Al Gore.. global warming unbelievers are racists!

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/205594/20110829/al-gore-climate-change-global-warming-skeptics.htm

Hard to believe this guy was almost president. Think the dems will run him again in 2016?

Question: Why do leftists have to believe in global warming? Most on the right are split, or ambivalent about it.. but not the left. It is a crucial tenet of the left's belief system. I don't see how it fits in. Why couldn't i believe in liberal issues, but think global warming is bad science?

Al Gore is a hypocrite and a douche.

The fact the he was "almost president" just proves how incredibly, pathetically weak the competition for president was....and still is.

As I always say: "Consider the source".

As for global warming being bad science. Hard to tell... ...and I'm not fully educated on the subject, but having said that I do understand the data, but we cannot, as scientists, make conclusions based on short-term data. ....and an absence of data isn't correlation of data. Supposition isn't "Conclusive Evidence".

The earth's magnetic pole has changed several times and no one has considered that to be an influence on weather, but even a dabbler in understanding the earth geophysics could conclude that it would have to (influence the weather).

I'm still looking for another planet. I'll write my ride report from there.

Yeah but.....he invented the internet.

trav72 wrote:

Yeah but.....he invented the internet.

lol

rydnseek wrote:

Question: Why do leftists have to believe in global warming? Most on the right are split, or ambivalent about it.. but not the left. It is a crucial tenet of the left's belief system. I don't see how it fits in.

Because it requires government intervention in how we live our lives, and what we can and can't do, and government knowing what is best for us.

And of course, as Gore demonstrates, there's a fortune to be made in the iatrogenic global warming scam. Like Obama, those who buy his snake oil scarcely pay attention to his hypocrisy and record of outright lies. After all, this is the same Al Gore who flies all over the world in personal private jet planes, and who owns five or so very large homes, kept always at the ready for his occupancy, and not one of them green in any way in their power consumption.

Yes, global warming pays very well. Reminds me of a local guy who was the guest speaker at my high school many, many years ago. A brilliant young scientist, just gaining recognition. His speech was on how our generation had to go out, get science degrees, and develop the technology to allow the human race to survive the oncoming ice age which would soon cover the earth in hundreds of feet of ice. I recall him saying that this was settled science, and the ice age was coming just as surely as he was standing there.

That scientist's name is David Suzuki. Today he is along with Al Gore one of the foremost proponents of iatorgenic global warming. From Ice Age to Global Meltdown in just three decades... less, actually. Who'da thunk it?

David Suzuki and his foundation make a very nice pile of cash of the Global Warming scam. And like Al Gore, David Suzuki keeps multiple, very expensive residences and indulges in less-than-green travel while selling his schtick.

And like Al Gore, David Suzuki also believes that the cure for our ills lies in more Big Brother government, more government interference in commerce, and more of government telling us how to live. While they maintain large, energy sucking homes, and jet around the world, of course.

But... David Suzuki has never claimed he invented the Internet.

BTW... if the Poles are indeed melting... how come the Brits, Indians, etc have to keep building new research stations every decade or so because the existing ones become buried under dozens of feet of ice? Shouldn't they be able to simply recycle the old ice stations as they pop back out of the melting snow?



That's South Pole Research Station. That red building was five stories above the ice when built back in the 70's. Those transmission towers you see in the background were 115' high; now they're about 30' above the surface. I expect they should be reemerging from the ice shortly...

When looking at this pic, a final thought: according to the USGS, Antarctica holds 70% of Earth's fresh water, and 91% of Earth's ice! And recent GIS inventories done using RADARSAT shows that the antarctic ice cap is growing in volume, not decreasing.

It is clear that Gore is a green hypocrite, as many of the celebrity greenies are as well. They drive hummers, jet around & generally leave a bigger carbon footprint than anyone. I suppose the case can be made that they do it for the money.. greed is the motive, not ideology.

I do believe that the global warming theory is bad science. I'm all for responsibility & good management of our resources.. cut back pollution, encourage conservation, etc. I think it is evident that natural patterns in weather & climate have a lot more to do with what happens on the earth than a coal fired power plant. Even thousands of power plants spewing unfiltered pollution are no match for a small volcano.

But why the obsession of the left to hype global warming? Is it just to gain more control? The elite will continue to have their full powered houses, jets, limos, etc. Do they just not want anyone else to have that? Does Gore want to ban 2 strokes so he can be the main polluter with his multiple houses & private jet?

