Global Warming -- the biggest con game known to mankind - Page 4 - Big Big Forums

SurferGirl · 02-27-2009, 01:21 AM

I've found that many of those $6.00 light bulbs don't last as long as some of the cheep older bulbs.

I also think that people like Al Gore are pretty sick to go around alarming everyone of global warming but they don't want to make any personal changes themselves. Look at all the people that are on the global warming band wagon. Most of them fly around in private jets and ride in limos. They keep nice and warm or nice and cool depending on the season, yet they want all of the rest of us to conserve.

Al Gore is pathetic.

anothersta · 02-27-2009, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SurferGirl

I've found that many of those $6.00 light bulbs don't last as long as some of the cheep older bulbs.

I also think that people like Al Gore are pretty sick to go around alarming everyone of global warming but they don't want to make any personal changes themselves. Look at all the people that are on the global warming band wagon. Most of them fly around in private jets and ride in limos. They keep nice and warm or nice and cool depending on the season, yet they want all of the rest of us to conserve.

Al Gore is pathetic.

Yes he is. And, he started the company that sells carbon credits so he's got a very vested interest in the 'gloom and doom' mentality. I figure when he lost the presidency, he needed something to fill his time so this was it.

I also figured up how much you probably exhaled while typing that message. I think you owe the gov 5 bucks

Jolie Rouge · 04-24-2009, 02:35 PM

Gore: Congress must not bicker, act now on climate
By DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press Writer
33 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Former Vice President Al Gore, a leading voice on climate change, urged lawmakers Friday to overcome partisan differences and pass legislation to curb greenhouse gases.

Gore, who won a Nobel prize for his work on global warming, called the climate issue the most important ever before Congress. A Democratic bill limiting carbon dioxide and other pollution linked to a warming of the Earth will simultaneously solve the problems of the climate, economy and national security, he told a House panel.

"We are, along with the rest of humanity, facing the dire and growing threat of the climate crisis," said Gore, who argued that Congress must act to "restore America's leadership of the world and begin, at long last, to solve the climate crisis."

He said he was worried that a U.S. failure to act could lead to " a slow-motion collapse" of international negotiations on climate.

The bill Gore cited calls for a reduction of greenhouse gases by 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent by mid-century. It also would require utilities to produce a quarter of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025.

Gore's backing comes after three days of hearings where experts, Republicans and moderate Democrats expressed concern that the bill, which would establish a cap-and-trade system to cut emissions, would drive up energy costs.

Gore, who served Tennessee in Congress, rejected any conflict between addressing global warming and economic well-being. But he urged the House panel to make sure the bill includes provisions to protect people who would unfairly face hardships, such as workers in energy-intensive industries who could lose their jobs and those who face higher energy bills.

Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the committee's ranking Republican, argued that the proposed "cap-and-trade" system to cut greenhouse gases would cost tens of billions of dollars a year. "How in the world can we have a (pollution) trade system that doesn't cost jobs and doesn't cost the economy?" he said.

"I think the cost of energy will come down when we make this transition to renewable energy," countered Gore. He predicted "massive job losses if ... we continue business as usual, ignoring warnings and just sit and wait until oil prices go sky high again."

And he said if climate change is not addressed, costs could be much greater.

But House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio called Gore's testimony deserving of "another Oscar" — alluding to the recognition received by the Gore film on climate change. Boehner said the Democratic bill amounts to a "massive national energy tax on every American ....who drives a car, buys a product manufactured in the United States, or has the audacity to flip on a light switch."

And some Democrats also expressed concerns about the economic impact.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., said he's not convinced the draft legislation will protect U.S. jobs because other countries like China will not face the same economic burdens.

"If the United States leads, China will follow," Gore said.

He offered the panel a litany of examples of what rising temperatures are already doing to the planet. He spoke of Arctic warming, melting Greenland ice sheets, and how increasingly acidic seas are striking ********s and coral reefs with a type of osteoporosis.

The legislation's supporters also hoped former Sen. John Warner, R-Va., who co-sponsored climate legislation in the Senate last year, would give the issue some bipartisan flavor.

Appearing with Gore, Warner argued that dealing with climate change is a national security issue that must be addressed.

"This particular moment in history is critical," said Warner. "Future generations ... will look back at what we did, maybe what we didn't do."

But Warner, who retired from the Senate last year after 30 years in Congress, said there will be "a rough road ahead" if greenhouse gases are to be reduced. He cautioned against moving too quickly when technology to curtail heat-trapping emissions may not be available.

