Gore: Imminent, rapidly growing threat "rescue" needed?

Here's where we find out if we truly are a nation of idiots. Most Americans don't believe global warming is a threat (and Britons definitely don't believe), but we can see that it's being shoved down our throats anyway. Gore got what he wanted (he was going to get it with Obama or McCain): A sympathetic ear and a true believer in governmental intervention.

Problem is that there is NOTHING to intervene against, except to protect Gore's pervasive environmental empire.

Meanwhile, temperatures in 2008 have been BELOW NORMAL TO WELL BELOW NORMAL.

Op-Ed Contributor - The Climate for Change - NYTimes.com:

THE inspiring and transformative choice by the American people to elect Barack Obama as our 44th president lays the foundation for another fateful choice that he — and we — must make this January to begin an emergency rescue of human civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis.

Gore: No nukes or petrol in 10 years!

Trying to compare Al Gore to Kennedy seems like trying to compare Darth Vader to Luke Skywalker; this goo-goo-eyed, Gore-lovin' AP reporter is making a bit of stretch. However, Gore’s right about a few things in this piece: First, Obama and McCain are both climate change believers, so we’re stuck there; the best for which we can hope is that McCain can be dissuaded from his stupidity once elected. And second, we do need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil for national security reasons. Other than that, Gore goes skipping down Tree-hugger Lane while spouting his usual, trite alarmist rants and overly optimistic views on the potential of renewable energy.

These non-nuclear, non-petrol solutions (i.e., wind and solar) are not efficient enough to replace current demand, and they’re very expensive to implement. I’m not saying we shouldn’t pursue these alternatives, but we should DIVERSIFY our energy sources. In other words, don’t put all your eggs in one basket! Let’s do nuclear, oil, coal, solar, and wind! Forget this global warming nonsense; let’s get real and do something positive for our security and economy, instead of scaring people with a nonexistent problem.

Senator Voinovich in the article below this one puts it much better than I ever could! And let's not forget Al Gore's prediction of doom which he made in January 2006...can't wait to see if that one holds true. We now have only seven years left to survive global warming.

Gore sets 'moon shot' goal on climate change

WASHINGTON (AP) - Just as John F. Kennedy set his sights on the moon, Al Gore is challenging the nation to produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years, an audacious goal he hopes the next president will embrace.

The Nobel Prize-winning former vice president said fellow Democrat Barack Obama and Republican rival John McCain are "way ahead" of most politicians in the fight against global climate change.

Rising fuel costs, climate change and the national security threats posed by U.S. dependence on foreign oil are conspiring to create "a new political environment" that Gore said will sustain bold and expensive steps to wean the nation off fossil fuels.

***

"This is an investment that will pay itself back many times over," Gore said. "It's an expensive investment but not compared to the rising cost of continuing to invest in fossil fuels."

Called an alarmist by conservatives, Gore has made combatting global warming his signature issue, a campaign that has been recognized worldwide - from an Academy Award to a Nobel Prize. He portrayed Thursday's speech as the latest and most important phase in his effort to build public opinion in favor of alternative fuels.

He knows politicians fear to act unless voters are willing to sacrifice - and demand new fuels.

The Hill's Blog Briefing Room » Voinovich Finds Gore's Energy Speech 'Ridiculous':

You can consider Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) as definitely not enthused by former Vice President Al Gore's speech Thursday on U.S. energy policy.

Voinovich had an initial one-word response — "ridiculous" — to Gore's speech at Washington's Constitution Hall, in which the Democrat called for the United States to end its dependence on carbon-based fuels and begin using renewable energy to produce electricity within the next 10 years.

Voinovich elaborated that ruling out carbon-based fuels such as coal would be unreasonable because of the country's vast energy and economic needs. Instead, he said the country should take a multi-pronged approach that includes but doesn't rely solely on nuclear, wind and solar power.

"We could put windmills from the Atlantic to the Pacific and, yes, it will increase the amount of carbon-free energy production, but the fact of the matter is, it's not going to get the job done," Voinovich said. "What we need to do is to look at all of the various sources of energy… We'd be much more realistic to realize that it's going to take all of these things in order for us to meet our energy demands."