I understand that Gore is fully invested in global warming. His uncomfortable truth has made him a comfortable living, & debunking his theories makes him very uncomfortable. But we should be more interested in the scientific process than making career globalists more comfortable. We should apply good scientific methods when scrutinizing theories, not just rubber stamp them because the source has a similar ideology. Truth can be sought without surrendering our pet ideals. Ideologies seldom rely on truth, anyway.

But i still don't see why i couldn't be a bleeding heart liberal agonizing over the poor, & believe that global warming is bad science. I know many conservatives who believe in global warming, but not a single liberal who doesn't. What is the connection?

rydnseek wrote:

But i still don't see why i couldn't be a bleeding heart liberal agonizing over the poor, & believe that global warming is bad science. I know many conservatives who believe in global warming, but not a single liberal who doesn't. What is the connection?

How can you agonize over "the poor" while demanding policies that condemn them to living their lives in socialist, welfare state gulags? Wait... that's another topic.

I think it is mostly about the core belief that somehow or other whenever government doesn't mandate every moment of our lives and what we do, we must be screwing things up. And so we need government rules and regulations to ride to the rescue. Have you EVER heard a liberal/"progressive"/socialist/statist complain about TOO MUCH government regulation and involvement in our lives? Ever? Even once? I haven't.

That, and the fact they're all about guilt. If there is climate change, then it must be because we screwed up. After all, the poor are poor through no fault of their own, criminals are criminals because society oppressed them while growing up, etc. When something goes wrong, the inevitable conclusion is that we are guilty and somehow or other are the cause. And so, if there is climate change, then the inevitable conclusion is that it must be because of human activity. How human activity caused the Little Ice Age of a couple of hundred years ago can't really be explained (not enough people driving SUVs when Greenland froze over, perhaps?), but the current claim that we have global warming is definitely our fault.

We should be ashamed of ourselves. We must apologize, do penance, punish ourselves, our children, and generations yet unborn. Because CO2 - essential for life on this planet - is suddenly a government controlled pollutant.

And so we must have the government come rescue us from ourselves, with our president promising that any new coal mines/plants will be put out of business. With an accompanying promise that this will cost electricity prices to skyrocket!



Change you can believe in!

I wonder what part of "global warming" is due to all the hot air those pushing these crap spew out?

Or, for that matter, climate change pushers Barry and Michelle taking two different jets and entourages, two hours apart, to Martha's Vineyard - because they're simply both too important for one to leave two hours earlier or the other to leave two hours later to go to the same destination. Never mind the hit on the taxpayer... what was the extra contribution to global warming with all of that unnecessary fossil fuel travel? Flying pizza cooks from Chicago? Personal trainers in from Chicago?

Al Gore, David Suzuki, The Anointed One, whatever... It isn't the hypocrisy that is amazing - it's that the liberals/"progressives"/statists/socialists neither notice nor mind it.

Jäger wrote:

rydnseek wrote:

But i still don't see why i couldn't be a bleeding heart liberal agonizing over the poor, & believe that global warming is bad science. I know many conservatives who believe in global warming, but not a single liberal who doesn't. What is the connection?

How can you agonize over "the poor" while demanding policies that condemn them to living their lives in socialist, welfare state gulags? Wait... that's another topic.

I think it is mostly about the core belief that somehow or other whenever government doesn't mandate every moment of our lives and what we do, we must be screwing things up. And so we need government rules and regulations to ride to the rescue. Have you EVER heard a liberal/"progressive"/socialist/statist complain about TOO MUCH government regulation and involvement in our lives? Ever? Even once? I haven't.

That, and the fact they're all about guilt. If there is climate change, then it must be because we screwed up. After all, the poor are poor through no fault of their own, criminals are criminals because society oppressed them while growing up, etc. When something goes wrong, the inevitable conclusion is that we are guilty and somehow or other are the cause. And so, if there is climate change, then the inevitable conclusion is that it must be because of human activity. How human activity caused the Little Ice Age of a couple of hundred years ago can't really be explained (not enough people driving SUVs when Greenland froze over, perhaps?), but the current claim that we have global warming is definitely our fault.

We should be ashamed of ourselves. We must apologize, do penance, punish ourselves, our children, and generations yet unborn. Because CO2 - essential for life on this planet - is suddenly a government controlled pollutant.

And so we must have the government come rescue us from ourselves, with our president promising that any new coal mines/plants will be put out of business. With an accompanying promise that this will cost electricity prices to skyrocket!



Change you can believe in!

I wonder what part of "global warming" is due to all the hot air those pushing these crap spew out?

