed methodologies and politically-biased conclusions.

But just like the rest of the facts that do not agree with the pre-concluded “consensus” on global warming, such revelations are thrown into the dark hole of intentional ignorance.

The Star Opinion: More Than Meets the Eye

November 6, 07

Another of my strides in breaking up the brainwashed-consensus with hard-edged scientific skepticism – that is woefully lacking here in Malaysia. Sigh. Long battle to go… But I’ll keep fighting it.

The Star carried the Reuters report “Nordic nations sound alarm over melting Arctic” on 1 Nov 2007 actually, not 10 Nov. Here are the screen captures below:

   NordicAlarm1   NordicAlarm2

(Actually, I read the news report that will come four days from today, which is but a small demonstration of my Hiro Nakamura-ish time-bending powers. But who’d believe me?)


From The Star Opinion 6 Nov 2007:

   GWMoreThanMeetsEye1   GWMoreThanMeetsEye2

More than meets the eye

I NOTED with interest the article “Nordic nations sound alarm over melting Arctic.” It was among the top ten most viewed news links on TheStar Online (Nov 10), showing the interest that Malaysians have in the issue.

The report states that the Arctic ice has been shrinking and is now at its lowest level since 1979, a clear sign of global warming caused by greenhouse gases. Among the list of worries is the predicted rising of sea levels, which will threaten coastal areas.

However, like most global warming alarmist reports about melting ice, the news piece neglects to mention that Antarctic ice levels are currently at the highest levels since 1979!

This will come as a surprise to most people as Al Gore’s film on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, claims that the Larsen ice shelf in the Antarctic is breaking up due to it becoming warmer. This happens to be true.

However, the area that Gore chooses to focus on represents 2% of Antarctica’s area. The other 98% has actually been cooling for the past 50 years! So where is the global effect of global warming?

Melting Arctic ice is used to cause panic and rally support for anti-emissions legislature, but increasing Antarctic ice levels is carefully kept out of the camera’s sights. 

If ice melts in one area but water is deposited as landbound snow in another area, where will the rising seas get their water from?

In fact, in stark contrast to paranoid global warming claims, sea levels haven’t risen around low-lying coastal islands such as Vanuatu and the Maldives in more than 1,250 years!

The global warming campaign of facts is one where heat waves are trumpeted as proof of global warming, but record blizzards are swept under the carpet as anomalies; where deaths from hotter summers are avidly included in the IPCC reports as a predicted human cost of global warming, but lives saved due to less cold winters are not taken into account.

Then again, global warming is increasingly blamed for everything on either end of the climate spectrum – both higher and lower ocean salinity, flooding and drought, hot and cold weather. 

If anything happens in the natural world, it must be the fault of global warming. 

So I suppose that with politically-coloured sensationalist science like this, blaming both the thinning of Arctic ice and the thickening of Antarctic ice on global warming would make perfect sense.



The editors left out my full letter’s most amusing parts about ais kacang and cougar attacks:

However, the area that Gore carefully chooses to focus on represents a mere 2% of Antarctica’s area. The other 98% has actually been cooling for the past 50 years! So where is the ‘global’ effect of global warming?
If you had two bowls of ais kacang and scooped all the ice from the first bowl into the second bowl, the first bowl would have less ice and the second bowl more ice. But by focusing only on the first bowl, you could report that the total amount of ice you have is now less.
This is similar to the situation with global warming propaganda, where melting Arctic ice is used to cause panic and rally support for anti-emissions legislature, but increasing Antarctic is carefully kept out of the camera’s sights.

Then again, global warming is increasingly blamed for everything on either end of the climate spectrum – both higher and lower ocean salinity, both flooding and drought, both hot and cold weather. If anything happens in the natural world, it must be the fault of global warming.

It’s gotten to the point where even children’s fevers, allergies to maple syrup, duller autumn colours, and even the occasional cougar attack on people are blamed on global warming!
So I suppose that with politically-coloured sensationalist ‘science’ like this, blaming both the thinning of Arctic ice and the thickening of Antarctic ice on global warming would make perfect sense.

