solidarty

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
Last edited:

ImFeklhr

Raconteur
Forum Member
Oct 3, 2005
4,585
129
0
San Francisco
Something for our liberal comrades.

As Russia just came out with evidence of climate people cooking the books there--
Yep drive by media not reporting--YET
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...anipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

--I thought I'd throw the liberals a bone and and give them a little encouragement from their comrades--

http://www.breitbart.tv/flag-waving...s-march-in-copenhagen-to-stop-global-warming/
:0corn

What group/association/scientist could convince you that there is a serious climate change coming? That is likely caused by humans.

Just curious who?s viewpoint on this stuff would hold the most weight for you. Who would you listen to, one way or the other, and why?
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
ImFeklhr;2513568[B said:
]What group/association/scientist could convince you that there is a serious climate change coming?[/b] That is likely caused by humans.

Just curious who?s viewpoint on this stuff would hold the most weight for you. Who would you listen to, one way or the other, and why?

Scientists with facts to prove it? Not media and G&G (Gore and Gumby) telling me science is undisputable when there are 1000's of scientist who disagree.

If they (G&G) could answer a few questions they refuse to address I would be more apt to be convinced--

Heres a 100 for starters :)
1) There is ?no real scientific proof? that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man?s activity.
2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth?s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth?s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher ? more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.
8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists ? in a scandal known as ?Climate-gate? - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that ?fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class?predominantly?are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world?.

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an ?absurdity?

16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is ?embarrassed and puzzled? by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

17) The science of what determines the earth?s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can?t even pretend to control

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth?s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth?s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

24) It is a falsehood that the earth?s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

25) The IPCC claims climate driven ?impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance? but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world?s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called ?greenhouse gases? may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming

32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures

33) Today?s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth?s history ? we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to ?verify? anything

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes

37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that ?none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases?

38) The world ?warmed? by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC

39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says ?it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense? but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth?s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful

42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and 44) The historical increase in the air?s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years

45) The increase of the air?s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

46) The IPCC alleges that ?climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths? but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations

47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

48) The ?Climate-gate? scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change

49) The head of Britain?s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to ?15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.

50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are ?no direct subsidies? but it involves a total subsidy of as much as ?60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.

51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.

52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at ?at the top end of IPCC estimates?

53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water ? including CO2, calcium, and water ? can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.

54) The UN?s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a ?hotspot? in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot

55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.

56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.

57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote ?the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.?

58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.

59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but ?neither happened?, but we are continuing along the same lines.

60) The UK ?s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about ?55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth.

61) The UN?s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing ?offsets? from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.

63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.

64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the ?hockey stick graph? which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.

65) The globe?s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive.

66) The ?Climate-gate? scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a ?trick? for the sake of concealing a ?decline? in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth?s temperature.

67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The ?Climate-gate? scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was ?a travesty?.

68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.

69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years ? so it expects global warming to resume swiftly.

70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: ?The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.?

71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol?s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.

72) The first phase of the EU?s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from ?33 to just ?0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all.

73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.

74) To date ?cap and trade? carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.

75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or ?1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.

76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback ? and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.

77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.

78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.

79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).

80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation?s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.

81) The UK?s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.

82) Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money ? under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to ?1 billion a year.

83) The ?Climate-gate? scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.

84) The ?Climate-gate? scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal?s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.

85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.

86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures ? in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.

87) The Government?s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around ?4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only ?4 to ?5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.

88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.

89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.

91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.

92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama?s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.

94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.

95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country?s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition?s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.

96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world?s highest per-capita emissions setters.

97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.

98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: ?We ? along with many of our fellow citizens ? are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997? and ?based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.?

99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated ?We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth?s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth?s climate.?

100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded ?We find no support for the IPCC?s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--and then there is the common sense approach-c02 is neccesary for human and plants to exist--EPA wants me to believe its a pollutant but the absolute fact of the matter is earth could not exist without it.:0corn
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,182
1,441
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
Scientists with facts to prove it? Not media and G&G (Gore and Gumby) telling me science is undisputable when there are 1000's of scientist who disagree.

If they (G&G) could answer a few questions they refuse to address I would be more apt to be convinced--

Heres a 100 for starters :)
1) There is ?no real scientific proof? that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man?s activity.
2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth?s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth?s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher ? more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.
8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists ? in a scandal known as ?Climate-gate? - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that ?fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class?predominantly?are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world?.

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an ?absurdity?

16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is ?embarrassed and puzzled? by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

17) The science of what determines the earth?s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can?t even pretend to control

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth?s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth?s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

24) It is a falsehood that the earth?s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

25) The IPCC claims climate driven ?impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance? but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world?s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called ?greenhouse gases? may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming

32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures

33) Today?s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth?s history ? we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to ?verify? anything

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes

37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that ?none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases?

38) The world ?warmed? by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC

39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says ?it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense? but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth?s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful

42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and 44) The historical increase in the air?s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years

45) The increase of the air?s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

46) The IPCC alleges that ?climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths? but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations

47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

48) The ?Climate-gate? scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change

49) The head of Britain?s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to ?15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.

50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are ?no direct subsidies? but it involves a total subsidy of as much as ?60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.

51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.

52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at ?at the top end of IPCC estimates?

53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water ? including CO2, calcium, and water ? can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.

54) The UN?s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a ?hotspot? in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot

55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.

56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.

57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote ?the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.?

58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.

59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but ?neither happened?, but we are continuing along the same lines.

60) The UK ?s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about ?55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth.

61) The UN?s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing ?offsets? from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.

63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.

64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the ?hockey stick graph? which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.

65) The globe?s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive.

66) The ?Climate-gate? scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a ?trick? for the sake of concealing a ?decline? in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth?s temperature.

67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The ?Climate-gate? scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was ?a travesty?.

68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.

69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years ? so it expects global warming to resume swiftly.

70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: ?The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.?

71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol?s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.

72) The first phase of the EU?s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from ?33 to just ?0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all.

73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.

74) To date ?cap and trade? carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.

75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or ?1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.

76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback ? and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.

77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.

78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.

79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).

80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation?s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.

81) The UK?s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.

82) Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money ? under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to ?1 billion a year.

83) The ?Climate-gate? scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.

84) The ?Climate-gate? scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal?s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.

85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.

86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures ? in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.

87) The Government?s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around ?4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only ?4 to ?5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.

88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.

89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.

91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.

92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama?s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.

94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.

95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country?s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition?s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.

96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world?s highest per-capita emissions setters.

97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.

98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: ?We ? along with many of our fellow citizens ? are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997? and ?based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.?

99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated ?We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth?s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth?s climate.?

100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded ?We find no support for the IPCC?s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--and then there is the common sense approach-c02 is neccesary for human and plants to exist--EPA wants me to believe its a pollutant but the absolute fact of the matter is earth could not exist without it.:0corn

Wayne: I actually was excited to see you answer ImFeklhr's question....then I realized you just cut and pasted (again). It really wasn't a tough question, but your answer is an obvious one: nobody could convince you. It would be nice if you could argue your own point of view without using the work of others to make your point every once in awhile...especially when your opinion is what is asked for.

I believe that man has made an impact, but a very small one that we aren't going to reverse with a few policy changes in a couple countries. I think it has been blown out of proportion. I think denying man's impact is absurd but getting all bent out of shape about the impact is ridiculous (since it is minuscule).
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
I see Garry -- G&G opinion trumps the 100 questions right!

I had my answer below them in bold but I would be happy to expand on topic.

Let me try a diff method--and agree G&G

SUPPOSE--global warming people are correct and it is and has been man made.

Is it worth it to wreck our economy when it won't accomplish zilch unless China-India go along. It would just increase their already huge adv over us.

Global warming has lots of plus's do you know where we'd be now had we not had global warming? Global warming would make mass areas now that are not productive-useful
Global cooling is the culprit you better fear.

As I have stated--if you want to negate all the global warming effects in past century--move 19 miles north of where you live now
--much easier and saner than having utilities jack up --having gov trying to control how we live and dictating cows farting and such :)

How was that?
 

Hard Times

Registered
Forum Member
Jan 17, 2005
809
0
0
The truth

The truth

No one person or group of scientists know that much about global warming, they study and study and make these charts that show pretty much what they want the charts to show .
DTB loves charts !!
The QUESTION is : Who is working for whom.
If you are funded by big oil or if you are funded by a super rich guy like DTB then your chart on global warming will show the results that will suit your MASTER !!
You need to ask yourself these questions.
How old is our planet EARTH . If you think that Earth has been around for billions of years then what the fuck is the rush .... unless they have another AGENDA.
Why are we taking this shit on now, today.
Is there an agenda , a secret plan to tax and tax and give this tax to a United Nations bank, World Bank or the IMF then later use this money to loan to smaller nations , praying on these poor nations , giving loans and taking the nation ITSELF as collateral.Hoping for default on said loan.
Just a quicker way for the ELITE,SUPER RICH to own the world. These greedy Bastards want to own and control the world.
You can laugh if you like , I don't care.
The banks and our own government leaders working together, and THE FUCKING FED, have just pulled off the biggest PONZI scheme in history and you and I just set back and say , oh well , our government just fucked up again, just like our government to fuck things up , yet we do nothing.
What is left for these greedy BASTARDS except to enforce a plan to buy and own other nations.
It is so sad what has happened and what is going to happen.
I know that black gumby, mac daddy ,pimp , slim shady or whatever you want to call "Obama the Magnificent" is not going to be any help to the the middle class and with only one year in , he has done nothing . He is a big liar on torture,lobbyist,signing statements,transparency and the fucking WARS.
Obama and Michelle are spending too damn much and they ask you to sacrifice so these two can look good , don't you get sick of all the waste, you can't spend enough money on Michelle to make her look good.
I know that they've all spent in the past and they repesent the country,but do they have to give Michelle 25 or more servants and whats this shit about a TV show with big fat OPRAH in the white house.
This country has been sold , hope your kids learn to get along with the Chinese.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
Hnmm seems like Pelosi and O had to make hasty retreat from Copenhagen due to pre winter cold and and snow--The Irony :tongue

capt.603d554f4c774822bd1a36f32ae5c907.france_weather_cir103.jpg


<!-- end photoProvider --><CITE id=photoTimestamp>Sat Dec 19, 8:19 AM ET</CITE>


<!-- end photo cont -->Peolple are seen on the beach covered by snow in Nice, southeastern France, Saturday, Dec. 19, 2009. Temperature is 3 degrees celcius (37,2 Farenheit).
<CITE id=captionCite>(AP Photo/Lionel Cironneau)</CITE>

<HR>
Alaska sees record snow: Five feet, 8 inches deep!

Up to 20-inches in DC...

NYC Expecting Up to 10 Inches of Snow
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,499
263
83
Victory Lane
Let me think about this for a minute.

Chavez and Fidel Castro are now hating on Obama.

DTB hates on Obama

I think that makes DTB a fawking communist !


:142smilie
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,499
263
83
Victory Lane
.
Obama and Michelle are spending too damn much and they ask you to sacrifice so these two can look good , don't you get sick of all the waste, you can't spend enough money on Michelle to make her look good.
I know that they've all spent in the past and they repesent the country,but do they have to give Michelle 25 or more servants and whats this shit about a TV show with big fat OPRAH in the white house.
This country has been sold , hope your kids learn to get along with the Chinese.
.................................................................

I cant believe you waste your time on Michelle Obama. You dont think every first lady has the same number of servants ?

wow.

George W didnt pull back on his partys and wife stuff.

Geeez Louise.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,499
263
83
Victory Lane
Wayne: I actually was excited to see you answer ImFeklhr's question....then I realized you just cut and pasted (again). It really wasn't a tough question, but your answer is an obvious one: nobody could convince you. It would be nice if you could argue your own point of view without using the work of others to make your point every once in awhile...especially when your opinion is what is asked for.
.....................................................

Thats because DTB dont think for himself .

He is in puppet land with hedgehog.

He gets up at 0300 and starts reading political stuff. Then he sees something and says.

Hey thats a good thought.

Let me run post that at madjacks.

That will show them a thing or two.

:scared :scared
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,182
1,441
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
I see Garry -- G&G opinion trumps the 100 questions right!

I had my answer below them in bold but I would be happy to expand on topic.

Let me try a diff method--and agree G&G

SUPPOSE--global warming people are correct and it is and has been man made.

Is it worth it to wreck our economy when it won't accomplish zilch unless China-India go along. It would just increase their already huge adv over us.

Global warming has lots of plus's do you know where we'd be now had we not had global warming? Global warming would make mass areas now that are not productive-useful
Global cooling is the culprit you better fear.

As I have stated--if you want to negate all the global warming effects in past century--move 19 miles north of where you live now
--much easier and saner than having utilities jack up --having gov trying to control how we live and dictating cows farting and such :)

How was that?

Much better. dance1
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,499
263
83
Victory Lane
NANCY REAGAN'S POWER IS CONSIDERED AT PEAK
By BERNARD WEINRAUB, Special to the New York Times
Published: March 3, 1987
Sign in to Recommend
Twitter
Sign In to E-Mail

Print


Reprints

Share
Close
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalinkWASHINGTON, March 2? Nancy Reagan is now far more powerful, more confident and more politically involved than at any point in the Reagan Presidency, and she intends to remain so for the rest of her husband's term.

This was the assessment today of White House officials and close friends of Mrs. Reagan in the aftermath of her successful effort to oust Donald T. Regan, the White House chief of staff, following months of sniping between the two.

Mr. Regan and the First Lady were the President's closest counselors. With Mr. Regan removed, Mrs. Reagan plans to develop a ''close working relationship'' with his replacement, former Senator Howard H. Baker Jr., officials said.

According to White House officials and Mrs. Reagan's advisers, she wants to deepen her involvement now because of her husband's sharp drop in popularity as a result of the Iran-contra affair and questions about his competence.

Other motivating factors for Mrs. Reagan are an ''awareness that this scandal could tarnish his name in history,'' in the words of one friend, and the First Lady's confidence in her own political savvy after six years in the White House. Arms Control a Goal

Mrs. Reagan's friends and aides said she has told them that she plans to focus her attention on seeking an arms control agreement with the Soviet Union. They say that while she knows little about the details of arms control, her interest in the issue stems from her perception that an accord would put to rest criticisms that her husband is unable to govern and serve as a successful finale to his Presidency.

''She has one deep concern now -how the President will go down in history,'' said one White House official. ''That is what has always guided her actions, but now, especially now, that is what is foremost for Nancy Reagan.'' Some Portrayals Disputed

Mrs. Reagan's friends say that some portrayals of her as overbearing and demanding were simply unfair, and that her only concern is her husband's physical and political health.

''Her agenda is Ronald Reagan and that's it,'' said Sheila Tate, Mrs. Reagan's former press secretary. ''Her name is regularly invoked by people to serve their own purposes in the White House, so a lot of stories about her involvement in things are either overstated or wrong.

''Most of the people in the West Wing - most of them being men - don't know how to deal with a First Lady, particularly Nancy Reagan,'' Ms. Tate said. ''As a result they're afraid of her. We used to laugh about it because we were so comfortable with her it seemed absurd.

''There's an aura in the White House that she's someone to be feared,'' Ms. Tate said. ''She's not.'' A Tough Taskmaster

Some former ranking officials, however, said Mrs. Reagan has often proved a difficult taskmaster.

''Mike Deaver had to deal with Nancy constantly - three, four times a day,'' a former top White House aide said, referring to the former deputy chief of staff. ''He had the temperament and the relationship with her to do it, although even Mike would sometimes roll his eyes when she would call for the fourth time.''

''Don Regan didn't do that, and you could sympathize with him,'' the former official said. The official said that once a decision appeared to have been reached, Mrs. Reagan would call and it would unravel. Those dealing with her would also become upset because she called repeatedly to ask, ''Did you do this?'' or ''Why didn't you do that?'' the former official said.

''Her instincts are generally pretty good,'' but sometimes she would make would demands that couldn't be met, such as asking White House officials to get a particular event on television, the former aide said. ''It all escalated with the Iranian matter and the prostate surgery,'' the aide said. ''She just got more and more involved.''

White House officials said Mrs. Reagan intended to make it plain to Mr. Baker that she would not be hesitant about promoting her husband's interests. Asked at a White House news conference this afternoon if he had conferred yet with Mrs. Reagan, Mr. Baker said with a laugh, ''No, but I expect to be talking to her later in the afternoon.''

The agenda? ''Whatever she wants to talk about,'' Mr. Baker said.

Close friends of Mrs. Reagan said she has been especially disturbed about the Tower Commission's indictment of her 76-year-old husband's management style - an account that presented Mr. Reagan as unaware of what his aides were doing and unable to recall when he had reached the key decision that started the clandestine Iran arms sales.

Mr. Reagan's age, the 1981 assassination attempt, his major cancer surgery in 1985 and the prostate operation last December have taken their toll on his physical health and perhaps even on his memory, White House officials indicated. Mrs. Reagan is expected to continue to monitor the President's schedule to assure that it is not too strenuous.

''Nancy Reagan's role now is to do what she does best - protect the physical and emotional strength of her man,'' said former Senator Paul Laxalt, a close friend.

''I've never seen her involve herself in a policy area,'' he said, ''but when it comes to her man's personal interest she is always heard.'' A Historical Perspective

First Ladies have played varied roles over the nation's history, and some have been quite influential. Edith Wilson basically ran the Government for Woodrow Wilson after he had a stroke in 1919. Eleanor Roosevelt was deeply involved in politics and widely considered a full partner of Franklin D. Roosevelt. For 13 years, the Gallup Poll showed she was ''the most admired woman in the world.''

According to her friends, Mrs. Reagan's emergence as a powerful figure is a result of six years of experience in the White House. Her campaign against drug abuse has overtaken early criticisms that focused on her attention to parties, designer outfits and new White House china.

In recent years, Mrs. Reagan has concentrated not only on the President's schedule but also on personnel. She is widely credited, for instance, with hastening the departure of such officials as two national security advisers, Richard V. Allen and William Clark; Interior Secretary James Watt; Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler, and, most recently, Mr. Regan.

Although Mrs. Reagan has declined public comment about her difficulties with Mr. Regan, she ''has ways of getting her views out; she's got messengers,'' a friend said. In essence, through a series of well-placed newspaper and television leaks about their angry relationship, Mrs. Reagan was able to convey to her husband that the chief of staff had to go - without turning it into a personal issue between herself and the President.

''Ronald Reagan wouldn't be the great President he is if it weren't for her,'' said Nancy Reynolds, the lobbyist and close friend of the Reagans. ''It's she and she alone who has constantly looked after his physical and emotional well-being. She fights like a tiger for him. She is his closest confidant and his most trusted adviser. He wouldn't be where he is today without her.'' BAKER QUESTIONED ON REMARK

WASHINGTON, March 2 (AP) - At his news conference today, Mr. Baker was asked to confirm a statement attributed to him by Heath Meriwether, a columnist for The Miami Herald, in which he was reported to have said of Mrs. Reagan, ''when she gets her hackles up, she can be a dragon.''

''The First Lady is a distinguished citizen of this nation,'' Mr. Baker said. ''She is a great lady and she obviously is a lady of strong convictions. That's what I meant.''

Mr. Meriwether said he had talked to Baker on a plane en route from Miami to Washington Friday
.......................................................................


remember when Nancy was whispering in Ronnies ears. Bless his heart.

That first lady had power.

One thing good Laura Bush did for Michelle was tell her to stay in the background. Dont make much news and everything will be fine.

Or maybe Laura had one of her servants tell her.
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
Hnmm seems like Pelosi and O had to make hasty retreat from Copenhagen due to pre winter cold and and snow--The Irony :tongue

capt.603d554f4c774822bd1a36f32ae5c907.france_weather_cir103.jpg


<!-- end photoProvider --><CITE id=photoTimestamp>Sat Dec 19, 8:19 AM ET</CITE>


<!-- end photo cont -->Peolple are seen on the beach covered by snow in Nice, southeastern France, Saturday, Dec. 19, 2009. Temperature is 3 degrees celcius (37,2 Farenheit).
<CITE id=captionCite>(AP Photo/Lionel Cironneau)</CITE>

<HR>
Alaska sees record snow: Five feet, 8 inches deep!

Up to 20-inches in DC...

NYC Expecting Up to 10 Inches of Snow

What the fuck is wrong with you?
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Hnmm seems like Pelosi and O had to make hasty retreat from Copenhagen due to pre winter cold and and snow--The Irony :tongue

You mean the "hasty retreat" they made after reaching the agreement with the other developing nations - including China - to work together to reduce emissions? And they would have stayed longer why, exactly?
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,499
263
83
Victory Lane
You mean the "hasty retreat" they made after reaching the agreement with the other developing nations - including China - to work together to reduce emissions? And they would have stayed longer why, exactly?
...................................................................


Good one chadman

black gumby will have some mundane answer
if he answers at all.

Geezzz Louise
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
You mean the "hasty retreat" they made after reaching the agreement with the other developing nations - including China - to work together to reduce emissions? And they would have stayed longer why, exactly?

Now you got yourself in a trap my friend--

Explain to us what they got accomplished--not same Kyoto pledges/promises that went no where and were reneged on--but concrete "binding" laws that were passed.

BEIJING ? China, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, lauded Sunday the outcome of a historic U.N. climate conference that ended with a nonbinding agreement that urges major polluters to make deeper emissions cuts ? but does not require it.


We'll be waiting :)

P.S.
the bad news--will take you forever to find one
the good news--won't take you long to report them

Here's a little of the developing nations intent ;)



South African President Jacob Zuma agreed to meet with Obama, then canceled when he heard the Indian leader was away, and Brazil would attend only if India did.
The Chinese said Wen could meet with Obama at 6:15 p.m., then changed it to 7 p.m. Obama used the time to talk strategy with the leaders of France, Germany and Great Britain.
Meanwhile, a four-nation negotiating team known as BASIC gathered. The modified acronym reflected its members: Brazil, South Africa, India and China.
Obama was unaware, however, thinking he was going to meet alone with Wen. After some confusion about who had access to the room, White House aides told the president that Wen was inside with the leaders of the three other countries, apparently working on strategy.
"Good," Obama said as he walked through the door. "Mr. Premier, are you ready to see me?" he called out. "Are you ready?"
Inside he found startled leaders and no chair to sit in. :)
U.S. officials denied that Obama crashed the party, saying he simply showed up for his 7 p.m. meeting with Wen and found the others there. Whatever the meeting's original purpose, Obama used it to help strike an agreement on ways to verify developing nations' reductions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, a good U.S. ending to their talks with the Chinese.
 
Last edited:

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,499
263
83
Victory Lane
listen black gumby

you honestly dont think that they held this conferance to make things law in the world.

yeh right.

be fawking realistic dude.

Its a start.

It had to happen to open dialogue.

you remember dialogue. Remember when George W went to a Scandanavian country to open talks with any fawking country over anything. The only thing President Cheney did was open war talks. :142smilie

you remember Iraq. The lie war.

your a joke
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,499
263
83
Victory Lane
Harder to buy US Treasuries
Created: 2009-12-18 0:13:35
Author:Zhou Xin and Jason Subler


IT is getting harder for governments to buy United States Treasuries because the US's shrinking current-account gap is reducing supply of dollars overseas, a Chinese central bank official said yesterday.

The comments by Zhu Min, deputy governor of the People's Bank of China, referred to the overall situation globally, not specifically to China, the biggest foreign holder of US government bonds.

Chinese officials generally are very careful about commenting on the dollar and Treasuries, given that so much of its US$2.3 trillion reserves are tied to their value, and markets always watch any such comments closely for signs of any shift in how it manages its assets.

China's State Administration of Foreign Exchange reaffirmed this month that the dollar stands secure as the anchor of the currency reserves it manages, even as the country seeks to diversify its investments.

In a discussion on the global role of the dollar, Zhu told an academic audience that it was inevitable that the dollar would continue to fall in value because Washington continued to issue more Treasuries to finance its deficit spending.

He then addressed where demand for that debt would come from.

"The United States cannot force foreign governments to increase their holdings of Treasuries," Zhu said, according to an audio recording of his remarks. "Double the holdings? It is definitely impossible."

"The US current account deficit is falling as residents' savings increase, so its trade turnover is falling, which means the US is supplying fewer dollars to the rest of the world," he added. "The world does not have so much money to buy more US Treasuries."

China continues to see its foreign exchange reserves grow, albeit at a slower pace than in past years, due to a large trade surplus and inflows of foreign investment. They stood at US$2.3 trillion at the end of September
..............................................................

There goes your money DTB black gumby up in smoke.

:scared
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top