Or, for that matter, climate change pushers Barry and Michelle taking two different jets and entourages, two hours apart, to Martha's Vineyard - because they're simply both too important for one to leave two hours earlier or the other to leave two hours later to go to the same destination. Never mind the hit on the taxpayer... what was the extra contribution to global warming with all of that unnecessary fossil fuel travel? Flying pizza cooks from Chicago? Personal trainers in from Chicago?

Al Gore, David Suzuki, The Anointed One, whatever... It isn't the hypocrisy that is amazing - it's that the liberals/"progressives"/statists/socialists neither notice nor mind it.

Geez man, for someone who has criticized conspiracy theorists, you can rant like any pro I'm aware of. Seriously, the way you connect your dots so passionately...yet such a one sided passion...or so it seems..? Kinda like a strong horse, racing with blinders...he'll get the job done, if he's on the right track...

If your patience and work ethic, ever allow you to explore the left philosophy, as passionately as you portray the right, you could be a great asset to society.

Or you could continue to sharpen one side of your sword and work with that. I'm sure with your skill, that is more than enough to satisfy your goals.

I am most definitely pro-environment. I am certain about that...not sure how that point makes me left, but I do lean left...
If you feel your logic is more sound than the vast majority of scientists on this planet...then you have a conspiracy to unveil...good luck. I hope your work is productive. Your either working to make the findings more accurate, or are chasing a conspiracy. Where ever you feel your effort is best spent is your business.

Since all humans have the earth in common...and we simply can't exist without it...you think it would be worth a little extra polish, just in case.
...or maybe the economy or individual rights are more important?

mucker wrote:

Geez man, for someone who has criticized conspiracy theorists, you can rant like any pro I'm aware of.

Let's start with really simple things for really simple minds and see if you can deal with that.

Please do point out what I posted above is a "conspiracy theory"?

Name one thing that I posted that didn't happen, isn't historical fact.

Obama and his wife didn't take two different jets and two different groups to the same location just two hours apart?

That YouTube clip of Obama is actually a fake - he didn't say he would bring in regulations that would ensure any new coal plants would go bankrupt. It's really just an imposter?

Or were you just itching to use the phrase "conspiracy theory"?

Quote :

Seriously, the way you connect your dots so passionately...yet such a one sided passion...or so it seems..? Kinda like a strong horse, racing with blinders...he'll get the job done, if he's on the right track...

Seriously dude, I know you don't pay taxes in the US, but I do. And yes, I can connect the dots linking them to their hypocrisy and BS. The question is, can you successfully manage to connect the dots to provide a rational defense of your fellow leftists and climate scam artists?

Should I be passionate about your fellow hypocritical leftists, these wrecking balls "redistributing the wealth" and bragging about "remaking America"? Why WOULDN'T I be passionate about it?

You know what we're talking about here... Michelle spending $10 million in just one year on her vacations, jetting around the world with gaggles of her friends while her husband preaches cap and trade and shared sacrifice. Her "I shall not rest" husband spending more time golfing and playing b-ball than dealing with unemployment, while blathering about "billionaires and millionaires" who are actually people with relatively modest $200,000 gross family/business incomes. A president with more unaccountable czars than the Russian Empire ever had in total. A president who consistently attacks the constitution, whether through his recent backdoor scam to provide the equivalent of the Dream Act, and not only is taking over banks and auto companies, but has even decided his wife needs the power through his office to control what schools sell at bake sale fundraisers on weekends.

You want me to make an argument in support of Gore, Obama, et al after that? What kind of a moron would support that, much less not be passionate in opposing it?

No. I'll tell you what - if you think it is far too one sided, why don't you haul out that "lazy socialism" you describe yourself as imbibing in and take your best shot at putting an argument forward defending their actions?

Explain to us how their actions aren't really hypocritical. Gore or Obama, either or both, whichever you feel offended about at the moment.

Explain to us how it's rational for them to be attacking mythical "millionaires and billionaires" while they piss way millions of taxpayer dollars hobnobbing with real, live millionaires and billionaires on vacations because taxpayer paid for Camp David isn't good enough for them. Why it is rational for this Imperial president and his queen to put the bone to those of us who pay taxes down here by taking two separate jets and entourages to the same location, a mere two hours apart while they blather about cap and trade and being green. Or, for that matter, flying their "bus tour" around in military jets while he flew from stump speech to stump speech in Air Force One to minimize the time they actually spent in one of the bloody buses.

