|
Post by dolphie on Dec 1, 2009 17:23:36 GMT -5
newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/01/al-gore-asking-1-200-shake-his-hand-copenhagenAl Gore Asking $1,200 To Shake His Hand In CopenhagenBy Noel Sheppard December 1, 2009 - 11:00 ET Still think there's no money in spreading global warming alarmism? Well, how'd you like to make $1,200 just for shaking someone's hand and having your picture taken with the sycophant? This is what Al "I'm Only Doing This To Save The Planet" Gore is charging for such an honor at next week's climate change conference in Copenhagen. Nice work if you can get it, huh? As reported by the Washington Times Tuesday (h/t Seton Motley): "Meet Al Gore in Copenhagen." The official announcement from this fair Danish city says it all. The former vice president is getting star treatment when he arrives with an entire swarm of green-minded gadflies for the United Nations' global warming extravaganza, which begins on Dec. 7. Think the Times is making this up? Think again, for here's the announcement at VisitCopenhagen.com: Have you ever shaken hands with an American vice president? If not, now is your chance. Meet Al Gore in Copenhagen during the UN Climate Change Conference in December 2009. [...] VIP meeting with Al Gore This is the book, on which Al Gore will base his lecture, when he invites Copenhageners and visitors to hear him speak about what can be done to solve the serious problems of climate change. Tickets are available in different price ranges for the event. If you want it all, you can purchase a VIP ticket, where you get a chance to shake hands with Al Gore, get a copy of Our Choice and have your picture taken with him. The VIP event costs DKK 5,999 and includes drinks and a light snack. If you do not want to spend that much money, but still want to hear Al Gore speak about his latest book about climate challenges, you can purchase general tickets, ranging in price from DKK 199 - 1,499 depending on where in the room you want to sit. There will be large screens, so that everyone will get a good view. How much is DKK 5,999? Well, according to TheMoneyConverter.com, a Danish Krone is currently worth 20.22 cents. That means 5,999 Krones is about $1,213. So, if Big Al can shake your hand and get his picture taken with you in a minute, he'll make almost $73,000 an hour. Sweet. Of course, no one knows what the house is getting per ticket or if Gore is donating his take -- whatever that is! -- to charity. On the other hand, if his share goes to HIS charity, that's better than it going to him for then he gets to control all the proceeds without paying one cent in taxes. That REALLY is nice work if you can get it. —Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Dec 1, 2009 17:56:03 GMT -5
I hear they are making a new movie on this episode... "Dances with Thieves"!
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Dec 1, 2009 23:14:14 GMT -5
ow.ly/165SQLBREAKING: Australia's Parliament Rejects Cap and TradeBy Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive) December 1, 2009 - 21:06 ET "Australia's parliament rejected laws to set up a sweeping carbon emissions trade scheme on Wednesday, scuttling a key policy of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and setting a trigger for an early election." So reported Reuters moments ago. With global warming-obsessed media pushing for cap and trade legislation to pass here next year as well as for something positive to come out of the upcoming climate conference in Copenhagen, it's going to be very interesting to see how this gets covered in the next 24 hours: The defeat by parliament's upper house Senate ends Rudd's hopes of taking his legislated climate commitments to next week's global talks in Copenhagen, where world leaders will discuss new targets to curb greenhouse gas emissions. [...] The Senate rejection throws the future of carbon trading into confusion, creating new uncertainty for business which had sought certainty from the political debate. [...] The scheme would have been the biggest outside Europe, covering 75 percent of Australian emissions and starting in July 2011. It would have effectively forced polluters to pay for their emissions, requiring them to purchase emission permits from a carbon market. [...] "Obviously this does make Copenhagen harder if we don't get this scheme up," [Climate Change Minister Penny] Wong said. Wow. How will our media cover this? Stay tuned.
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Dec 1, 2009 23:40:51 GMT -5
******** As a former scientist - this is one of the issues I have had with Global Warming. It has not been SCIENTIFICALLY studied. They have set out to prove themselves correct rather than prove themselves incorrect. THAT is not true science. ***** www.rushlimbaugh.comClimate Hoax; Two Geologists Call in to Respond November 30, 2009 To the phones. Knoxville , Tennessee, another geologist. Betsy, you're on the EIB Network. Hello. CALLER: Good morning. No, good afternoon, Rush. RUSH: Yes. CALLER: Yes. RUSH: You've been holding since this morning. CALLER: I'm a geologist. RUSH: You bet. CALLER: A great day for geologists on your show. RUSH: Add to it. CALLER: Yes. I just wanted to talk to you a little bit about scientific method and how it works, and how it is that in science, hypotheses are formulated based on data, advanced and tested, and nothing is ever proven in science[/b]. Things are ruled out. Science operates by ruling possibilities out. And that which has not been ruled out by experiment remains possible. This is something that these guys have never bothered to do. They have never bothered to formulate any hypothesis at all and test it with a view toward ruling it out. And that's what they need to do, and that is one of the basic reasons why what they're trying to do is not scientific. RUSH: Pure politics. In other words, what you're saying is we know that warming and cooling cycles happen. CALLER: That's correct. RUSH: We have to first find out which are natural, and then, by finding that out, then we might be able to find out if we're contributing to it in addition to whatever is natural, right? CALLER: Well, we might be able to find out whether we're not contributing to it. RUSH: Yeah, either way. CALLER: Well, it's not the same thing. My favorite example of what it is I'm driving at was advanced by the historian and philosopher of science Karl Popper some number of years ago, and he formulated a thought experiment which he described as the white swan hypothesis. And what you do is you look around and you see a lot of white swans everywhere, and you come up with a notion that all swans are white. Now, how do you go about testing this hypothesis? You don't go around counting white swans. Because no matter how many white swans you count, there may be somewhere lurking a black swan that you didn't encounter. And so what you have to do is mount a search for the single black swan and try to disprove your hypothesis based upon evidence. RUSH: And so these guys are not doing that at all. CALLER: No! No. They've come up with the idea that CO2 causes global warming and you can read the press releases and you can read the news stories, and they go around counting, "Well, look, CO2 predicts this, and CO2 predicts that, and CO2 predicts this other over there, and so it must be true." And so what they're doing is mounting a search for white swans. They're not trying to rule their own hypothesis out. And that's the only way science ever advances. RUSH: Well, at this point, I think these e-mails indicate they know their hypotheses are already ruled out because they're making things up. CALLER: Exactly. Absolutely. And I have been saying that for some time ever since the data began to come in and we began to see that the last decade has shown cooling. Every hypothesis they have ever advanced has been ruled out by that finding. RUSH: Right. And of course the sun has nothing to do with it. They also do not factor the sun at all. And they don't factor -- CALLER: No. RUSH: -- they don't factor precipitation. CALLER: No. And there are glacial cycles and Milankovitch cycles, there are lots of other possibilities, none of which they have ever attempted to address and try to rule out, which is what they have to do in order for it to be called science. RUSH: Well, here we have another scientist, in the opinion of Robert Gibbs and the White House, you're nothing more than a Macaca. CALLER: (laughing) Well, we have words for him, too. RUSH: (laughing) So how about that consensus of science? Am I right when I say there can be no science if all you have is a consensus of scientists? CALLER: Well, actually I have to take a little bit of issue with you over that. RUSH: No! No, no! CALLER: It's true, science is not about consensus, and we don't take a vote to figure out what is correct. RUSH: Okay. CALLER: Our natural world -- RUSH: I'm right, then. We have to go to a break. CALLER: However, what we do have in many different areas of science is a consensus of scientists that is based upon elimination of all known competing hypotheses. For example, the theory of relativity. Now, we don't regard it as proven but we know that there is no longer a serious competitor which has not been ruled out by evidence. So to that extent we can have consequences in science. Now, that doesn't mean it's not open to challenge and it doesn't mean that it's final, but there are agreements among scientists which, for example, another example is the theory of global plate tectonics. Now, you won't find a great deal of serious disagreement amongst reputable geologists that that is the mechanism by which we see continents form and seabed disappearance and so forth. But that's not because we regard that hypothesis as proven. We have ruled out the competition. RUSH: Got it. CALLER: Somebody may yet come forward someday. RUSH: This has been enlightening. I can't tell you how glad I am you called, Betsy. I'm out of time. I wish I had a couple more segments, but I don't. Snerdley, see if she will give us her phone number so that we may consult her in the future should we have need to.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Dec 1, 2009 23:45:05 GMT -5
If the climate alarmists are 100% correct they have also destroyed 100% of their credibility.
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Dec 1, 2009 23:52:07 GMT -5
www.rushlimbaugh.comWhy paint everything white? Sea levels have been rising in the interglacial period here for 11,000 years. Interglacial periods and glacial periods have been going on for 2.5 million years. ****More from a different scientist - also a geologist**** Here is Tim in Mount Holly, New Jersey. Glad you waited, sir. Hello. CALLER: Hi, Rush. How you doing? RUSH: Good. CALLER: You read any basic geology text, and you can see we've been going through 2.5 million years of glacial and interglacial periods. During the most recent glacial period, the Wisconsin period, glaciers covered 30% of the earth's land surface. And the sea level during the Wisconsin period, 18,000 years ago during the peak of it was 200 feet lower than it is now. We're currently in an interglacial period. Sea levels are rising, and I took a look at the barrier island systems in New Jersey because the sea level rises as the barrier islands continue to move landward, and I did calculations, and there's indication that sea level can continue to rise another 15 feet before we come back to sea levels that occurred during the last interglacial period 110,000 years ago. The lower part of the Garden State Parkway, 16 miles of it, is actually built on a relic barrier island system. The current barrier island system, which the cities of Wildwood and Avalon are on, are 3.75 miles seaward of this relic barrier island, and it will take the sea level to rise 15 more feet just to reach where the relic barrier islands were back 110,000 years ago. So sea level can continue to rise. It's been rising for 11,000 years . RUSH: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! I knew if I hung in there long enough I'd get to the nut. The nut is that sea levels have been rising in the interglacial period here for 11,000 years, and that's much longer than they've been accusing us of warming up the planet with our exhalations. CALLER: That's correct. That's correct. RUSH: Well, look, the climate, geology -- all of this -- is so, so, so complex. It's so complex we can't possibly understand it. We can study it, we can watch it, but to try to predict it and so forth -- and to claim that we're somehow intimately involved in shaping it -- is ridiculous. We don't have the power, we don't have the ability. CALLER: That's true. And the reason the energy secretary wants to paint everything white is what happens is as the glaciers are more extensive on the land surface it increases the albedo of the earth which reflects more light and energy from the sun. As the glaciers melt the ground wants to heat up more. That's why he wants to paint everything white again so the glaciers in themselves melting -- and they've been melting for 11,000 years -- we're not getting as much of the sun's energy reflecting back into space. So we're getting some warming, but it's just occurring because the glaciers are getting smaller. It's been going on for 11,000 years. Again these interglacial periods and glacial periods have been going on for 2.5 million years. So this is nothing new, and again, the Industrial Revolution hasn't caused this.RUSH: Of course. By the way, here's a scientist. You are a geologist? CALLER: Yes. RUSH: Here's a scientist who does not agree with the IPCC. So you are among those who have just been swatted away like a gnat by Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman. "There's no serious disagreement with this theory. The Energy Secretary had this the other day: 2,500 scientists! I don't think there's any dispute of this." Thanks for the call, sir. We'll be back after this.
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Dec 1, 2009 23:57:12 GMT -5
If the climate alarmists are 100% correct they have also destroyed 100% of their credibility. That is what is so very frustrating for me, Turk. There is nothing scientific in what they have done. Now we know not only did they NOT use scientific methods of analysis - they used bad data and they took out any semblance of credibility out of the equation. It is strictly political power plays - it is a way for the world to gain control of our country. The other countries STILL do not comprehend - you cannot suppress, steal, muffle what we have and it still be what it is. America must be who she is as she is. Otherwise, these idiotic know it alls will be destroying their own lives as well as everyone else's lives. I think these folks watch TV and movies too much and actually believe what they see.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Dec 2, 2009 1:24:23 GMT -5
There is a difference between nuclear power and nuclear energy. Canada and France both engage nuclear energy. It is clean and efficient. I need to do some more reading on that topic (anyone on the boards with good links would be appreciated). Nuclear power is ugly, dirty and I wish there was no such weapon in the world. But that is a dream - not reality. I know it is a matter of semantics, but nuclear power and nuclear energy are almost synonymous in that one follows the other. Nuclear power is a term utilized to describe a power plant that takes a nuclear designated fuel, captures the heat of atomic decay in a sealed high pressure fluid (generally purified water) that then passes through a vessel that acts like a boiler, in conventional power plants, where steam is then produced (in a second water based system) to drive the generators that produce electricity. It is this electricity that is referred to as nuclear energy. Your comment tends to make Nuclear Power a term for weaponry. It is a term that refers to a country that has nuclear weapons, but it also is a term that refers to the first phase of nuclear energy. I spent some time working with nuclear power plants. Nuclear energy from nuclear power plants is very clean. The only problem with it is that when the fuel rods decay to a level determined not to be useful in the reactor, they are removed and stored in pools. At one time they were recycled but it is economically cheaper to create new reactor rods from raw material. Therefore, recycling is hardly ever performed now (in the U.S.). Eventually, storage costs may override the economics and make recycling "affordable" or the government may mandate some sort of recycling program.
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Dec 2, 2009 5:50:12 GMT -5
There is a difference between nuclear power and nuclear energy. Canada and France both engage nuclear energy. It is clean and efficient. I need to do some more reading on that topic (anyone on the boards with good links would be appreciated). Nuclear power is ugly, dirty and I wish there was no such weapon in the world. But that is a dream - not reality. I know it is a matter of semantics, but nuclear power and nuclear energy are almost synonymous in that one follows the other. Nuclear power is a term utilized to describe a power plant that takes a nuclear designated fuel, captures the heat of atomic decay in a sealed high pressure fluid (generally purified water) that then passes through a vessel that acts like a boiler, in conventional power plants, where steam is then produced (in a second water based system) to drive the generators that produce electricity. It is this electricity that is referred to as nuclear energy. Your comment tends to make Nuclear Power a term for weaponry. It is a term that refers to a country that has nuclear weapons, but it also is a term that refers to the first phase of nuclear energy. I spent some time working with nuclear power plants. Nuclear energy from nuclear power plants is very clean. The only problem with it is that when the fuel rods decay to a level determined not to be useful in the reactor, they are removed and stored in pools. At one time they were recycled but it is economically cheaper to create new reactor rods from raw material. Therefore, recycling is hardly ever performed now (in the U.S.). Eventually, storage costs may override the economics and make recycling "affordable" or the government may mandate some sort of recycling program. That is a valid point and you are spot on. My sentence was not as clear as it should have been and led to an abuse of the words Nuclear Power. "Nuclear proliferation is ugly, dirty. I wish there was no such thing as nuclear weaponry in the world. " is a better way of stating my intent. I was using nuclear power in referencing a country that utilizes nuclear products as weaponry rather than as energy or medicine. The 'weaponry power' of a country. It gives a country greater power. Thus Nuclear Power. That would have better referenced as Nuclear Proliferation rather than a Nuclear Power. In the current and correct sense of the term - I did abuse the use of wording when I said 'nuclear power' as that term now more represents a nuclear power plant that produces nuclear energy rather than nuclear proliferation. I was addressing the left's tendency to think anything with the word 'nuclear' automatically means weaponry and dirty. I am fairly sure their fear stems from the accidents at Chernobyl and 3-mile Island. France and Canada have safer and more efficient nuclear plants than the USA and some of the other countries have had in the past. They have managed to construct nuclear power plants that are not as vulnerable as Chernobyl and 3 mile island. My understanding is the newer nuclear plants have significantly smaller quantities of waste - yet as you indicated, disposal is still a complication. There were some labs working on bacterial means of cleaning up nuclear waste (as well as oil spills). This was back in the mid to latter '90s so I am not sure what their status is currently. They had some successful results - yet testing was rigorous meaning a decade plus later before it would be considered successful/safe. What some do not understand is that nuclear isotopes are more common than they think they are. We used nuclear isotopes in the lab as marker isotopes. Many isotopes are relatively harmless and are often used as markers in genetic research and as markers in health tests.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Dec 2, 2009 12:55:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Dec 2, 2009 13:57:09 GMT -5
These guys are another set of people pretending to be scientists. 1) Polar bear population is not decreasing 2) killing baby cubs is NOT uncommon amongst the male bears - males will kill competitors' offspring. 3) overbreeding is typically what spurs on odd behavioral patterns 4) Polar bears will search for food in other areas - such as human occupied places I doubt the polar bears could stomach Al Gore as a meal. Can you imagine the foul taste a bag of hot air, botox and BS would have?
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Dec 2, 2009 19:32:14 GMT -5
I doubt the polar bears could stomach Al Gore as a meal. Can you imagine the foul taste a bag of hot air, botox and BS would have? Al is a diuretic
|
|
|
Post by animal on Dec 3, 2009 10:33:43 GMT -5
In conjunction with the global warming scam being exposed, I hear d just a little bit about an upcoming AIDS expose'.... something about one of the guys finding the disease now saying that improper eating habits will kill the immune system, not a disease (AIDS). The high numbers of AIDS victims in Africa came from the food intake, or lack of it, not AIDS.... it is said that the people behind the "money maker" AIDS are upset about this going public, afraid they will loose this golden goose of taxpayer money.
It is new info, just out... I am still checking into it.
|
|
|
Post by animal on Dec 3, 2009 10:36:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nikki on Dec 3, 2009 17:32:58 GMT -5
This world governance scam is being busted wide open! Where is the media?
I agree with Hatch. The UN and all of their ilk should be exiled to Darfur and know first hand what starvation really feels like.
|
|