during the summer months. I’m not making this up. Al Gore made his preposterous claim today to impress the crowd at Davos. The Goracle told the international crowd:
“The climate crisis is significantly worse and unfolding more rapidly than those on the pessimistic side of the IPCC projections had warned us.”
So what is the “inventor of the internet” up to with his fear mongering? Does he think the masses are that incredibly stupid? I don’t see real estate prices for salt water waterfront falling. Do you?
Meantime climatologist Roy Spencer this morning posted an excellent argument why so many of his peers refuse to endorse Der Fuhrer’s so-called “consensus.”
So, why would a minority of scientists like me dare to disagree with a 56-percent majority? (That is how many of the 530 climate scientists polled agreed that global warming is mostly caused by humans,)
While there are several answers to this question, here I’ll mention only one. Compared to the carbon dioxide that humans produce, Mother Nature routinely transfers 40 times as much CO2, and 24,000 times as much water vapor (Earth’s primary greenhouse gas), back and forth between the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface, every day.
Scientists have simply assumed that these natural processes have been in balance for centuries. But, what if there have always been some small — but natural — imbalances in those large up-and-down flows that slowly change over time? In that case, our measured increases in greenhouse gases and global temperatures might well turn out to be more natural than manmade, lost in the noise of natural variability.
Can I prove any of this? No — not yet, anyway. But neither have any scientists produced one single scientific paper showing that Mother Nature isn’t the dominant source of what we are seeing. Mankind is one possible explanation, and our measurements of natural variability in the climate system on time scales of decades to centuries are simply not good enough to find out how many natural sources of variability are also out there.
International Socialists like Gore are creating a false hysteria in order to scare the masses to give up freedom and to submit to more government control, more “international” government control. Wake up, America! He who controls energy controls the world.
As Margaret Thatcher put it: global warming is proving to be “a marvelous excuse for international socialism.”
No doubt, despite his fear that the North Pole ice caps will be totally melted in five years, Gore and his chums all flew to Davos in their private jets. Any hypocrisy here?
I wish Marcus Cicero were alive today. He’d see through the Caesarian politics of Gore and his crowd and orate the Republican message. I’m sure he’d call “global warming” the “new opiate for the masses.”
So how is it exactly that Al Gore is a “fuhrer” when he is not the leader of anything?
Why is it not reasonable to assume that the Arctic ice cap might melt further?
How is greenhouse gas reduction policy “a marvelous excuse for international socialism” when the policies that have been proposed to manage reductions are not substantively different than those used successfully to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions in the U.S.? And how would this control energy when, in all likelihood, it would reduce the reliance of the U.S. on the Middle East for oil?
Why aren’t you mentioning the true problem with the Kyoto Protocol? Is the fact that Europe is receiving Clean Development Mechanism credits by paying for equipment to reduce HCFC-22 emissions in Chinese factories reasonable GHG policy, when factories in the “developed” world are fitted with this equipment as a matter of course? Is this a reasonable focus of air pollution reduction in China?
Do comments that ask questions count as spam?
(If not, I’ll ask again!)
How can Al Gore be “fuhrer” when he’s not the leader of anything?
How is it that you’re not criticizing the real flaw in the Kyoto Protocol, that the EU is sliding through on its obligations by purchasing CDM credits from China for installing industrial equipment to eliminate HCFC-22 that most plants in other parts of the world install as a matter of course?
If controlling energy meant controlling the world, then why is it that greenhouse gas emissions reductions policies that would have us consuming less oil from the Middle East are uniformly bad?
Why are you talking about Cicero when you are paraphrasing Marx?
I don’t know why the spam filter flagged your one comment, it should have immediately posted since I identified you as a non-spam source.
Actually Cicero coined the expression “opiate to the masses.” He didn;t use the word “opiate” but that was the meaning. If I remeber correctly, he wrote this in “Letters to Atticus,” his son. It’s been 35 years since I studied Cicero so my reference may be faulty, but I do remember Cicero having disdain for the plebs and their willingness to surrender the Republic for what amounted to socialism. Marx and others have borrowed from the great one.
Come on, Gore is the self-appointed leader of the Global Warming Hysteria Crowd … just as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are self-appointed leaders.
Although Gore has convenientloy discovered his rant is a good money maker, the man still has political ambitions. He’s young enough to resurrect himself if he succeeds in scaring Americans into believe the world as they know is going to horrendously change.
Hey, I’m all for reducing our dependence on foreign oil. So let’s drill in Alaska a nd off the coast and roll-back needless regulations so we can build more refineries. I’m all for progress.