Explain to us how Al Gore is right on about global warming, and it isn't about mostly warming up his bank account.

Quote :

If your patience and work ethic, ever allow you to explore the left philosophy, as passionately as you portray the right, you could be a great asset to society.

The essential problem for you with that suggestion is I have already explored the leftist philosophy and realized how rotten to the core it is. How could I avoid it, going to Simon Fraser aka Radical U in the early 70's?

"left philosophy"t doesn't square with Locke, de Tocqueville, or any of the other philosophers espousing personal freedom that I'm aware of. It doesn't square with personal accountability and responsibility, two things I believe rather strongly in. And I also wasted hours of my life reading Marx and Alinsky, trying to find any rational in their beliefs - there is none, just a belief that somebody else should pay their freight. By the way, in exploring the left, here's some leftist trivia for you to share with your friends: did you know Marx secretively played the evil, capitalist stock markets for much of his adult life? Hypocrisy as a central tenant of leftist philosophy goes right back to its beginnings and major theorists.

But, you're asking me to be an apologist for Marxism/Alinskyism/socialism and so become a great asset to your leftist objectives (socialism sure as hell isn't a "great asset to society")? Not a chance... I'll leave the cheerleading duties in defense of that to you - get your pom-poms and lazy socialism out.

Quote :

Or you could continue to sharpen one side of your sword and work with that. I'm sure with your skill, that is more than enough to satisfy your goals.

I'm equally sure it is only takes one sharp sharp side to deal with any defense of this socialist/global warming crap that you may wish to trot out. Or would you prefer to argue Locke, de Montesquieu, etc would have supported socialism, lazy or otherwise? Because as it happens, both sides are equally sharp. So bring your defense of this BS on. Please.

Quote :

I am most definitely pro-environment. I am certain about that...not sure how that point makes me left, but I do lean left...

I will let you in on a little secret. Just because you're not a liberal, a "progressive", a statist, or socialist, doesn't mean you aren't pro-environment.

I will let you in on a second little secret. There is an enormous difference between conservation and preservation.

And finally, just because you claim to be "pro-environment" doesn't mean you really have any idea of what is going on.

Quote :

If you feel your logic is more sound than the vast majority of scientists on this planet...then you have a conspiracy to unveil...good luck. I hope your work is productive. Your either working to make the findings more accurate, or are chasing a conspiracy. Where ever you feel your effort is best spent is your business.

Let's start by putting an end to your BS right here about "the vast majority of scientists" - the 2010 Senate Minority Report, delivered less than a year ago, referenced over 1000 scientists who have publicly come out in opposition to iatorogenic climate change theories. It also noted that a review of IPCC scientists shows that only 20% are from fields dealing with climate. Nothing like having a fireman do your vasectomy operation... Would you consider the American Meteorologist Society climate scientists? Most would. In a recent survey of their membership, only 8% agreed that climate change since 1950 is human produced; 62% disagreed that the climate change models were reliable for predicting climate change.

Want to try your "vast majority" BS further? Because there's lots more examples of open letters by scientists, scientific organizations refuting iatrogenic climate change, etc, and you just know I'd be happy to rub your face in them if you want to trot out your "vast majority" crap again. I won't even use my sharp sword, just a tiny little butter knife is all that's needed to deal with that BS claim on "vast majority".

Please do stick your neck out for the axe by claiming that iatrogenic global warming is settled science. Please, do it.

Imitate the vast majority of scientists and other morons who claimed eugenics was "settled science" just prior to WWII.

Just like the morons - including "the vast majority of scientists on this plant" - who claimed that the imminent ice age back in the '70's was "settled science". Where's all that ice? Or do you have to go ask David Suzuki? After all, he was shilling for the Ice Age before he switched to shilling for global warming a few years ago.

Maybe just start with the easy stuff and explain to us how polar research stations have to be regularly replaced because they are continually being buried by the ongoing buildup of ice and snow. Why aren't all the old ones just popping out of the ice as the polar caps melt away?

Do I have a conspiracy to unveil? Is it a conspiracy theory that many prominent earth scientists say that iatrogenic climate change is a load of crap, including some who have sat on the UN's IPCC? You didn't notice that, nor the petitions they have signed on iatrogenic climate change while you were checking to confirm that a "vast majority" of scientists supported the idea of iatrogenic climate change? There was only about 700 or so of them on one open letter alone to the Canadian federal government, not a few of them Canadian and not a few whose life work has involved earth science. Who would be more informed? A geneticist turned media star and leftist political activist, or somebody whose doctorate involves climatology and has spent their entire professional life doing research in that field?

Really stick your neck out and say it isn't so that data from your country's very own RADARSAT hasn't established that the Antarctic ice cap is actually growing in size. Please.

Quote :

Since all humans have the earth in commin...and we simply can't exist without it...you think it would be worth a little extra polish, just in case. ...or maybe the economy is more important?

Here's a really crazy idea. What happens if we beat ourselves to death and destroy our economy trying to prevent iatrogenic climate change when it doesn't exist in the first place (other to make Al Gore and the rest of the scammers rich)? Or does somewhat exist, but is so miniscule that we can destroy every fossil fuel plant and engine on the planet and it still won't make a difference. Once we've destroyed our economy - the people who create wealth in the world, the ones who sign the fronts of paycheques, not just the back - who are all you leftists going to look to for taxes to pay for your harebrained schemes and wealth redistribution?

But I think you should at least start by doing your own small part as a "pro-environment" leftist kind of guy and sell that motorcycle of yours. Better yet, turn it into a planter so somebody else won't use it to continue poisoning the earth with greenhouse gases.

After all, if one is wringing their hands due to their belief the unnecessary/excessive use of fossil fuels is bringing about the destruction of the world as we know it, isn't it not only hypocritical but almost criminal to happily and willingly do your small part in aiding that destruction by unnecessarily burning fossil fuels and creating greenhouse gases?

No, I suspect Al Gore will keep all his houses and jets, the Obama's will keep up all the unnecessary jet flights... and you'll keep your fun little motorcycle.

See... you fit right in!

No worries Jag, I am not offended at all...i swear.
As far as stickin my neck out...I'll have to wait till tomorrow...gotta work and pay taxes ya know...heh.

Till then..

That's okay... hunting season started today... other priorities have arrived.

You could always do a little exploring of the other side of the philosophical coin yourself, seeing as how you're so keen to suggest it to others.

How about experimenting with actually doing a little job creation, instead of just being the beneficiary of those nasty free enterprise folks. Take a shot at actually creating some jobs and wealth, instead of just taking the job somebody else provided.

Wow...just recapped...and, thats alot to reply to...but I owe you a reply, at least.

For starters, on the conspiracy comment, i was probably out of line. I was refering to past comments, not related directly to this post. My bad.

Climate change. Earth's climate is getting warmer...faster than any natural cycle recorded. Please tell us all, who has recorded different?
If only 10,000 scientists argue this fact...that would be a minority. I'm sure 10,000 critics are easy to find.
Though maybe , in Canada, I don't get to hear this silent majority and my education is limited.

Because it still snows and gets cold in the Antarctic seems a stretch of an argument against a warming climate.
I often shovel more in warm winters...snow accumulation does not necessarily directly represent ambient temperatures.



Whether mankind is responsible for this warming trend is arguable. What influence he has on it is arguable. Whether we are warming seems obvious to some...most even. Whether mankind spoils/exploits his planet more than nuture/worships it...should be obvious to us both, I would hope.

Measurement has shown high c02 and high climate temp are directly related, thru out measurable history.
So to argue humans c02 influence seems reasonable...to some...arguabley most.

Nature has shown us many examples of a species not keeping pace with climate changes.
To think that human presence could not just quietly detroy its own home...like many local examples in history.
To think we aren;t an influence on nature itself...
To think we can live outside or beyond nature is pure hypothetical theory. We must submit to nature to survive, as a race, plain and simple.

I guess we're waiting for democracy to save the world then, hope the majority knows what we need, when we need it...heh...maybe the economy will allow for it in the next budget?

This is the educated agument of our time...someone focused in front of themselves may have nothing rellevant to add...that's their personal view/problem, untill they make it the popular argument.

Certainly not enough space or resources in this post to proove for or against...but there is popular opinion.
if you are against it, then I wish you well in educating the masses to the contrary.

Maybe , someday , your opinion will be most popular...I hope you don't feel that it is today...'cause I did feel you were somewhat intelligent.

mucker wrote:

Maybe , someday , your opinion will be most popular...I hope you don't feel that it is today...'cause I did feel you were somewhat intelligent.

And I suppose that blathering, meandering narrative was supposed to pass as a rational argument? Specifics much harder to deal with while marching along with the slack jawed, glassy eyed, knee-jerk, "everybody knows" crowd?

A canned response will be much quicker than composing my own; given that your message demonstrates so little intellectual effort to begin with, it really deserves nothing more:

You may have heard earlier this month that global warming is now likely to take break for a decade or more. There will be no more warming until 2015, perhaps later.

Climate scientist Noel Keenlyside, leading a team from Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, for the first time entered verifiable data on ocean circulation cycles into one of the U. N.'s climate supercomputers, and the machine spit out a projection that there will be no more warming for the foreseeable future.

Of course, Mr. Keenlyside-- long a defender of the man-made global warming theory -- was quick to add that after 2015 (or perhaps 2020), warming would resume with a vengeance.

Climate alarmists the world over were quick to add that they had known all along there would be periods when the Earth's climate would cool even as the overall trend was toward dangerous climate change.

Sorry, but that is just so much backfill. In volumes of papers where they projected future temperatures to tenths of degrees (using computer models that can't even accurately predict historical weather archives), not once has there ever been mention of any plateau.

There may have been the odd global-warming scientist in the past decade who mused that warming might pause periodically in its otherwise relentless upward march, but he or she was a rarity.

If anything, the opposite is true: Almost no climate scientist who backed the alarmism ever expected warming would take anything like a 10 or 15-year hiatus.

Last year, in its oft-quoted report on global warming, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted a 0.3-degree C rise in temperature in the coming decade -- not a cooling or even just temperature stability.

In its previous report in 2001, the IPCC prominently displaced the so-called temperature "hockey stick" that purported to show temperature pretty much plateauing for the thousand years before 1900, then taking off in the 20th Century in a smooth upward line. No 10-year dips backwards were foreseen.

It is drummed into us, ad nauseum, that the IPCC represents 2,500 scientists who together embrace a "consensus" that man-made global warming is a "scientific fact;" and as recently as last year, they didn't see this cooling coming. So the alarmists can't weasel out of this by claiming they knew all along such anomalies would occur.

This is not something any alarmist predicted, and it showed up in none of the UN's computer projections until Mr. Keenlyside et al. were finally able to enter detailed data into their climate model on past ocean current behaviour.

Less well-known is that global temperatures have already been falling for a decade. All of which means, that by 2015 or 2020, when warming is expected to resume, we will have had nearly 20 years of fairly steady cooling.

Saints of the new climate religion, such as Al Gore, have stated that eight of the 10 years since 1998 are the warmest on record. Even if that were true, none has been as warm as 1998, which means the trend of the past decade has been downward, not upward.

Last year, for instance, saw a drop in the global average temperature of nearly 0.7 degrees C (the largest single-year movement up or down since global temperature averages have been calculated). Despite advanced predictions that 2007 would be the warmest year on record, made by such UN associates as Britain's Hadley Centre, a government climate research agency, 2007 was the coolest year since at least 1993.

According to the U. S. National Climatic Data Center, the average temperature of the global land surface in January 2008 was below the 20th-Century mean for the first time since 1982.

Also in January, Southern Hemisphere sea ice coverage was at its greatest summer level (January is summer in the Southern Hemisphere) in the past 30 years.

Neither the 3,000 temperature buoys that float throughout the world's oceans nor the eight NASA satellites that float above our atmosphere have recorded appreciable warming in the past six to eight years.

Even Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, reluctantly admitted to Reuters in January that there has been no warming so far in the 21st Century.

Does this prove that global warming isn't happening, or that the scientists are correct who have long been saying we are entering global cooling, that we can all go back to idling our SUVs 24/7? No. But it demonstrates how ridiculous the claim that the science of global warming is "settled."

I'm all for the scientific method.. i think a critical look at things & how they work is fascinating. But a lot of the left's 'science' is speculative religion. I don't see how they or their resident 'scientists' get away with it. They do critical thinking, logic, & the scientific method a great disservice, while claiming full scientific authority on their ridiculous claims. I'm all for conservation, simple living, & efficient use of resources. But i don't really see how the theory of global warming promotes that. It is presented more as a political agenda, toward the industrial west, trying to guilt them into shutting down all their power plants, & junking all the cars. But the blackout in S. Ca last week showed how much they like their power plants. Some guy in Yuma flips the wrong switch, & all the power in Baja & S. Ca goes down. Why weren't the left wingers in Ca happy? Their share of global warming was curtailed for a bit. Instead of thanking the APS employee who caused it, they wanted to string him up!

Anyone notice in the repub debate last night that Huntsman mentioned his Harley & dirt bikes? He's obviously not a green candidate, though i think it is a law in Utah that you have to have a motorcycle or at least an atv in your garage..