For more information on the topics brought up in this post:

Antarctic ice at highest levels

Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth is full of lies, misdirection and cherry-picked data

…Even the British High Court says so

Warmer weather could save tens of thousands of lives

Global warming blamed for cougar attack

Another recent letter on global not-actually warming, with tons more links

Mega list of everything that has ever been blamed on global warming!

Article regarding the above list 

One final note… While blogging on my letter, the Transformers kept nudging the back of my mind. Any guesses as to why? ;>

NST: Nobel Peace Prize: Another Side to Gore’s Efforts to Combat Global Warming

October 16, 07

My letter to the local papers about Al ‘Ponzi’ Gore’s scam business model winning him the Nobel Peace Prize.

See Follow the Clues: Is Al Gore’s Promotion of Global Warming Hysteria Merely A Scam to Make Him Money? for an extended blog post of this letter, and Al Gore 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Editorial Cartoons for mockery and some very important info on how he won the prize.

From NST Letters (NST removes links after about a week):

   GoreNobelAnotherSide1   GoreNobelAnotherSide2


Nobel Peace Prize: Another side to Gore’s efforts to combat global warming


AL Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have won the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts to spread awareness of man-made climate change and to lay the foundations for fighting it.

This despite the fact that a significant number of scientists disagree with the IPCC’s findings on global warming and are discovering facts and data that contradict the theory that the planet is heating up.

And also despite the fact that nothing concrete has been accomplished in the way of Gore or the IPCC’s recommendations for combating climate change.

I would call attention to exactly what the latest winners of the Nobel Peace Prize recommend to the world.

Gore’s solution, as evidenced through the Kyoto Protocol he lobbied for, is to implement mandatory carbon dioxide emissions limits, or “carbon caps”. Businesses may attempt to reduce their carbon output by whatever available means they choose.

If a company cannot keep within the stated emissions limit, it will be charged a tax, or “carbon tax”. However, this tax can be avoided by buying the carbon allowance from companies that are below the limit, or “emissions trading”.This “cap and trade” method has produced dismal results in Europe.Without new technologies to improve energy efficiency and produce clean power, the costs of carbon caps are too high for too little gain; the Kyoto Protocol is estimated to cost US$1.5 trillion (RM5.25 trillion) for a temperature reduction of 0.2ºC over the next 100 years.

At the same time, Gore encourages individuals to compensate for their personal carbon emissions by buying “carbon offsets”.

Basically, consumers pay money to certain businesses which carry out activities to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, such as by planting trees, or by using solar power.

He himself subscribes to this “solution”. He needs to, as he has a home that consumes 20 times more electricity than the average American home.

He has also refused to sign a “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge” to reduce his home energy use to that of an average home, despite him asking, in his Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth: “Are you ready to change the way you live?”

That leaves him the option of buying carbon offsets to compensate for his carbon emissions. Thus, he buys the offsets from a company that provides carbon-offset brokerages, Generation Investment Management, a company which he founded and owns.

So he promotes fear of global warming, then recommends that people assuage their guilt and save the Earth by buying carbon offsets from his own Generation Investment Management.

For this business model and the costly and ineffective Kyoto Protocol, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Congratulations to him indeed, especially if the anthropogenic global warming theory is eventually disproved, meaning that all that effort and expense are being wasted.

Al Gore 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Editorial Cartoons

October 14, 07


LAST UPDATE: 14 Dec 2007


*NOTE ON SAVING IMAGES: If you save the images and they turn out as bmp format, you can change them to jpg or gif by changing the extension name, or open them using Microsoft Paint and saving as jpg or gif, or just Save this entire web page and copy out from the saved web page folder.*

So High Priest Al Gore has won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

Why, how did he win it? The Jawa Report reveals who the five completely unbiased Nobel Peace Prize committee members are. That’s right, the Nobel Peace Prize is chosen not a committee of many outstanding men and women from across the globe and political spectrum – but just a measly FIVE liberal left-leaning Europeans.

Which is likely why far more deserving candidates who fit in with the usual understanding of what PEACE actually is – such as the Myanmar peaceful-protest monks, or the men who brought peace between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, or the pro-democracy campaigners arrested by police states across the world, or the people who helped North Koreans escape the brutal prison state, or many more others – were not chosen.

Instead, a left-leaning liberal Democrat who released a movie, a book, a few talks and a concert from the comfort of his mega-mansion, mega-limo and mega-jetplane was chosen as the winner.

But hey, who’s complaining of biased unfair politicalness?

Well, what’s done is done… And so Al Gore joins the list of Nobel Peace Prize laureates who are the very definition of ‘successful peace-makers’… Such as Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter.


                                  So am I, kitty. So am I.

Even a prominent United Nations scientist – and member of the IPCC! – refuses to accept the Nobel Prize because it was awarded based on a misunderstanding of science. Links here and here

See also this post for why Al Gore’s heroic efforts winning him the Nobel Peace Prize make me wonder why Charles Ponzi didn’t win his own Peace Prize.

Is It Getting Warmer? has a mix of pro- and anti- Gore Nobel Peace Prize cartoons.

And see Global Warming Editorial Cartoons for lots more Al Gore and global warming mockery cartoons.

Click to enlarge most of the cartoons below.










THIS is the person who truly deserves the Nobel Peace Prize: Irena Sendler.










Court ruling here if you missed it.




















Time Magazine Interviews Bjorn Lomborg

October 3, 07

Bjørn Lomborg is a climate scientist whose work I’ve blogged on before. He has just released a new book demolishing the global warming hysterical fearmongering paranoia, Cool It.

You may also want to see The Reference Frame, which carries excerpts of an interview where Czech President Václav Klaus is asked in the first few paragraphs about Lomborg and global warming. As the blog says, ‘it is difficult to accept enviromentalism after communism’. I wonder why

Excerpts from

TIME: Why did you write Cool It?

Lomborg: Basically I think there’s a need to have two conversations. One is what is the status of global warming. Is it a hoax? Is it a catastrophe? I try to say, well, it’s neither. It’s not a hoax, not a left-wing conspiracy to raise taxes or just natural variation, as many Republicans want to say in the U.S. On the other hand, it’s not a not an unmitigated catastrophe, the end of civilization.

Of course the real fact of the matter is we don’t do very much. We promise a lot, but we don’t actually do very much. And the honest-to-God reason is it’s fairly expensive.

Rich people in rich countries will do a little, mainly for show. But most people in rich countries won’t do very much, and certainly no one in the poor countries will do anything.

My point is — and this is very, very simple — instead of cajoling people into doing something that is very expensive, which is hard, why not actually make it much cheaper? Instead of convincing more and more people to buy expensive solar panels, for instance, why not invest in research and development so that these become much cheaper — competitive with fossil fuels, or maybe even cheaper. If we could get there, we wouldn’t have to have this conversation.

Then why do R&D rather than, say, taxing gasoline so much in the U.S. that it would change consumption patterns now?

Taxing would obviously change people’s behavior. But it still has positive benefits to drive around. We could stop all traffic tomorrow if we just put a $1,000/gallon tax on gasoline. You’ve got to remember that fossil fuels have a lot of benefits. That’s why we use them.

We would make much more headway dealing with global warming simply because we would leave our kids and our grandkids, but especially the Chinese and the Indians, with much cheaper technology. Quite frankly right now they don’t care about global warming because they care about feeding their kids and curing them from infectious diseases and stuff.

People have said you’re ignoring some of the more dire predictions, cherry-picking your data if you will. Why do you suppose that is?