Hypocrite Schwarzenegger blasts Bush on AGW?

This is what I was referring to earlier--certain "conservatives" are now onboard with this big hoax, likely because they see its potential politically. Governor Conan Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose brain is obviously destroyed from all the steroids he did in the 1970s, is just another one of the cast of characters that includes George Bush, John McCain, and Newt Gingrich--all are suddenly tree-hugging greenies who proclaim that the precious gas needed for the tree locked in their embrace sucks. And we've seen how liberals don't want conservatives on their "green territory," so no matter what Republicans or conservatives do for the climate, it won't be enough for the alarmist psychos out there. Therefore, I think some conservatives sense a political opportunity in backing global warming publicly, so that they can hinder the wedge issue for liberals and Democrats like Obama in coming elections.

And to hear the stupidity coming from Schwarzen-egg-head should be surprising, but it isn't. He's another hypocrite, driving his huge Humvees, flying to work everyday, and consuming more energy in a day than most of use in a month, just like the liberal hypocrites who are doing the same thing. Politically, he's got a lot to lose too if he doesn't back the boondoggle, because California typically backs anything that limits capitalism.

Also quite funny to hear him slam Bush, because Bush is a believer in global warming--at least he says he is publicly. Maybe he's just saying that to stall, and if he is I applaud him for his brilliant chess move.

Political Radar: Schwarzenegger Blasts Bush on Global Warming:

ABC News' Mary Bruce Reports: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, R-Calif., spoke out against President Bush this morning attacking his administration for its failure to counter global warming emissions.

"This administration did not believe in global warming," Schwarzenegger told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos in an exclusive interview that will air Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

"They just didn't believe in it or they didn't believe that they should do anything about it, since China is not doing anything about it and since India is not willing to do the same thing, so why should we do the same thing?" Schwarzenegger said.

EPA pressured to "cover up" climate change?

This one is easy to pick apart. Pay attention, climate alarmists. First, of all...President Bush is one of the cretins backing government action on this nonsense of manmade climate change, along with John McCain. For whatever reason, many conservatives have jumped on board with the boondoggle, and it's my belief that liberals don't really want them on "their territory"--Democrats don't want the climate change issue fogged over for them. Liberals and Democrats want climate change as a wedge issue for themselves, while some Republicans have tossed reason out the window in favor of political expediency.

Second, please see the previous post where I wrote about how scientists at the EPA are being pressured to bias their results. Who's pressuring them? The April 2008 articles on this subject never point fingers, except to say that political figures on both sides (Republicans and Democrats) are pressuring EPA scientists, so it appears that one group of politicians wants them to bias for and the other to bias against AGW. This is funny, since Heidi Cullen, Weather Channel vixen of the climate, told us that global warming is not a political issue at all. My read on this older article is that the AP wanted readers to draw the conclusion that Republicans were pressuring EPA scientists to bias against climate change, without ever saying it openly. I believe that Democrats are pressuring EPA scientists to advocate for government action on climate change, which doesn't exist by the way.

Third, according to Rasmussen the Congressional approval rating (yes, the DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED CONGRESS FOR TWO YEARS NOW) has just fallen to SINGLE DIGITS at 9%!!! (Far lower than President Bush's dismal approval ratings.) Besides, Senator Boxer is one of the liberalist of liberals out of California, a state so leftist that Che himself would love living there. It's not a good time to be talking about energy conservation when Americans are already being hammered on energy costs just to keep their homes comfortable and drive to work each day; I have no clue why Democrats don't get this...but they will if Americans keep growing angrier. So far, we're driving less and reducing our demand, but oil supplies remain tight because of worldwide demand (and market speculation).

White House in climate change cover up | Environment | Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A leading U.S. Senate Democrat accused the Bush administration on Tuesday of a "cover-up" aimed at stopping the Environmental Protection Agency from tackling greenhouse emissions.

Junk Science: NASA prophet trips over facts, falls on face

Steven Milloy of junkscience.com does his usual good job of poking holes in the hyperbole of AGW believers, but particularly against our old non-friend, Dr. James Hansen—the chief climate soothsayer who prophesied twenty years ago while testifying before the U.S. Senate that our destruction at the hands of CO2 would take twenty years! Here we are twenty years later...still here, with the global mean temperature continuing its downward trend as CO2 continues rising (still in minute proportions compared to water and methane).

Before you decide to give Hansen his props as some unassailable, incorruptible climate scientist, you should check out these links at the U.S. Senate Committee for Environment and Public Works (currently the minority page). There is a ton of information here about Hansen, including his financial ties to moveon.org benefactor, George Soros. Isn't that cute? We hear incessantly that climate scientists who debunk global warming are in the pockets of "big oil," and yet here is an example where the "Father of Global Warming" (yes, weird that honor is not reserved for Al Gore) is in the pocket of one of the wealthiest liberal elites to ever walk the ever-cooling Earth.

As an added bonus, John McCain is showing that he’s Obama’s equal on climate stupidity. OR maybe he believes that the American public has been so brainwashed that he has no choice politically but to get on-board with the insanity. It might be a smart political move, but it’s ultimately bad for America.

Look folks, there may be a future in America without oil, but in the near term, oil will be required to continue driving our economy. There’s currently no energy source that is as efficient and as safe as petrol, though some arguments could be made for nuclear energy.

With Y2K, millions were spent to head-off a problem that never occurred. People everywhere panicked and hoarded food, fuel, medicine, and so on, preparing for the coming apocalypse. Proponents would say that spending those millions prevented the disaster, but I’m not certain that’s the case—there was no real way to be completely prepared.

Now, we’re poised to spend trillions in hopes of reducing CO2 emissions, and I contend that it won’t make much of a difference. Wait and see, sheep. The Earth will not succumb to disaster at our hands, and the alarmists will be able to shout that their enacted, expensive solutions made the difference! That’s why they need to sustain the pipe-dream until some sort of large government action is taken; then they can claim their actions led to success. Wait and see, sheep, wait and see. One can almost read this boondoggle like a cheap novel.

Junk Science: Where's McCain’s 'Fuel Cell Express'?

NASA’s James Hansen tried this week to surf the 20th anniversary of his famous congressional testimony that launched global warming hysteria. Apparently not wanting to be left out of the green hoopla, John McCain tried to catch Hansen’s wave.

Both wiped out with embarrassing proposals.

You might have thought that Hansen’s main talking point this week would have been, "See, I was right." But, of course, he wasn’t, so he couldn’t take any credit.

With 20 years of real-life data to compare against Hansen’s 1988 predictions, it’s clear that reality has way underperformed on his fantasy of carbon-dioxide-stoked warming.

No doubt this is in large part due to Hansen’s yet-to-be-validated assumption that manmade CO2 emissions drive global climate in a meaningful way.

Hansen has been so far off the mark in forecasting global warming that he seems to have forsaken it altogether in favor of simply declaring that atmospheric CO2 levels must be reduced from the current level of about 380 parts per million to less than 350 ppm "to preserve creation, the planet on which civilization developed."

But there is no scientific analysis to support 350 ppm or any other specific target as the preferred level of atmospheric CO2; moreover, 350 ppm also is not something likely to happen in our lifetimes no matter what we do.

***

Bereft of science, Hansen was left to do what he does best — act the drama queen, as he did in 2006 when he likened the Bush administration to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union for reviewing his public presentations before he made them.

***

Earlier this week, as part of his proposal that taxpayers award $300 million to the developer of the next generation auto battery that would leapfrog hybrid and electric car technology, McCain also proposed that auto manufacturers be given a $5,000 tax credit for every zero-emissions vehicle they sell.

But when you do the math, McCain’s proposal turns out to be little more than a taxpayer rip-off in favor of ZEV makers

McCain is an idiot

...and so is Obama. They're both idiots when it comes to global warming.

McCain bucks Bush on climate change:

Republican nominee-elect John McCain Tuesday vowed to combat global warming without sacrificing economic growth, contradicting President George W. Bush on the need for binding emissions cuts.

Unlike Bush, McCain pressed for mandatory cuts in emissions of warming gases as he spoke at a California event alongside Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who opposes the White House hopeful's call for offshore oil drilling.

McCain said lifting a federal ban on coastal drilling may not bring down sky-high fuel prices for "some years," but could have a psychological impact as the United States takes greater control over its energy future.

"Nothing is more urgent right now than regaining our energy security -- we need to get it done and get it right," the Arizona senator said.

Obama: We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want!

Just so that you're aware (even though you might be infatuated with goo-goo eyes and Beatle-esque fainting spells), Obama is as full of crap about global warming as McCain, Bush, and Clinton. They're all idiots on this subject of so-called "unassailable science."

The socialists are coming for your affluence, America. Are you going to let them just take it from you, or are you going to resist them?

AFP: Obama camp spies endgame in Oregon:

Pitching his message to Oregon's environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

No credit given to like-minded "conservatives"

For some reason (and the reason is probably hate), the media refuses to believe how supportive Bush and like-minded, moderate Republicans (like John McCain) are on "climate change" issues, because these two "conservatives" actually back government action on global warming, which is laughable and ultimately destructive.

My guess is that they see the dollar signs too. Get ready to take a punch in the stomach, America. If gas prices weren't bad enough, they're going to take more from you in taxes too.

Government to propose CO2 rules this spring | Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration, which has resisted regulating carbon dioxide emissions, this spring will propose rules that could affect everything from vehicles to power plants and oil refineries, the top U.S. environmental official told Congress on Thursday.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson said the agency will issue proposed rules "later this spring" on "the specific effects of climate change and potential regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary and mobile sources."

This NYT editorial proves a point beyond what I explored above. First, as you can see...they don't believe Bush for a second, and they'll turn on McCain too if elected. Second, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the EPA to DETERMINE IF CO2 IS A PROBLEM; THEY DID NOT SAY IT WAS A PROBLEM, which they aren't qualified to do. If I were in charge of the EPA, I would let things ride too, because CO2-caused global warming is such an obvious sham and farce that it's laughable.

More Flimflam on Warming - New York Times:

On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act clearly empowered the Environmental Protection Agency to address greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. The ruling instructed the agency to determine whether global warming pollution endangers public health and welfare — an “endangerment finding” — and, if so, to devise emissions standards for motor vehicles. One year has passed, and despite repeated promises from President Bush and the E.P.A. administrator, Stephen Johnson, nothing has happened. And it seems increasingly likely that nothing will happen while Mr. Bush remains in office. Last week, Mr. Johnson notified Congress that he had discovered new regulatory complexities and decided against immediate action. Instead, he planned to offer an “advanced notice of proposed rule-making,” which requires a lengthy comment period and a laborious bureaucratic process that would almost certainly stretch beyond the end of Mr. Bush’s term.

Next Prez will push AGW action

Any of the potential POTUS candidates will likely meddle where they shouldn't after the next election, so make sure you let your elected officials in Congress know where you stand, if you're like me and think this is all fearmongering garbage.

My question isn't for the liberal Democrats, who I expect to back any crisis--real or otherwise--that will allow them to grow government programs and agencies. However, John McCain better realize who will elect his ass and lay off this global warming nonsense. Hopefully, the illegal immigrant fiasco has taught the would-be Democrat in GOP clothing a lesson.

FOXNews.com - Global Warming: Is It Really a Crisis? - Opinion:

John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton all promise massive new regulations that will cost trillions of dollars to combat global warming. McCain says that it will be his first task if he wins the presidency. After consulting with Al Gore, Obama feels the problem is so imminent that it is not even really possible to wait until he becomes president.

Ironically, this political unanimity is occurring as global temperatures have been cooling dramatically over the last decade.

Global temperatures have now largely eliminated most of the one degree Celsius warming that had previously occurred over the last 100 years. Hundreds of climate scientists have warned that there is not significant man-made global warming.