He said the Democratic proposal was not perfect, but that Congress needs to pass a bill and "establish a beachhead" in the battle against the impacts of climate change.

Warner has been a strong advocate for mandatory action to reduce greenhouse gases. But his bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., as well as Democrats, failed to get enough votes in the Senate to break a GOP filibuster. That debate, like much of the discussion this week before the House committee, focused on bitter disagreement over the expected economic costs, and similar arguments have been made this week.

___

On the Net:

House Energy and Commerce Committee: http://energycommerce.house.gov/

Newt Gingrich's Web site: http://newt.org

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090424/...imate_hearings

atprm · 04-24-2009, 02:45 PM

Quote:

"Future generations ... will look back at what we did, maybe what we didn't do."

you got that right!

they are going to look back and wonder 1) who the f*** authorized all this bailout crap and why do THEY have to be the ones to pick up that tab for Socialist Reform?

and 2) They will also wonder why the hell no one had the right sense of mind to stop Peter Pan and his band of brothers from darkening THEIR futures.

Jolie Rouge · 04-27-2009, 06:02 PM

Eco-hypocrite of the week
By Doug Powers • April 27, 2009 02:38 PM
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/27...e-of-the-week/

Sure, it’s only Monday, but we’ll go ahead and declare a winner right now…

Prince Charles is in the midst of a five-day tour of Europe to promote environmental issues, and he’s determined to save the world to death:

Quote:

The Prince and the Duchess of Cornwall, plus ten Clarence House staff, will fly from London to Rome this evening. Then they will fly on to Venice and Berlin, before returning to Britain. Clarence House aides stress that the trip is at the request of the Government to promote its climate change policies.

But instead of using scheduled flights, the Royal party has hired a private plane, thought to be an Airbus A319.

According to experts from the Carbon Managers company, which carries out environmental audits, the aircraft’s four European flights over 2,200 miles will leave a carbon footprint of 52.95 tons - nearly five times the average person’s 11-ton footprint for an entire year.

Each member of Charles’s party will leave a carbon footprint of 4.41 tons - 13 times more than if they had used a scheduled flight on the same type of plane, which can carry up to 156 passengers.

Now that’s a huge carbon earprint.

I have no hard data on this, but I’m willing to bet that the number one cause of greenhouse gas emissions is environmentalists flying around the world to emergency conferences on greenhouse gas emissions. If global warming didn’t exist at the start of this particular eco-crusade, then darnit, it will when they’re finished. Global warming could be the largest — and most lucrative — self-fulfilling prophecy ever.

This huge carbon output will no doubt later be “justified” by the purchase of “carbon offsets” — a medicine that is applied topically to the planet to remove the guilt pangs of limousine liberals and private jet socialists. “Carbon offsets” make as much sense as a denial mechanism as ”murder offsets” –i.e. a homicide can be fully atoned if the killer offsets the death by impregnating another person.

Gore has madoff with millions

Speaking of hypocrites, last week, Al Gore told Congress that global warming deniers are “like Bernie Madoff, they lied to the people who trusted them in order to make money.” (video here)

I’m a global warming “denier” — at least by Al’s definition. If Gore can tell me exactly how I’m making money off that and how that makes me like Bernie Madoff, I’ll donate a few bucks to the “Alliance for Climate Protection” — one of the ventures that has allowed Gore to go from a net worth of $2 million when he left the vice-presidency, to a worth said to be well over $100 million in part by capitalizing on blind faith, misinformation, greed and gullibility — just like Berni… never mind.

It Pays to Go Green!
Al Gore's Net Worth Jumps From $2 Million in 2000 to $100 Million in 2008
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...net-worth.html

Quote:

Chief climate change pimp Al Gore is making millions off of his fear-mongering.

Pro Patria discovered that while Al Gore is scaring the daylights out of young children he is making millions from his green investments.

So what has Al Gore gained from his Big Green escapades?

According to public disclosure information, Gore was worth somewhere between $1 million and $2 million in 2000. Not quite eight years later, Gore is estimated to be worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million. While I ordinarily would applaud such financial gains from such a short period of time, I can’t help but to question just how it happened. When you look out at what Al Gore has done, it’s evident that
he figured out on a way to capitalize on the creation of Big Green while becoming the official doomsday prophet that has helped to build Big Green into the monetary powerhouse that it has become.

In any other industry this would be considered a severe conflict of interest. In essence, Al Gore has helped to create a fictitious catastrophe, then told everybody what the solutions have to be, and then put himself in a position to capitalize on the hype. It’s not only seriously dishonest, but many people and industries are going to suffer in the wake of this hype while Gore and Big Green bring in millions (and in some cases, billions) of dollars in green money.

Jolie Rouge · 04-27-2009, 06:10 PM

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) challenged Al Gore's motives for supporting climate change legislation on Friday including his links to a firm that will make millions from cap and trade legislation. http://blackburn.house.gov/

Despite the crumbling case for global warming the Obama Administration plans on moving ahead with expensive cap and trade legislation that Obama admits will cause energy costs to skyrocket. The initiative will cost American families $700 to $1,400 dollars each year.

Fooolllooowww the moooneeeyyyy ...

anothersta · 04-27-2009, 07:09 PM

They don't care about the average person. All they care about is making/sending ALOT of money to all their pals who put them into office.

And it appears that Al Gore is no dummy. He's figured out a way for pay to play and he's on both ends of it. Fancy that.

If you don't have a crisis to use, create one.

Jolie Rouge · 04-28-2009, 01:19 AM

MSNBC vs. local weatherman
By Doug Powers • April 27, 2009
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/27/msnbc/

Bill Steffen is the Chief Meteorologist for WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Living 30 miles or so east of Grand Rapids, I see Bill’s forecasts on occasion — most often at this time of year, when severe spring weather is rolling through.

But Steffen, an over 30-year meteorology veteran, has made some fine contributions to his field, most notably recently when he challenged the claims made in MSNBC’s four-part series called “Future Earth: Journey to the End of the World.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29840099/

Here’s just the beginning of Bill’s rebuttal to MSNBC’s program: http://blogs.woodtv.com/2009/04/26/m...ad-bills-blog/

Quote:

MSNBC is running a four-part series entitled Future Earth. On their website they say you can “find out why Earth’s climate machine — the North Pole — is melting alarmingly fast. Learn about our planet’s future, and how you can stop its decline.”

First, the North Pole is not “Earth’s Climate Machine”. There is far more heat and area in the Tropics than at the North Pole. Second, YOU can’t stop it’s decline (assuming it’s declining)! Nature is big - you personally are insignificant compared to nature. Don’t you wish you had the power to control icecaps!
[...]
The Antarctic icecap (which is much bigger than the Arctic icecap) has been growing. In Sept. 1979 (first year of satellite data) the Antarctic icecap was 18.4 million sq. km. In Sept. 2008, the Antarctic icecap was at 19.2 million sq. km. That’s a 30-year trend. By comparison, Michigan is 151,586 sq. km, so that’s an increase in icecover of over five times the area of Michigan.

MSNBC could instead be doing a story on the trend of cooling in Antarctica and possible falling sea levels due to ice accumulation in Antarctica. Keep in mind that if the Polar icecap (without Greenland) melted…it would hardly cause sea level to rise, because the icecap is currently displacing water in the Arctic Ocean.

Later, Bill touches on the biggie. The most offensive word you can use to describe the motivations of some “environmentalists” — the dreaded “c” word: “capitalist” greed (go to the blog post to access the links):

One last point, MSNBC is owned by General Electric. GE is already making money off the issue with their Carbon Credit Master Card (link from “Treehugger”, no less). Here’s CNN’s story on the new credit card.

Interesting note: In the fourth quarter of 2008 as GE/NBC stock fell 30 percent, GE spent $4.26 million on lobbying — that’s $46,304 each day, including weekends, Thanksgiving and Christmas. In 2008, the company spent a grand total of $18.66 million on lobbying.” Reviewing their lobbying filings, GE’s specific lobbying issues included the “Climate Stewardship Act,” “Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act,” “Global Warming Reduction Act,” “Federal Government Greenhouse Gas Registry Act,” “Low Carbon Economy Act,” and “Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.” Do you think this “big business” is just concerned about the environment?[/quote]

Having previously worked in local television at the affiliate level for almost 20 years, I can say that there are many, many other meteorologists like Bill Steffen who simply are too intimidated, for whatever reason(s), to speak out about the scam of Gore & Company. Kudos to Mr. Steffen for speaking his mind.

Jolie Rouge · 05-06-2009, 01:34 AM

Waxman shortcircuits debate to ram eco-taxes through Congress

What do you do when dissenting opinions are dragging down your massive government expansion plans disguised as environmental do-good-ism?

Shortcircuit the debate and skip past all that messy procedural stuff:

Quote:

Democrats in the House of Representatives said on Tuesday they were still working to pass a climate change bill by year’s end as they scrambled to get enough of their fellow lawmakers to support the initiative.

But in an important procedural move, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman said he would leapfrog a subcommittee and have the controversial legislation voted on by the full committee before his end-of-May deadline for the panel to act.

Citing the approaching self-imposed deadline, Waxman said it “requires that we go right to full committee and bypass the subcommittee.”

Environmentalists who want quick passage of the bill to reduce industrial greenhouse gas emissions have noted the measure would have an easier time getting through the full committee, where opposing viewpoints would be diluted by broader support.

Waxman and other Democrats on the committee met with President Barack Obama to discuss the climate change bill. “We are determined to pass a bill by this year,” Waxman said.

But it is proving difficult to craft a law that can attract enough Democratic support and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said there is “not a consensus” on the issue.

Who needs consensus? Leapfrogging powers…activate!

***

Related: Introducing “Cash for Clunkers.” Sounds like the name that belongs on every bailout/spending bill Congress has passed over the last year. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...cle=1&catnum=0

Jolie Rouge · 05-06-2009, 06:31 PM

Yesterday, I noted Henry Waxman’s debate-evading maneuvers to try and facilitate passage of the massive eco-tax/”climate change” bill.

The NRCC sent out a helpful fact sheet outlining why the radical green plan is really in trouble. You can thank opposition from Democrats in manufacturing and energy-producing states.

Tea Party activists, here’s your opportunity to reach across the aisle:

Quote:

JUST THE FACTS:

After stalling actions in Congress in the face of political pressure on the national energy tax, tempers boiled over among party leaders:

“Tensions over the direction of a sweeping climate change bill boiled over in a House Democratic leadership meeting Thursday, as Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (Calif.) lashed out at Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) for appearing to publicly downgrade the measure’s chances this year. ‘This is not helpful,’ Waxman told Van Hollen, citing reports that presented the party’s campaign chief as opposing aggressive action on the bill, sources familiar with the meeting said.” (Dennis and Newmyer, “Democrats Clash on Climate Change,” Roll Call, May 4, 2009)

Seeing one of his key campaign proposals on life-support in Congress, Obama drags Energy Committee members to the White House to resuscitate this job-killing proposal:

“Waxman declined to comment when asked if the markup would start this week, saying only that he remains committed to moving the bill by Memorial Day…. But with the climate bill in dire straits at the subcommittee level, Obama decided it was time to weigh in.” (Darren Samuelsohn, ‘We’re working out the issues,’ House Dems say after Obama climate meeting, New York Times, 5/5/09)

“President Barack Obama summoned 36 House Democrats to the White House on Tuesday to urge them to agree on climate and energy legislation that is under increasing criticism from Republicans and members of his own party.” (Dina Cappiello, “White House, House GOP Convene Meetings on Climate,” The Associated Press, 5/5/09)

Still Democrats Aren’t Willing to Support a National Energy Tax:

“But House Democrats have yet to reach a deal on key aspects of the far-reaching package, including credits to affected industries, a timetable for reaching reductions in carbon emissions and the specifics of a new mandate for renewable electricity.” (Dennis and Newmyer, “Energy Reform Limps Ahead,” Roll Call, 5/6/09)

THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF BAD POLICY:

Facing tough re-elections next year, Dems in manufacturing and energy-producing districts desperately distance themselves from the National Energy Tax:

Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT): “Matheson has already been taking political shots from both sides on the bill. For example, the National Wildlife Federation ran full-page ads in the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune on Tuesday urging voters to call Matheson and ‘tell him it’s time to target climate change.’ The National Republican Congressional Committee on Monday issued a news release attacking him and questioning whether he will “support a national energy tax that could burden thousands and kill jobs.” (Davidson, “Matheson says Democrats moving too fast on climate-change bill,” Deseret News, 5/5/09)

Rep. Charles Melancon (D-LA): “At this point Melancon said he can’t support the draft because it would shut down the state’s energy coast. Melancon’s vote could have a detrimental effect on getting the measure out of committee. ‘I believe this bill would create an undue burden on families who are already paying too much in energy bills and on an industry that provides thousands of Louisianians with good jobs,’ Melancon said.” (Gerard Shields, “La. Democrats Key Figures In Federal Emissions Debate,” Baton Rouge Advocate, 5/2/09)

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA): “‘What I’ve seen so far is nowhere near where it needs to be for me to support it,’ Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) told POLITICO. ‘Any way you do it, it hurts Pennsylvania, especially western Pennsylvania.’ ‘I think cap and trade is bad policy,’ said Altmire.” (Alex Isenstadt, “Cap And Trade Hits Speed Bumps,” Politico, 4/27/09)

Rep. John Boccieri (D-OH): “‘My understanding from what I’ve heard is it’s going to cause a big increase in our utility bills.’ Boccieri said the White House has been lobbying him heavily, but, ‘in its present form, cap and trade would be devastating to Ohio.’” (Robert Wang, “Boccieri Holds Telephone Town Hall Meeting,” Canton Repository, 3/25/09)

Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN): “Among coal-district Democrats like Hill, whose southeastern Indiana seat tilts conservative, reservations about a climate change bill are equally apparent. ‘I just can’t support it with the way it’s being proposed,’ said Hill, noting that 96 percent of Indiana is dependent on coal. ‘The bill in its current form is going to increase the rates for the people I represent.’” (Alex Isenstadt, “Cap And Trade Hits Speed Bumps,” Politico, 4/27/09)

Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR): “Rep. Mike Ross, Arkansas Democrat and one of the moderate members whom party leaders will have to persuade in order to secure passage, said he was concerned about the price consumers would have to pay if utilities passed along the cost of buying carbon permits to customers. ‘If you don’t like $4-a-gallon gasoline, you’re really not going to like your electric bill sometime between now and 2030,’ he said.” (Tom LoBianco, “House Lawmakers Take Stands In Hearings On Climate Change,” The Washington Times, 4/22/09)

Jolie Rouge · 05-19-2009, 11:39 AM

Obama to announce auto mileage, emissions standards
Ken Thomas And Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writers
30 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's new fuel and emission standards for cars and trucks will save billions of barrels of oil but are expected to cost consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle by the time the plan is complete in 2016. Obama on Tuesday planned to announce the first-ever national emissions limits for vehicles, as well as require an overall or industry average fuel efficiency standard at 35.5 miles per gallon.

Carol Browner, the White House energy and climate director, publicly confirmed the new initiative in appearances on morning network news shows, calling it a "truly historic" occasion and saying tougher standards are "long overdue."

The plan also would effectively end a feud between automakers and statehouses over emission standards — with the states coming out on top but the automakers getting the single national standard they've been seeking and more time to make the changes.

Obama's proposed change in rules would for the first time combine pollution reduction from vehicle tailpipes with increased efficiency on the road. It would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil through 2016 and would be the environmental equivalent of taking 177 million cars off the road, said senior administration officials speaking anonymously, ahead of the announcement.

New vehicles would be 30 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by the end of the program, they said.

The plan, to be proposed in the Federal Register of pending rules and regulations, must still clear procedural hurdles at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department. Automakers expressed their support for the plan. "We're all agreeing to work together on a national program," said Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

Administration officials said consumers were going to pay an extra $700, anyway, for mileage standards that had already been approved. The Obama plan adds another $600 to the price of a vehicle, a senior administration official said, bringing the total cost to $1,300 by 2016.

That official said the cost would be recovered through savings at the pump for consumers and if gas prices follow government projections.

Under the changes, the overall fleet average would have to be 35.5 mpg by 2016, with passenger cars reaching 39 mpg and light trucks hitting 30 mpg under a system that develops standards for each vehicle class size. Manufacturers would also be required to hit individual mileage targets.

Browner, who headed the EPA during the Clinton administration, said the industry told the administration "they wanted to make cleaner cars and what they needed was the government to give them predictability and certainty so that they could make the investments toward cleaner cars."

In a battle over emission standards, California, 13 other states and the District of Columbia have urged the federal government to let them enact more stringent standards than the federal government's requirements. The states' regulations would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and trucks by 2016 — the benchmark Obama planned to unveil for vehicles built in model years 2012 and beyond.

The Obama plan gives the states essentially what they sought and more, although the buildup is slower than the states sought. In exchange, though, cash-strapped states such as California would not have to develop their own standards and enforcement plan. Instead, they can rely on federal tax dollars to monitor the environment.

The auto industry will be required to ramp up production of more fuel-efficient vehicles on a much tighter timeline than originally envisioned. It will be costly; the Transportation Department last year estimated that requiring the industry to meet 31.6 mpg by 2015 would cost nearly $47 billion.

But industry officials — many of whom are running companies on emergency taxpayer dollars — said Obama's plan would help them because they would not face multiple emissions requirements and would have more certainty as they develop their vehicles for the next decade.

Auto executives, including General Motors Corp. CEO Fritz Henderson, and executives from Ford Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co., Daimler AG and others planned to attend the White House event along with United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Browner was interviewed on CBS's "The Early Show" and ABC's "Good Morning America."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090519/...FtYXRvYW5ub3U-