I’m always very, very surprised when people say I’m cherry-picking because I’m taking the median scenario from the U.N. climate panel. A lot of people say I’m consistently taking the most optimistic of points. I mean, by God, I’m saying what is the most likely — the median — temperature increase: 2.6 degrees C or 4.7 degrees F. Now it might get warmer than that. But it also might be cooler than that. This is the most likely outcome, what most people call the business-as-usual scenario. Likewise when I say “a one-foot rise in sea level,” the U.N. says it’s somewhere between half and 2 feet. It seems to me that saying 20, as Al Gore famously said, is cherry-picking.

I really think if it’s an indication of anything, it’s that the public debate has gone so far toward the one extreme that obviously it has to be 20 feet and anyone who says it’s slightly less than that has got to be bonkers.

You talked about the taking the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) data. They put out a report earlier this year that concluded maybe it wouldn’t be all that expensive to combat climate change. How do you take that?

Basically, what they came out and said was not that different from the numbers in my book: that for 3% of GDP you can cut emissions dramatically. Yeah. Hell, yeah.

I thought that it was something like 3% over the next two decades and that the annual GDP change was lower.

Yeah, it’s 0.12%, as a lot of people like to point out. But that’s an annual cumulated and that’s why it accumulates into 3 percentage points by mid-century. The [0.12%] figure is a bit like selling people TVs and telling them what the hourly interest rate is going to be. That’s a little bit of a cheater.

It means we’ll be 3% less rich by 2030. We haven’t spent anywhere near this amount in the last 50 years to do anything good in the world. So it seems a little naive to say now it’s all cheap.

Why do you think people ascribe a political stance to your views? People assume you’re conservative.

Which is so bizarre. For the longest time in Denmark I didn’t want to say what I was politically. I thought it was irrelevant. I’m a self-described slight lefty in Denmark, which probably makes me incredibly left-wing in the U.S., so I’m very, very surprised.

People have accused you sometimes of being a climate change denier, which you’re not. Why do you think that is and how do you feel about it?

Well it’s a curious thing that people react so strongly to me and people will go a fairly long way to make implications about why I’m saying what I’m saying, that I’m really just grudgingly conceding [climate change], that it’s a third-generation denial strategy or something. I’ve always found that when you have to resort to psychological explanations of your opponents it must be because you don’t have very good arguments.

There’s a famous claim that somebody told me from Harvard Law School, that if you have a good case you should pound the case, but if you have a bad case you should pound the table.

Global Warming Editorial Cartoons Pt 2

April 20, 07

Part 1 here

Part 3 here

See this link for info on the UN climate change report.

See The Sun: An Inconvenient Cold.

See Bali 2007 U.N. Climate Change Conference – Roundup of Idiocy for what the UN Conference on Climate Change in Bali is really accomplishing.

The above is an inaccurate portrayal of the true cause for the 2007 California wildfires. However, it is an accurate portrayal of the fallacious picture global warming fearmongering propagandists are trying to paint.

California’s wildfires are blamed by some on global warming. Yes, the ‘official’ increase of barely 0.6 degrees is blamed for starting massive fires (actual increase in recorded temperature 0.1 degrees, added-on politicized science amount of 0.5 degrees; see The Sun: Fuzzy Facts on the Climate for more).

Meanwhile, slightly higher temperatures actually increases humidity and rainfall as proven by historic observation, exactly opposite of what the blame-everything-on-global-warming crowd of scarifiers claim.

As for the real causes of the wildfires… Don’t let global warming maniacs distract you from yet another real-root-of-a-problem with their hijacking of every issue!

Fanatical and short-sighted enviromentalism! See Michelle Malkin: Wildfires and environmental obstructionism and Michelle Malkin: LA Times: Forest thinning spared homes. Countermoonbattery Saves Lives and Property from California Wildfires has the above too.

As I rant in John Travolta on Beating the Global Heat, Ann Coulter Junks Global Warming Too and Al Gore: High Priest of Global Warming Hypocrisy, the rich actors who are most outspoken and visible about stopping global warming are also among the biggest consumers and pollutors of all.

Politicians and celebrities fly around in private jets and huge limos, burning more fuel than all my readers combined can in one lifetime… All the while flaunting how they are they the ‘champions’ of combating human caused climate change.

Including the above 2008 US presidential candidate, who like other hypocritical politicians and celebrities, put the blame squarely on the shoulders of ordinary citizens – never themselves.


By the way, Al Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary on global warming that got many people to believe in catastrophic climate change, An Inconvenient Truth? It’s been found guilty of 11 major inaccuracies by a British government court!!!!


Visit this link to see a cartoon animation detailing Al Gore’s greenhouse gas hypocrisy, pictured below.


Al Gore burns HUGE amounts of resources… His home uses 20 times the electricity as an average home, he uses $1080 of natural gas a month, he flies everywhere in jet planes. And then tells us ways not to destroy the Earth with our pollution, such as by using energy-saving fluorescent lights.

See NST Letters: Al Gore Lied About Drowning Polar Bears.

As I said in the newspapers at The Star Opinion: Give Us Solid Facts on Global Warming and in my post dedicated to Gore, Al Gore: High Priest of Global Warming Hypocrisy.

Above is another luxury that many global-warming tearjerking rich-kids will never give up! See Schism in Moonbattery’s Unholy Church for more on how PETA’s goals actually gel with global warming hysteria’s, but are virtually ignored.

Did you know that environmentalists have repeatedly and outspokenly stated their hope that human beings die for the sake of the planet? My response to such genocidal nonsense at Mother Gaia WANTS The Human Disease to Stick Around.

Plenty more where that came from at this post.


Al Gore is soooooo sure of his correctness, that he refuses all requests for a mature and fair debate about global warming… Probably because he is so ingeniously correct and any attempt to have a face-to-face discussion with him will result in the low-IQ brains of the scientsts imploding. Hah.

This can refer to the fact that Al Gore and similarly minded individuals blame global warming for everything (see the next cartoon).

Or perhaps it refers to the argument by anthopogenic global warming skeptics that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are not the main cause of global warming. Rather, it is due to solar fluctuations. But of course, that would remove the basis for rallying behind Gore.

As I said, the global warming alarmists seem to blame everything on global warming! This cartoon just pokes fun at that with something completely unrelated. See the snow cartoons below for more on that.

And I mean literally EVERYTHING IN EXISTENCE. Including this:

More lols at

On how likely it is that carbon dioxide – which comprises a mini-miniscule fraction of the atmosphere (just 0.0383%!) – is the real culprit behind global warming, read my post Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming – 5 Reasons Why I’m Not Alarmed.

Read about Don Imus, or this informative article. (For a quick editorial cartoon run-thru of what some people think of the Don Imus controversy, see the following: cartoon 1, cartoon 2 and IBD editorials April 18 and April 11).


Above three found at Jonjayray’s Photobucket.


See several other of these at The People’s Cube – Global Warming Satire.

And learn how mankind is definitely causing catastrophic continental drift that will surely doom all civilization!



If the masses aren’t convinced enough of the doomsday threat of global warming, then convince them with the heart-wrenching pathos of Flat Fatima, spokeswoman for the liberal media supreme!

And if that old Beirut lady isn’t enough to convince you of the evil that is global warming, celebrity terrorist Osama bin Laden wages jihad against global warming too!!!! (True real life fact! Page 5 of this transcript!)


“Your denial of global warming and the Kyoto accord are evidence of your crimes.” – Osama bin Laden, in a video released September 2007

Haha! If you’ll remember, back in the 2000 US Presidential Election, Gore lost the presidency to Bush by a narrow margin. To make up for it, these days Gore is rallying the gullible suckers of the wor… I mean, the concerned citizens of the world behind him as the champion of stopping global warming.

It’s his big comeback, as the cartoons in Part 3 portray… Perhaps in preparation for a future bid for the Presidency.

Part 1 here

Part 3 here

%d bloggers like this: