Posts Tagged ‘Kyoto Protocol’

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.

The Sun: An Inconvenient Cold

January 9, 08

From The Sun Speak Up! 9 Jan 2008:

   AnInconvenientCold

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
Ipoh

———————————- 

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: The Facts Do Not Add Up

December 5, 07

BANKAI! / PWNED!

Just one day after I posted about the NST not printing my Bankai-ing of Datuk Renji Sathiah, they go and help me gang-flank him.

Kudos to you NST for helping truth defeat falshood! (As I say and give examples of in the first paragraph of here.)

Here is the NST version of my letter below. I recommend that you see my previous post Bankai-ing Datuk Renji Sathiah on Global Warming for the text Datuk Renji Sathiah’s letter (image thumbnails provided below), the full version of my letter (original is always the best), and helpful links.

—————–

Datuk Renji Sathiah’s letter from NST 28 Nov 2007:

   RenjiSathiahClimateChange1   RenjiSathiahClimateChange2

—————–

My letter from NST 5 Dec 2007 (NST removes links after about a week):

   GWFactsDontAddUp1   GWFactsDontAddUp2

Global warming: The facts do not add up

By : SCOTT THONG YU YUEN, Ipoh

I, a Malaysian citizen, am offended by the accusations of Datuk Renji Sathiah, former head of Malaysia’s delegation to climate-change talks (“Global warming irrefutable” — NST, Nov 28).

I was once a firm believer in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory.

But then I began to research the facts. What I found was flaws in the methodology, theoretical models and conclusions of AGW theory. Weighing the proponents’ and the sceptics’ claims, I found the sceptics to be more logical and honest.

The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is often regarded as the authority on climate change issue, but it is becoming clear that the much-trumpeted AGW “consensus” of scientific opinion is merely a mirage created by cherry picking of data and a misrepresentation of individual scientific papers.

Dozens of scientists whose work was cited by the IPCC reports as “proof” of AGW have filed lawsuits to have their names removed from what they consider a politically-motivated disregard of science.

Among them, Vincent Gray, a member of the IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, called for the IPCC to be abolished because it has for years been ignoring the scientific method to strengthen its case for AGW.

As for the Kyoto Protocol which the IPCC advocates, it is a clearly checkable fact that Europe’s implementation of the Kyoto Protocol has achieved only two things: It has caused energy costs to skyrocket (Germany’s by more than US$9 billion in 2005), and it has utterly failed to even slow rising carbon emission levels, let alone reduce them. The carbon cap-and-trade method does not work.

However, Renji is correct in his assertion that the US rejected Kyoto Protocol in 1997 due to political reasons.

The protocol calls for a rollback of carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels. Why this date? The reason lies not in science, but in politics and economics.

European and Japanese economic growth had stagnated since 1990. A slow economy means less production, less energy use and fewer carbon emissions. Since 1990, the British had been closing down coal plants and switching to gas power.

In 1990, Germany was reunified and closed down many of the inefficient Soviet-era factories. Since 1990, Russia had slow economic growth and closed thousands of wasteful Soviet-era factories.

Each of these proponents of Kyoto gained instant advantage by setting the CO2 level target at 1990, rather than any other date. Their CO2 emissions levels in 1997 were hardly any greater than the 1990 levels. Meanwhile, the US would have had to cut back on its decade of strong economic growth to meet the targets.

With such politically-motivated and unfair terms, is it any wonder the US Senate voted 95-0 to reject the protocol until the flaws in it are fixed?

Renji implies that all scientific studies that refute global warming have no credibility, simply because a handful of them have fossil-fuel lobby sponsorship. I would ask, does he apply the same standard to environmental lobby sponsorship?

Who do you think pays the salaries of all the climate scientists? Who sponsors studies that support the “irrefutable reality” of AGW?

The green lobby, environmental foundations and various governments spend much more on financing climate studies than the handful of oil companies. Nasa scientist and AGW proponent James Hansen received US$25,000 (RM82,000), US$720,000 and US$1 million from foundations that support AGW theory. This same Hansen’s data, which showed increasing temperatures, was recently discredited as flawed due to a Y2K bug, an error that he was forced to admit after it was exposed by sceptics.

As for who the obfuscators are, let me close with this quote from Stephen Schneider, one of the original public advocates for AGW: “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

————————–

       SkepticsPWNFearmongers

You can come down when the global warming doomsday hoax is finally disowned by the world.

Bankai-ing Datuk Renji Sathiah on Global Warming

December 4, 07

UPDATE 5 DEC 2007: TOTAL PWNAGE!!! NST HELPS ME BANKAI TEH DARTOUKS!

———————

Datuk Renji Sathiah wrote a letter to the NST that was printed on 28 Nov 2007 as a response to my own letter Global Warming: Positive Benefits From A Hotter Planet.

Take a look-see:

———————————

From NST 28 Nov 2007 (link will be removed by now):

   RenjiSathiahClimateChange1   RenjiSathiahClimateChange2
Climate change: Global warming irrefutable

By : DATUK RENJI SATHIAH, Penang

AS the former head of Malaysia’s delegation to the climate change negotiations for many years, I have been distressed over articles and letters – for example, Scott Thong Yu Yuen’s “Positive benefits from a hotter planet” (NST, Nov 26) – challenging the conclusions of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

I am especially concerned as climate change is, without question, the biggest threat to mankind. It is a scientifically irrefutable fact that the build-up and concentration of greenhouse gases which is essentially caused by human activities, in particular the excessive use of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution began more than 100 years ago, is a new phenomenon.

That this will lead to global warming is also irrefutable.

It is true that computer models used by different scientists vary in their estimates of the level of warming that will take place but even the most optimistic models show an increase in global temperatures that will have disastrous consequences.

Firstly, there is the rise in sea levels, already more than noticeable in small island states such as the Maldives. With even the smallest rise in global temperatures predicted, countries like Bangladesh will lose most of their land mass and others, even Malaysia, will suffer significant losses of their land mass.

As for the ridiculous assertions by Thong that warmer temperatures will mean greater biodiversity, benefits to agriculture, etc, the reality will be otherwise as global warming will cause such dramatic changes to climate that agriculture as we know it will become unsustainable. It will be the death knell for biodiversity already under threat from human encroachment.

The impact on current agricultural practices will be so enormous and sudden that adaptation is simply not feasible. In addition, the changes to land mass and human life will be so dramatic that global political and economic stability will be threatened.

The IPCC’s conclusions have always erred on the side of scientific caution and represent the consensus opinion of hundreds of the leading scientists in this field worldwide. It is also not true, as Thong states, that there is nothing new in the IPCC’s latest report.

As research has progressed and studies intensified, the conclusions have become more definitive and thus more alarming.

As for being politically biased, the fact is that, if anything, political interference has come from recalcitrant states like the United States which have attempted to obfuscate the issue because, as the largest polluter, the US is simply not, for political reasons, prepared to change the wasteful lifestyle of its people.

I was a first-hand witness of the heavy-handed efforts of the US delegation to block progress in the negotiations.

Furthermore, the powerful and wealthy fossil fuel energy lobbies spent millions to lobby to prevent a global agreement. As a result, the Kyoto Protocol was a flawed agreement as it had been so watered down by these tactics.

Certain theses that a handful of scientists have come out with in recent years, challenging the IPCC, were proven to have no credibility as they were shown to have been financed by the fossil fuel energy lobbies.

If Thong, like George Bush and others, wants to live in denial of the facts, I only hope that most people will not be taken in by the arguments contradicting the IPCC report and will join with others around the world who are rightly concerned about the kind of world they will be leaving to their children.

I am thrilled with the election of pro-environment Labor Party leader Kevin Rudd as Australia’s new prime minister as the US has been left totally isolated on this vitally important issue.

———————–

———————–

The oh-so-ekspertiz on teh subjekks Datuk obviously has grait times pickin on poor lil me with all his mean wurdz to maik himself feel so clevurs.

DoodWhyUGotaBSoMean

Coming from penang and being a global warming alarmist, I bet he blames global warming for Gurney Drive’s ugliness as well as for everything else in existence.

Mr. Sathiah is a bigshot indeed, not unlike the Bleach character Renji Abarai from Bleach, which commenter SF referred to. As this Google search shows, he’s attended quite a number of functions as an honoured guest.

Perhaps that is why, after having picked on me and all global warming skeptics with his smearing allegations, the NST still has not prinetd my follow up letter which you can find below.

In the unprinted letter, I spell skeptics as sceptics – which makes me think of anti-septics, but that’s what the Malaysian papers always correct my spelling to.

As a bonus, I added links to relevant information, which I can’t do for a hard-copy newspaper letter. See, skeptics like me use real and checkable information instead of pure smear tactics and insinuations!

Enjoy, and tell me whether you think I kicked Renji’s bankai!

—————————–

Sceptics are not greedy, uneducated shills for fossil fuel lobbies

Datuk Renji Sathiah, former head of Malaysia’s delegation to the climate change negotiations, made several accusations in his letter dated 28 Nov 2007, ‘Climate change: Global warming irrefutable.’

From the outset, he uses the standard global warming proponent’s tactics of stirring up fear with predictions of catastrophe, appealing to non-existent scientific consensus, and smearing sceptics as motivated by greed and ignorance.

(Ref:Global warming thugs, Hot tempers on global warming)

I, an ordinary Malaysian citizen, am somewhat offended by these accusations and respectfully ask for the chance to address some of the claims.

I was once a firm believer in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory. After all, everyone else agreed it was real.

But then I began to research the facts for myself, as anyone with an inquisitive mind and access to the Internet can. What I found was major flaws in the methodology, theoretical models and conclusions of AGW theory.

Weighing both the proponents’ and the sceptics’ claims, I found the sceptics to be both more logical and more honest.

It was because I looked at the facts – not because I denied them – that I became a sceptic of AGW. And I am not alone.

The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is often regarded as the authority on climate change issue, but it is becoming clear that the much-trumpeted AGW ‘consensus’ of scientific opinion is merely a mirage created by cherry picking of data and a misrepresentation of individual scientific papers.

Dozens of scientists whose work was cited by the IPCC reports as ‘proof’ of AGW have filed lawsuits to have their names removed from what they consider a politically motoviated disregard of science.

(Ref: Prof. Reiter sues to have named removed, see ProfBitten by the IPCC for some background on Reiter and the IPCC’s level of ignorance)

John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, renounced the Nobel Prize he jointly ‘won’ as part of the IPCC due to his opinion that they are in reality nowhere close to a proper understanding of the science of climate change.

(Ref: IPCC Scientist Rejects Nobel Prize, Global Warming Hoax)

Vincent Gray, a member of the IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, called for the IPCC to be abolished because it has for years been systematically igoring the scientific method in order to strengthen its case for AGW.

(Ref: IPCC Member Calls For Its Abolition)

So much for the global consensus, it doesn’t even exist within the IPCC itself!

In any case, a consensus is not a replacement for hard facts. It used to be the 100-percent consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth, that rats spontaneously generated from wheat, and that the tectonic plates were not moving.

As for the Kyoto Protocol which the IPCC advocates, it is a clearly checkable fact that Europe’s implementation of the Kyoto Protocol has achieved only two things: It has caused energy costs to skyrocket (Germany’s by over USD 9 billion in 2005 alone), and it has utterly failed to even slow rising carbon emission levels – let alone reduce them. The carbon cap-and-trade method simply does not work.

(Ref: Germany energy costs higher by USD 9.2 billion, Kyoto to cost hundreds of billions of Euros, Italy, Japan and Spain face USD 33 billion in Kyoto fines, USD 150 billion a year worldwide for 0.001 degree temperature reduction)

However, Datuk Renji Sathiah is correct in his assertation that the US rejected Kyoto Protocol in 1997 due to political reasons. Here’s why…

Kyoto Protocol actually calls for a rollback of carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels. Why this date, and not any others? The reason lies not in science, but in politics and economics.

European and Japanese economic growth had stagnated since 1990. A slow economy means less production, less energy use and fewer carbon emissions. Since 1990, the British had been closing down coal plants and switching to gas power.

In 1990, Germany was reunified and closed down many of the inefficient, dirty Soviet-era factories. Since 1990, Russia had slow economic growth and closed thousands of wasteful Soviet-era factories.

Each of these proponents of Kyoto gained instant advantage by setting the CO2 level target at 1990, rather than any other arbitrary date. Their CO2 emissions levels in 1997 were hardly any greater than the 1990 levels. Meanwhile, the US would have had to cut back on its decade of strong economic growth to meet the arbitrarily set targets.

With such politically motivated and unfair terms, is it any wonder the US Senate voted 95-0 to unanimously reject the Kyoto Protocol until the flaws in it are fixed? Those flaws still have not been addressed. And with the dismal performance of Kyoto, the US is unlikely to hang itself on that particular economic noose.

(Ref: Senate votes 95-0 against Kyoto Protocol, Why Kyoto is set to 1990 emissions standards)

Lastly, I am confounded as to why AGW sceptics are always accused of being shills for big oil, big industry or so on.

Datuk Renji Sathiah implies that all scientific studies that refute global warming have no credibility, simply because a handful of them have fossil fuel lobbys sponsorship. I would ask, does he apply the same standard to environmental lobby sponsorship?

Who do you think pays the salaries of all the climate scientists? Who sponsors studies that support the ‘irrefutable reality’ of AGW? If the AGW hysteria were to collapse like a house of cards, what would happen to the paycheques and funding of all these ‘impartial’ scientists?

The Green lobby, environmental foundations and various governments spend magnitudes more on financing climate studies than the handful of oil companies.

(Ref: $100 million a year in advertising alone about how undeniably true global warming is)

NASA scientist and AGW proponent James Hansen alone received USD 250000, USD 720000 and USD 1 million from foundations that support AGW theory. This same Hansen’s data which showed increasing temperatures was recently discredited as flawed due to a Y2K bug, an error that he was forced to admit after it was exposed by sceptics earning a fraction of his pay.

(Ref: $720,000, $250,000 and $1 million, NASA quietly fixes data flaws)

To say that the meagre funding a few sceptics receives takes away their credibility, while the vastly greater funding that climate scientists receive does not affect their research at all, is to make a naked and biased ad hominem attack.

Why do global warming fearmongers always resort to character assassination instead of attempting to address the fact-based arguments of sceptics? I dare venture it is because they have no satisfactory answers to cover for their very tattered scientific claims.

Sceptics are not uneducated ignoramuses. Sceptics are not on the payroll of fossil fuel lobbies. Most prominent sceptics are ordinary folk like myself, with ordinary jobs and some spare time on their hands, who are incensed at the shoddy science that passes for AGW theory.

As for who the true obfuscators are, allow me to close with this quote from Stephen Schneider, one of the original leading public advocates for AGW:

“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

(Ref: Google it yourself and see!)

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

2007/11/26

Global warming: Positive benefits from a hotter planet

By : SCOTT THONG YU YUEN, Ipoh

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.

Follow the Clues: Is Al Gore’s Promotion of Global Warming Hysteria Merely A Scam to Make Him Money?

October 12, 07

UPDATE 13 MARCH 2008: The global warming scam has made Al Gore more than $35 million already

——————————————- 

(For a condensed version, see also NST: Nobel Peace Prize: Another Side to Gore’s Efforts to Combat Global Warming)

Clue #1: Al Gore is one of the most recognizable and outspoken proponents of combating anthoropogenic global warming

Al Gore constantly enlightens the masses and rallies them against global warming, which he claims is caused by human activities and will soon result in tragic and devastating changes to our planet. To them, he is the True Hero of Mother Earth.

To that end, Al Gore is the chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection, produced a movie documentary on global warming called An Inconvenient Truth, is a major partner of eco-group Save Our Selves, organized and supported the Live Earth climate change awareness concerts, supports the Virgin Earth Challenge to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, pushed for the Kyoto Treaty in 1990, and has plenty of lectures and books on global warming too.

And horror of horrors, Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize for his fearmongering, money-draining, hoax-spreading efforts! Though his solutions for global warming involve bankrupting the economy and keeping the Thrid World in poverty, his efforts are celebrated as ‘peace’.

Then again, remember that the Nobel Peace Prize is given to works-in-progress, which explains why he can be nominated even though practically zilcho is being accomplished to stop global warming. Other great examples of Nobel Peace Prize peaceful-efforts effectiveness: Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter.

Clearly, Al Gore is strongly supportive of ordinary citizens and national governments taking real action to combat global warming.

So how does Al Gore himself take real action to mitigate the impending climate disaster? Move on to clue number two.

———-

Clue #2: Al Gore refuses to take a Personal Energy Ethics Pledge

Back in March of 2007, Al Gore said before various assembled policians that global warming is a moral, not a political issue.

In his Oscar winning, but highly inaccurate film An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore asked every viewer: “Are you ready to change the way you live?” in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus, global warming?

And in his Oscar acceptance speech, Al Gore said: “My fellow Americans, people all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It’s not a political issue; it’s a moral issue. We have everything we need to get started, with the possible exception of the will to act. That’s a renewable resource. Let’s renew it.”

Well, Republican Senator James Inhofe responded to Al Gore’s call to ethical morality, lifestyle change, and the will to act by asking Al Gore himself:

“There are hundreds of thousands of people who adore you and would follow your example by reducing their energy usage if you did. Don’t give us the run-around on carbon offsets or the gimmicks the wealthy do.”

“Are you willing to make a commitment here today by taking this pledge to consume no more energy for use in your residence than the average American household by one year from today?”

Inhofe then invite Gore to take the following ‘Personal Energy Ethics Pledge’:

            2007-03-21GorePledge

Predictably, Al Gore refused. – From Newsbusters: Al Gore Refuses to Take Personal Energy Ethics Pledge During Global Warming Hearing

But why? Wouldn’t it be an excellent example, a briliant piece of motivation to all his followers, if Al Gore – the MAN himself – reduced his greenhouse gas output ion order to save the earth?

Move on to clue number three to find out why…

———-

Clue #3: Al Gore consumes huge amounts of energy and emits massive amounts of greenhouse gases

When you take a look at Al Gore’s consumption and emission habits, you’ll realize why he and all other celebrity global warming proponents are so loathe to reduce their carbon footprints…

It’s basically impossible to cut down their resource use and waste output without cutting down their level of comfort and decadence!

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh. That’s more than 20 times the national average.

In August 2006 alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh, guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year.

Since the release of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005 to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. – From Al Gore: High Priest of Global Warming Hypocrisy

Ah, but Al Gore and his ilk have a readied defense of their lavish and wasteful lifestyles… They simply buy carbon credits and offsets.

———-

Clue #4: Al Gore purchases carbon emission offsets

Gore purchased 108 blocks of “green power” for each of the past three months up to Feb 2007, according to a summary of his power bills. That’s a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources.

The green power Gore purchased is equivalent to recycling 2.48 million aluminum cans or 286,092 pounds of newspaper, according to comparison figures on NES’s Web site. – From Detroit Free Press: Critics question how green Gore really is

Meanwhile, in order to mitigate the obscene amounts of energy sucked up and carbon dioxide spewed out by Al Gore’s Live Trash – I mean, Live Earth, the organizers and jet-across-the-world-to-perform-at-Live-Earth music artistes also buy some carbon offsets, spending a fraction of the vast riches at their disposal.

So the next investigative question is: Where does Al Gore get all his money to purchase carbon offsets with? And what mysterious source might he buy those offsets from?

———-

Clue #5: Al Gore purchases his carbon offsets from companies he himself founded, owns, controls and profits from!

Al buys his carbon offsets from Generation Investment Management LLP, which is “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 and with offices in London and Washington, D.C.,” that, for a fee, will invest your money in “high-quality companies at attractive prices that will deliver superior long-term investment returns.” Generation is a tax-exempt U.S. 501(c)3. And who’s the chairman and founding partner? Al Gore.

So Al can buy his carbon offsets from himself. Better yet, he can buy them with the money he gets from his long-time relationship with Occidental Petroleum. See how easy it is to be carbon-neutral? All you have do is own a gazillion stocks in Big Oil, start an eco-stockbroking firm to make eco-friendly investments, use a small portion of your oil company’s profits to buy some tax-deductible carbon offsets from your own investment firm. – From Chicago Sun-Times: How Gore’s massive energy consumption saves the world (a well satirizing read)

See also WorldNet Daily: Gore’s ‘carbon offsets’ paid to firm he owns (Critics say justification for energy-rich lifestyle serves as way for former VP to profit)

So, after all the fact finding on motive and ability, here are the deductive steps and the conclusion…

———-

DEDUCTION:

Al Gore stirs up paranoid fears about global warming through concerts, speeches, books and a film.

Al Gore strongly urges listeners and viewers to cut down their carbon footprint, or if they are unable to, to purchase carbon offsets.

Al Gore pushes for mandatory, government enforced carbon emissions caps to limit carbon dioxide output from industry. If they cannot do so, they may instead purchase carbon credits as a form of trade with less CO2-emitting companies and carbon trade brokers.

Al Gore founded and chairs a carbon trading company which – completely by coincidence of course – provides the required guilt-assuaging, carbon penalty-avoiding carbon offsets and credits.

Al Gore meanwhile lives and splurges extravagantly, consuming obscene amounts of resources and energy while polluting the atmosphere with much more carbon dioxide than ordinary folk. He justifies this by purchasing carbon offsets from himself. (This is like eating at your own restaurant.)

The above shows how Al Gore doesn’t seem to follow his own heartfelt call to live change the way we live in order to stop global warming. Neither does he act as if global warming is really the dire and impending doom he publicly and loudly warns it is. (This is like warning everyone that the water tank is nearly empty while taking an hour-long shower…every few hours.)

———-

CONCLUSION:

Al Gore is using global warming hysteria – which he himself doesn’t really believe in – to rake in huge profits through his carbon traing company, at the expense of individuals, businesses, industries and government.

———-

POSTSCRIPT:

So is spreading global warming paranoia and promoting carbon dioxide carbon dioxide cap-and-trade REALLY merely a huge money-making scam? A latter day Charles Ponzi, only on a global scale?

Or am I being a smear-tactic using, attack the messenger ad hominem, religiously motivated global warming denier?

In answer to this query, you might be shocked to find out how the Kyoto Protocol was born, and just who helped give birth to it…

———-

From Investigate Magazine, 5 Oct 2006, The Kyoto Conspiracy (which has references at bottom of original site):

About 20 years ago Enron was owner and operator of an interstate network of natural gas pipelines, and had transformed itself into a billion-dollar-a-day commodity trader, buying and selling contracts and their derivatives to deliver natural gas, electricity, internet bandwidth, whatever.

The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to put a cap on how much pollutant the operator of a fossil-fueled plant was allowed to emit. In the early 1990s Enron had helped establish the market for, and became the major trader in, EPA’s $20 billion-per-year sulphur dioxide cap-and-trade program, the forerunner of today’s proposed carbon credit trade. This commodity exchange of emission allowances caused Enron’s stock to rapidly rise.

Then came the inevitable question, what next? How about a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program? The problem was that CO2 is not a pollutant, and therefore the EPA had no authority to cap its emission.

Al Gore took office in 1993 and almost immediately became infatuated with the idea of an international environmental regulatory regime. He led a U.S. initiative to review new projects around the world and issue ‘credits’ of so many tons of annual CO2 emission reduction. Under law a tradeable system was required, which was exactly what Enron also wanted because they were already trading pollutant credits. Thence Enron vigorously lobbied Clinton and Congress, seeking EPA regulatory authority over CO2.

From 1994 to 1996, the Enron Foundation contributed nearly $1 million dollars – $990,000 – to the Nature Conservancy, whose Climate Change Project promotes global warming theories. Enron philanthropists lavished almost $1.5 million on environmental groups that support international energy controls to “reduce” global warming.

Enron then started to finance everything related to the global warming hype, including grants to scientists – but asking for results favorable to their interest – “proof” that humans were responsible for the excessive emissions of CO2 through fossil fuel burning.

Enron CEO Ken Lay realised that as the main if not the only international and domestic trader in the new barter world of carbon credits, Enron could realise hitherto unimagined wealth. Such credits, of course, would only become bankable pieces of paper if governments, particularly the US Government, established and policed a global policy of decarbonisation under which a global tax on carbon was to be enforced.

The gargantuan rents which Enron energetically sought could be realized only if the Kyoto Protocol became established as part of US and international law.

As the movement to establish the Kyoto Protocol developed momentum, it was necessary for Ken Lay to build up alliances with the green movement including Greenpeace. A 1998 letter, signed by Lay and a few other bigwigs asked President Clinton, in essence, to harm the reputations and credibility of scientists who argued that global warming was an overblown issue, because these individuals were standing in Enron’s way. The letter, dated Sept. 1, asked the president to shut off the public scientific debate on global warming, which continues to this date.

Enron commissioned its own internal study of global warming science. It turned out to be largely in agreement with the same scientists that Enron was trying to shut up. After considering all of the inconsistencies in climate science, the report concluded: “The very real possibility is that the great climate alarm could be a false alarm. The anthropogenic warming could well be less than thought and favorably distributed.”

One of Enron’s major consultants in that study was NASA scientist James Hansen, who started the whole global warming mess in 1988 with his bombastic congressional testimony.

If the Kyoto Protocol were ratified and in full force, experts estimated that Americans would lose between $100 billion and $400 billion each year. Additionally, between 1 and 3.5 million jobs could be lost. That means that each household could lose an average of up to $6,000 each year.

That is a lot to ask of Americans just so large energy companies can pocket millions from a regulatory scheme. Moreover, a cost of $400 billion annually makes Enron’s current one-time loss of $6 billion look like pocket change. Little wonder Americans and the incoming Bush administration did not want a bar of it.

———–

          IAreShockedAtThis

So am I, kitty. So am I.

“I’ll believe there’s a crisis when the people who keep saying there’s a crisis act like there’s a crisis.” – Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit

“Do as I say, not as I do.” – paraphrased into Al Gore’s mouth from the title of the book Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy by Peter Schweizer

———-

GoreNobelPeacePrize

See Al Gore 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Editorial Cartoons for more cartoons regarding Gore’s win.

Goreacle

carbon_neutral

gore-carbon-offset-cartoon

CarbonOffsetCentre

And dozens more instances of visual mockery at Global Warming Editorial Cartoons!

Global Warming Editorial Cartoons Pt 3

April 20, 07

Part 1 here

Part 2 here

alarmist
adjective DISAPPROVING
intentionally showing only the bad and dangerous things in a situation, and so worrying people:
Global warming fearmongers somehow cannot see how their claims that the 0.0383% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause the Earth to heat up by 2.1 degrees in 100 years and DEFINITELY kill us all could possibly be considered alarmist.

Goriccane

This next one is from The New York Times of all places.

ForgiveMeSUVd

The Goracle from Moonbattery:

the-goracle

Complete with Prayer of Gore from goracle.org:

Prayer of Gore

Al is my Shepherd

He is only aware of what he wants
He makes me lie down on park benches outside his mansion

He leads me beside the polluted water of his strip mine
He restores my doubt in brain dead liberals

He leads me in the path of Kyoto for his legacy sake
His lies give children sleepless nights

Though i walk dark in my house
his 4 are lit like Vegas

Surely his lust for power will follow me all the days of my life
And I will see votes held to the light on thanksgiving forever

— letzfaceit, YouTube, April 8, 2007

As the cartoons above illustrate and as elaborated in Ann Coulter Junks Global Warming Too, global warming alarmism has all the vices of totalitarian religious extremism… With Al Gore as its highest messiah, prophet, priest and physical manifestation of deity Mother Gaia… Whom the Green-Nuts would fanatically sacrifice humanity to.

AlGoreMTG

Global warming alarmism scares us all. (For me, its the paranoid alarmism that seeks to drown out any rational decision-making that is scary, not the threat of death by global warming.)

And as the above cartoon shows, it wasn’t Bush who was preying on people’s fears about Iraq. Video evidence here! And now the hypocrite-king Gore is using global warming as his scare-horse. Will he shift to blaming the next Republican President for scaring us about global warming in a decade’s time?

TurnsOffInternetGuyz

And did I mention the alarmism? ARGH SAVE US, THE SKY IS FALLING!

Oh, it seems I did! The Star Opinion: Give Us Solid Facts on Global Warming and MAYBE Humans Cause Global Warming That COULD Cause Climate Changes That MIGHT Be Bad, PERHAPS.

So here’s the thing… If environmentalists today are so fanatically opposed to anything that produces greenhouse gases, why are they still so opposed to nuclear power – which produces none of their feared, doom-the-world carbon dioxide?

Well, the green-sanity crowd has been campaigning to shut down nuclear power for decades. They fear the non-practical threat of potential radioactive contamination.

But if the end of the world is as nigh as the global warming greennuts claim, then wouldn’t the very low probability of a nuclear accident be outweighed by the ‘dire’, ‘immediate’ threat of global warming devastation?

And with the megatons of CO2 being spewed out by oil and coal burning power plants instead of clean nuclear energy, environmentalists are THEMSELVES the number 1 cause of global warming!

In Ann Coulter’s words, this two-faced steal our cake and eat it too attitude proves the green movement’s hatred of humanity.

NotTedKennedysPorchView

Speaking of alternative energy (which I personally support)… The above cartoon ad features a selfish, self-righteous, rich wind-blower ironically opposing the installation of clean, green, no-greenhouse-gases wind turbines… BECAUSE IT DOESN’T LOOK NICE FROM HIS MANSION. Go to Classical Values to view the embedded animation.

The rich-club enviro-hypocrites really show their true colours in this case – they support any cause only when it is comfortable for them. More info on Ted Kennedy and taking the wind out of Cape Wind’s sails at John Stossel on the Global Warming Myth, links at bottom.

GovernmentWind

Unfortunately, just as with anything else, human greed and bureucratic corruption/ineptness will spoil every good intention.

It was Gore who likened global warming to a fever, quoted in Al Gore: Global Warming A Moral Issue. Plus, global warming frighteners tend to drastically over-react to at the slightest hint of climate change.

But wait a minute… Who stands to earn a huge amount through his carbon caps trading company if the entire world were forced to adhere to carbon emissions restrictions? Make a wild, cynical guess.

GWStoneAge

Most of the measures the global warming fearmongers propose to reduce CO2 emissions, and are akin to economic decapitation – such as the Kyoto Bankrupt-us-All, which will achieve amazingly little results for amazingly much money.

Ref: Germany energy costs higher by USD 9.2 billion, Kyoto to cost hundreds of billions of Euros, Italy, Japan and Spain face USD 33 billion in Kyoto fines, USD 150 billion a year worldwide for 0.001 degree temperature reduction.

Read all about the fallacy of Kyoto in Star Opinion: Guard Against Kyoto Protocol Hype, Stop Focusing on Global Warming, Start Focusing on Humanity and Ann Coulter Junks Global Warming Too.

Immediate next from Red Planet Cartoons:

demsstranglesupply</a

Immediately following from The Ryskin Sketchbook:

exhalingco2

kyotobear

meltyblamesyou

And meanwhile, the mypoic and fanatical focus on fossil fuel use and CO2 emission levels has led to the rising popularity of biofuels as an alternative, ‘renewable’ energy source. Problem is, biofuel actually has negative energy production and uses even MORE fossil fuel to produce, and takes away food resources leading to leading to starvation and higher food prices!

And Al Gore is to blame for it!

Green-nuts are literally burning the world’s food in their cars. But of course, anything that is against global warming is considered beyond reproach by enviro-weenies.

See here for one way we can combat global warming!

Even Dilbert has strips mocking the hypocrisy and champions-of-the-environment-will-go-ecofriendly-last mentality that Al Gore exemplifies. See my post for more Dilbert global warming satire.

Seemingly contrary to predictions that global warming will be bringing the hottest temperatures ever, there seem to be spates of really cold weather!

See The Sun: An Inconvenient Cold for news on that.

See this news report for one such event in April 2007, or this July 2007 one. Read here for how global warming protestors can chant “It’s hot in here! There’s too much carbon in the atmosphere!” while being buried in snow… Because according to them, “Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter, that’s what we’re dealing with.” And oh, frostbite is caused by global warming!

AhnoldCitrusFreeze

Of, wait… I stand corrected! It seems that the vastly effective efforts to combat global warming have solved the problem already, resulting in record low temperatures that smash citrus crops! Hurray! But seriously, almost all global warming ‘solutions’ will cause much more economic damage than this.

What was that I mentioned about the win-win-win-win definitions of the alarmists?

Given, human caused climate change (including global warming) can cause fluctuations in local weather, bringing about catastrophic temperature extremes. But it just seems so contrary to global warming. Maybe instead, it is this:

If you didn’t know, back in the 1970s the environmental and climate scientists were getting everyone all worked up about the impending doom of global cooling. Newsweek even published a (now infamous) article about the coming frosty end of the world! (NOTE: More media-propogated than science-supported, see http://tinyurl.com/mxlcr for details, kudos to ‘Tom Dubya’.)

Learn more at Global Cooling: The Impending Catastrophe of Our Times and a short reference in The Star Opinion: Give Us Solid Facts on Global Warming.

Just a bit of nonsense from HALOLZ lol!

And oh, wait… It seems that maybe the whole planet ISN’T WARMING UP AFTER ALL! See Hot news: NASA quietly fixes flawed temperature data; 1998 was NOT the warmest year in the millenium, UN Climate Panel Accused of Possible Research Fraud and dual letters The Sun: Fuzzy Facts on the Climate and NST: GLOBAL WARMING? The ‘science’ of a warming world which have links to faulty temperature measurements.

One complaint made by skeptics is that the global warming believers are always smearing the skeptics as having a hidden agenda, i.e. sponsored by oil companies to produce fraudulent research.

The skeptics counter-charge that the global warming believers receive magnitudes more funding and paycheques on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars from governments in the name of environmentalism. Rock the boat with data that disproves the IPCC’s dogma, and you’re out of a profitable job that requires nothing except your cooperation in imagining up new ‘proof’ of global warming.

Another complaint often raised by global warming skeptics is that the majority (who believe in the theory of anthropogenic global warming) immediately denounce the minority (who do not believe it) as ‘liars’, ‘sponsored by oil companies’ and ‘unscientific’. See this news report and this critique of a Newsweek article lambasting GW skeptics for actual cases of name-calling threats.

Btw, related to the above use of the term ‘global warming denier’ is an intentional ploy by the fearmongers to liken skeptics to Holocaust deniers.

With global warming mindless zombiesheepology, science is ended before it even begins due to pre-formed conclusions and religio-dogmatic green-sanity environmentalism.

See Iran Prez Ahmadinejad Sez: “There Are No Homosexuals in Iran” (And Why There Ain’t Any) for Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia University and denial of both the Holoaust and the existence of homosexuals in Iran. No global warming denial though, that would get him kicked out of Liberal-Land.

Worse, skeptics are labeled as evil, denying Nazis whose disbelief will kill everyone in the world. Just see this news report. If that is the case, then similar trials should be held for the global warming hysterians if it is proven that their warnings were unfounded, and cost us trillions is losses for nothing.

Ah, but are the fearmongers correct is assuming that ALL RESPECTABLE SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING? See Many Peer Reviewed Scientific Studies Defy Global Warming ‘Consensus’ to help you decide if there are no reputable researchers questioning global warming’s hysterical claims.

Insulting the credentials, character and ethics of the opposition… A clear Ad hominem attack, yet one that is effective in swaying the undecided public to disregard all evidence contrary to global warming as ‘fake’ or ‘biased’.

Read more in my posts Why I Feel About Global Warming The Same Way I Feel About Evolution and Ann Coulter Junks Al Gore Too.

One could argue that I’m doing the same by making fun of Gore’s consumption habits like I do above… But I contend that whether or not I’m trying to undermine his facade of integrity, he is guzzling huge amounts of energy and spewing huge amounts of CO2 every day.

So does he really believe that global warming is a threat to humanity that can be averted? I point out that his actions seem to show a distinct lack of convincedness of his own warnings to the public.

As you can see, not even the children are spared the guilt-piling, enviro-religion brainwashing and political indoctrination that starts as early as elementary school. Of course, if they learn from the examples of the adults, the children will grow up to just as wasteful anyway.

(Especially if the adults in question are massive enviro-hypocrites like Al Gore, who early on said global warming is a ‘moral’ issue’ and now refuses to take an a personal energy ethics pledge – which was exactly what he had been preaching so holier-than-thouly about! What a great example to follow!

See 400,000 Years of Climate Change Was Caused By….

Speaking of global warming believers, how certain is their climate science, really? (See this Wikipedia article for more on the Viking colonization of very-icy-today Greenland, which actually DID use to be covered in green during higher global temperatures in the past!)

As I say in my letter The Star Opinion: Give Us Solid Facts on Global Warming, the climate scientists mostly rely on computer simulation programmes to predict the rise in global temperatures for the next 100 years.

And how accurate are these predictions? Well, we won’t know for sure until the year 2100, but for now they can’t even forecast next week’s weather!

Do recall how in Johor, people went back to their homes because the ‘predictions’ were certain that the heavy rains had stopped. And did they really stop that soon? Well if you still remember…

Sploosh.

Add this to the fact that global temperatures and climate have been changing since the Earth began, regardless of whether humans were around to spew CO2 or not.

And speaking of spew, I saved the best for last. Take a look at it, enlarge it by clicking on it. Study it for a while, and see if you get it before reading my explanation.

Get it?

Still don’t get it?

REALLY can’t get it?

Well here you go then…

Those things which look like fans are wind turbines. They a ‘green’ source of renewable energy, they generate ‘clean electricity’ which does not release carbon dioxide emissions. Thus are a favoured pet of Gore’s.

AND THEY ARE RUN BY POWERFUL GUSTS OF WIND – INCLUDING INCREDIBLE BLASTS OF AMAZING HOT AIR!!!!

Thank you and good night, folks!

StopGlobal

Part 1 here

Part 2 here

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.

MarsGlobalWarming

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!!!!

ClownAlFootprint

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

SaveAlGore

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.

YoureGettingWarmer

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 http://globallolzing.wordpress.com/.

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

AnInconvenientBelch

Above three found at Jonjayray’s Photobucket.

Complete_IdiotsGuide_GlobWa

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!

ACD_Save

Flat_Fatima_380_Warming

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!)

OsamaBinGore

“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

Global Warming Editorial Cartoons

April 20, 07

CURRENT NUMBER OF CARTOONS: 216+ links to more

LAST UPDATE: 8 May 2008

*NEW CARTOONS ARE ADDED WHENEVER I COME ACROSS THEM. CHECK BACK HERE ONCE IN A WHILE.*

*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 in Windows, or open them using Microsoft Paint and save as jpg or gif.*

*Or just Save this entire web page. This will save all the cartoons into a single folder on your PC in one shot.*

Note: To make it easier to load the cartoons, I’ve split them into separate posts. This is Part 1.

Part 2 here

Part 3 here

————————————-

I love editorial and political cartoons, and I hate lies, hoaxes and fear-mongering. So you can probably guess that editorial cartoons mocking global warming and its hypocritical supporters are a particular favourite of mine!

I’ve chosen some of the better ones to share with you, along with a brief explanation of what irt alludes to… Both so you can get the joke more easily if you’re stuck, and to reveal how the anthropogenic (human caused) global warming bandwagon has a few flat tyres. Editorial cartoons manage to do this humorously and to the point!

These cartoons are taken from Time.com, Michael Ramirez of Investor’s Business Daily, The Ryskind Sketchbook, Cox and Forkum, Day by Day, Gary Varvel of the Indianapolis Star, Paul Nowak, Wayne Stayskal, Chuck Assay, Chip Bok, Henry Payne, Red Planet Cartoons, zombietime and The People’s Cube.

A whole bunch of pro- and anti-global warming cartoons can be found at Cartoonist Group, including lots of Gore-zilla and rich actors and their I-Can-Buy-Expensive-Carbon-Offsets emissions, but they’re save-protected and I don’t want to print-screen them out.

For the facts and my rants on global warming fears, foolishness and hypocrisy, see my Global Warming Fears category.

And now, the cartoons… Explanations follow relevant cartoons.

—————–

LiveEarthBandItinerary

LiveEarthNoHunger

Live Earth is the latest Gore-ian scam to round up support for stopping global warming… Complete with smarmy, holier-than-thou preachy guilt tripping, arrogantly self-assured, don’t think just obey, boy-do-we-love-ourselves localised media assault.

LiveEarthHypocrisyLogo

At the expense of global warming, as tonnes of emissions are spewed into the air by the concert and jet- setting celebrities. See here for more.

But no worries, Mother Earth! Because although tons of CO2 is spewed into the atmosphere, they won’t cause any harm once Live Earth organizers and participants purchase some carbon credit offsets! But of course, tons of trash left behind

Speaking of carbon offsets…

Above by John Worr.

Above from www.celsias.com.

CarbonOffsetCentre

Reference for above at New York Times.

See also my post on carbon offsets, Follow the Clues: Is Al Gore’s Promotion of Global Warming Hysteria Merely A Scam to Make Him Money?.

Because for all his scamming, Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize! Wonder why Charles Ponzi didn’t win a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts too?

See Al Gore 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Editorial Cartoons for a just the cartoons on his Nobel Peace Prize, and links to educate you on the true nature of this incredulous incredible win.


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

Court ruling here if you missed it.

Gore_Commandments_300

The People’s Cube has Al Gore’s acceptance speech!

Oh well, can’t win ’em all Gorey! Guess you aren’t the biggest threat to capitalism and American freedom just yet!

Based on this piece: Satire: Gore Sues Time for ‘Person of the Year’ Recount.

Part 2 here

Part 3 here


%d bloggers like this: