Sensing Possible Achievement at Copenhagen Climate Conference, President Obama Shifts Date of Appearance

The man with the biggest carbon footprint on the planet takes 2 trips to Europe in the span of a week in an effort to force the little people to pay more for energy.
Because of the emergency being created by carbon emissions.

@MayBee: Al Gore is not showing up so… Oh you meant Obama had the largest Carbon Footprint. Oh sorry.
Look I am an evil denier yet my so called ‘carbon footprint’ is smaller than most proponents of global warming.
Yet I am the evil one destroying the Earth.

“Those discussions seemed to indicate to the president an “emerging consensus” that the Copenhagen accord can provide $10 billion a year for developing countries to try to deal with climate change issues while also growing their economies.”
_____________________________________
Bush, Cheney and Halliburton LOST $9 BILLION dollars in Iraq – lost it! Not used it, not spent it – LOST it.
Try to get a grip on the relative value of what’s going on and put blame where it’s really deserved.

“Try to get a grip on the relative value of what’s going on and put blame where it’s really deserved.”
Move on Tierra. $9 billion is a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the budget deficits Obama is running up. To put this in perspective, it is 0.06% of the 2009 deficit (I know you will say “It’s Bush’s budget”, but remember this: Pelosi and Reid (Democrats, in case you forgot) developed last year’s budget. Obama voted for TARP. Obama signed the ARRA (“stimulus” package) into law. Obama signed the Omnibus spending bill.
Bush is gone. Time to move on.

“I simply pointed out that Bush, Cheney and Halliburton LOST $9 BILLION dollars in Iraq – not spent it, not used it – LOST it.”
Would you care to elaborate this claim?

Ok, lets do get real. We can quibble day in and day out about Obama or Bush what they did and what they didn’t do but the fact remains that it is the mounting UNFUNDED mandates coming fast and furious that will one day cram our stlye. We are talking about 100 TRILLION dolars.
Our country has problems amd may God give our politicians and business leaderrs the wisdom to see us through this but having a Government doing the “central planning” to create jobs will result in a pre 90′s Russian style economy. Businesses simply will not expand unless the uncertainty that is about stops and stops soon.
I just heard that to get the unemployment rate to 5% that our country would have to 250,000 jobs each month for 5 years. In the very best of times 90,000 per month were created.
We have a long ways to go.

Maybe he is delaying his trip to see what goes on there before he gets there. Gore already backed out, and countries are researching the scientific legitimacy of climate change. Jake didn’t bother to mention this though.

“”I simply pointed out that Bush, Cheney and Halliburton LOST $9 BILLION dollars in Iraq – not spent it, not used it – LOST it.”
Would you care to elaborate this claim?
_____________________________________
“A well-established and well-confirmed fact. If you think you can dispute it – go for it. You will fail.”
Tierra – Point me in the right direction – I’m interested in learning more about this claim of yours.
Unless you are making this claim without documented evidence…

Is it April Fool’s Day?

“Truth has a progressive and liberal bias.”
LOL!!!

Truth has a progressive and liberal bias- I thought truth had no bias.Were the claims that Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11 true? Were the CBS TAG records true?Were the progressive claims that the CIA killed Kennedy true?Was the missle gap in 1960 true?Were John Edwards’ claims true? Did Bill Clinton lie? Did Hillary lie about her trip to Bosnia?

Go to the M4GW site for the “Hide the Decline” video- the title is based on one of the e-mails.If the author thought that the data supported warming he never would have used the term.If the world was warming,why did another e-mail claim that it was a “travesty” that global warming believers could not explain the current warming trend? Obiously something is wrong if the “experts” need to explain a cooling that Serafina claims does not exist.

From a website defending the CRU researchers. It is pretty clear what they are doing.
1) They say the data shows lack of warming over the last decade (elsewhere the time frame is 10 years.).
2) They still claim global warming exists, (despite the data, ha ha)
3) I don’t think that THEY don’t think there is no global warming. The data just doesn’t fit.
————————-
” In the email in which he wrote, “We can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist for the National Center for Atmospheric Research, was referring to his article in which, as Wired’s Threat Level blog reported, Trenberth discussed how “global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise.” Indeed, his article covered what Trenberth described as an “incomplete explanation” of short-term climate variations, while maintaining “that global warming is unequivocally happening.”

Forget the past – It dosen’t matter and is not relative.
We have massive debt NOW, and increasing our debt level cannot and should not be justified by adding more debt. Look – All of these give a ways to 3rd world countries, is going to come from you.
$12.00 tax per tank of fuel. add that one up.
Approx. 300.00 per month penality for using utilities. Add that one up times the number of households that will be hit.
Loss of control of your most valued asset – Your home.
You will not be premitted to sell it without a DOE sticker. To get one you will be forced to up grade you home at your expense @ 50,000.00.
So your equity goes down, and the price goes up. Try to get a loan today at all.
Most of the money collected will be sent to 3rd world countries, not pay down our debt, or be used to break our dependance on foreign oil.
So our standard of living goes down.

Yet another day without a single sunspot. 2009 is on track to be the quietest year for the sun in over 100 years.
What could be cuasing this?
Maybe we can see the correlation between increased fossil fuel consumption and lack of sunspots and blame it on carbon man’s carbon consumption like we do with “global warming” The Congress could pass legislation to further control the American people with the noble goal of returning sunspot activity to “normal” levels.
More likely, it is part of a natural cycle, like the warming and cooling of earth, something we can observe, but would be foolish to try to influence.

Lysenko. Look it up ABC. You might learn something about the “science” behind the global warming theory. Sorry it snowed in Houston today (home of many a hydrocarbon industry) so I guess we must called the modern Lysenkoism the new term “climate change”- as if the climate and weather doesn’t change unless we drive SUVs or Pickups. Amazing!

The Earth is ALWAYS either getting warmer or getting colder. It is never static, and no amount of human activity can make it so.
_________________________________
Oh sure, and the world and the oceans and the rivers are so big humans could never pollute them . . .

CO2 – the new pollutant…
Actually, Atmospheric CO2 is the gas of life.
CO2 is a very stable compound, odorless and colorless. It currently exists in the atomosphere in amounts of less than 1 percent.
C02 is the basis of life on Earth. “Plants” remove CO2 from the atmosphere, expose it to sunlight in their leaves, and covert it into a variety of organic compounds. In the process they shed 02 (Oxygen), a very active and corrosive gas. We call that “Plant Poop”.
Sometimes the Plant Poop recombines rapidly with the organic compounds produced by the plants. We call that “Fire.” With fire, large amounts of CO2 are given off and enter the atmosphere, to serve as the basis for future plant growth.
There are entities other than plants. “Animals” consume both the organic compounds produced by plants, and the Plant Poop (O2).
As part of their metabolic processes, they produce C02 which serves as the basis for future plant growth (sort of like slow “Fire”).
Fossil fuels, decaying peat moss, etc, etc. were all once “Plants.” The burning of these materials produces C02 which serves as the source of future plant growth.
There have been times on Earth, before man when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been much higher (8 times present levels). There have not been times when it has been much lower. If it were much lower (say half of present levels), all life on Earth might be threatened.
It is a clever ruse of the left to tell people that CO2 is the enemy. By declaring CO2 the enemy, they can control the very foundations of life on earth. They can control every aspect of every human activity, even beathing (you breath out C02.) They can tell you that your very existence represents unwarranted insertion of C02 into the atmosphere.
The real objective of the Global Warming alarmists is power over you! They will really deprive you of your happiness, your liberty and finally your life.
Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness… no more!

Nice information, Terry. Now, if only the Global Warming hysterics would read it and digest it.
The real objective of the Global Warming alarmists is power over you!

Does anyone else remember this from March 14, 2008?:
John Coleman, who founded (The Weather Channel) in 1982, suggested suing proponents of global warming for fraud, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.
“Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question,” Coleman said.
“Since we can’t get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue,” Coleman said.
“I’m confident that the advocates of ‘no significant effect from carbon dioxide’ would win the case.”

So Tierra,
When does your shift in the Obama war room end? Maybe we could get a beer?

I have been a reader/subscriber of Scientific American from the 1940′s until now, when I quit. It was an outstanding journal until the last 10 years when it became a glossy “Science News” and finally totally biased Political Sci. Am. I miss the years when it contributed to my education and work in the electronics, semiconductor, aerospace, etc. industries. Its current watered down, simplistic, propagandistic, unbalanced, “Politically Correct” material has become intolerable. Sorry to see people duped by it.

“Then tell me, what should the temperature be?” Should it be the temperatures that the planet experienced a thousand years ago, during which Greenland was settled as a farming community and during which wine grapes were grown in Scotland? Should it be the temperatures of three hundred years ago, when the Little Ice Age ended the inhabitation of Greenland and the Thames iced over? Should it be the temperatures of 829 A.D., when the Nile River froze?
By John Linder

so the spin is Obama is delaying the visit because meaningful progress has been made with this perilous baseless global agreement? are you sure it aint becuase he wants to see how his all important public support reacts to this CLIMATEGATE news. absoultely shamfeul that no major network will report on this scandal of the century, so typical though

Posted by: RM | Dec 5, 2009 5:47:13 AM……but, but, but you’re talking about empirical evidence that covers more than 30-50 years; not a model (or pixel in time)- the holy grail of AGW?

It is sad that our founding fathers died for free speech and we are surrounded by agenda driven media who decides what we should see? Why is Climate-gate being ignored by American MSM, when its been covered significantly in the UK? Does it threaten their agenda?

I see it. don’t need the figures down here. So not even paying attention to the math. It is bad and worse than they say. I heard of more layoffs at Christmas yesterday. I found a job but took 6 months. I am thankful but pray that the people realize politicians are out of touch and don’t care about them personally. It is just a job to them. They run figures we are supposed to believe. Not. Can’t wait to cut their income in 2010.

Has there been a single day since Emperor O’Babble took office that he hasn’t spent babbling.

“Climategate” has gotten just as much media attention as it deserves. I see stories about it every day. Meanwhile, climate scientists are calmly maintaining their stance on the issue, and we see new signs of warming all the time. Whatever inaccuracies may be in the East Anglia research, they do not overturn the thousands of other studies done by many other universities and research institutions which all point to global warming caused by human industrial activity.
Action on climate change is coupled with U.S. national security. As our competitors move to cut their emissions and invest in clean energy, we continue to import $1 billion of foreign oil PER DAY, mostly purchased from nations with anti-American interests. Even if we completely disregarded benefits to the climate, it would still make sense to pass national legislation to reduce pollutive carbon emissions and invest in the wave of the future, clean energy and efficient energy technology. This should be the goal of the U.S. Senate, and I hope they won’t let conspiracy theorists and anti-scientific forces get in the way of our country’s security and economic success.

Everyone (Jack Tapper also) should read this article in the Wallstreat Journal. It is written by Professor Richard S. Lindzen. He is a professor of meteorology at M.I.T. I’ve never posted a link here so I dont know if it will work. If not, then Just google his name, and the name of the article… “The Climate Science Isn’t Settled

In the 70′s we were worried about global cooling and another ICE age….in fact in 1971 it was discovered that the area of ice and now in the Northern Hemisphere had increased by 12%. Check out the articles “The Cooling of America” in Time magazine. They thought, “atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.” Now, the theory is it is heating up the earth. So, within 30 years the “theory” has changed. Look up scientist Reid A. Bryson, George Kukla, and Donald Oilman. In my opinion this is more a political agenda to control and redistribute income/weath.

Another scientist reporting the facts about global warming show that “solar radiation” is the primary cause of global warming not co2 and that is why the earth has cooled, not heated up, during the last few years. That is why the so called global temperature data has been fudged so that the fact the earth is cooling, not warming, is being covered up. What a scam.
Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: “[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it’s been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling.” (November 2004)[4] “There’s been warming, no question. I’ve never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn’t hold up…” (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)[5] “The temperature hasn’t gone up. … But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming.” (August 2006)[6] “Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970′s global cooling became the consensus. … By the 1990′s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.” (Feb. 5, 2007)[7] Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: “the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 … there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming.”[8] Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: “The two main ‘scientific’ claims of the IPCC are the claim that ‘the globe is warming’ and ‘Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible’. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.”[Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."[10] Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : “models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view”.[11] He has also said, “It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes. It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it”[12] [edit] Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes Attribution of climate change, based on Meehl et al. (2004), which represents the consensus viewIndividuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: “Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity…Ascribing ‘greenhouse’ effect properties to the Earth’s atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated…Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.”[13][14][15]

Prostitutes are free at the Globalwarming hoax conference..maybe that why he changed his schedule

Oh brother, the damn Gorebullers are at again……And AGAIN we see another example of their flat out lying about the facts. “Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa’s Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 2003 issue of Nature magazine, “Although it’s tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think deforestation of the mountain’s foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests’ humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.” (Source: Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny by James M. Taylor)”

Nasa?????????????? Bwahahahah….how many times have they been snagged lying about the weather. NO joke—they repeatedly been forced to change thier accounts of temperature and ice sheets. You see Nasa makes $7 billion a year every year off its Gorebull climate change “studies” which is completely separte from its space exploration arm (that is in general losing funding.) FOLLOW THE MONEY PEOPLE. BTW, Nasa was the one that once pimped the lie that 1998 was the warmest year on record of about 130 years—turns out many years were warmer despite having more Co2 later. 1921 for example, several years in the 1930′s and 1940′s. The planet has never warmed out of its normal cylces of cooler and warmer weather. Gore, Obama, the Un, Goldman Sachs, EXXON, GE and others pimping these lies because they each stand to make billions $$$ off these lies should all be tossed in jail.

If Obama had any brains, he would cancel this fuel-wasting trip altogether.

We CLIMATE-GATE’rs are calling it Carbonhagen.
I know Obama is no scientist, but can he read? Has he heard the testimony of real scientists, scientists that don’t withhold and fudge data?
He needs to invite Britain’s Lord Monckton (who Gore will not debate) to the WH for a beer and a discussion!

Time to reset. Make the data available to everyone. Open the peer review process to objective scientists. Re-research the problem. Climate Gate needs to be answered openly and definitively before you attempt to force the western world into slavery for the good of the climate.

THe public doesn’t trust the scientists or the conclusions. A panel of neutral experts needs to re-examine all the raw data, accept input form the crticis and present some conclusions. We cannot rubber stamp decisions based on manipulated data. The scientist have cooked the books and deceived the public to keep their cushy jobs paid for by the govt. If the Dems want to pass legislation based on faulty conclusions they will be voted out in 2010. No one trusts the UN, IPCC, or the scientists, the Dems or Al Gore. Copenhagen diplomats will be using 1400 limos and 140 private planes. They are really interested in the environment aren’t they.

The magnetic field of the earth has been declining in strength for the past couple of hundred years. (True)
However, it has begin to fall precipitously in the last 20 years. (also true).
Following the AGW method, I am going to posit that the cause of this decline is the general use of Cell Phones that has virtually exploded across the globe in the past 20 years.
If we continue using cell phones at current rates, the Earth’s magnetic field will virtually disappear by the year 2050. This will cause a dramatic weakening of the Van Allen belts which currently shield us from high energy particles. This will case a dramatic increase in cancers for all living beings that live on the surface of the earth. It may eventually lead to a return to the seas of all life on earth (thank God they are rising due to AGW).
Face it folks, we are done for unless we give up Cell Phones!

“Have you read the various reports yourself, and the arguments of actual scientists in regards to the theory?”
You mean from “actual scientists” like Al Gore? (oops, he’s not a scientist, he’s a multi-millionaire venture capitalist/AGW alarmist who has profited handsomely from spreading the AGW gospel).
Actually, I have read many reports, have a scientific background, and have a least a fundamental understanding of the geological history of the Earth.
If anyone can point to a report that states a proven direct correlation to increased temperatures as a result of increased levels of atmospheric CO2 levels, I’d look forward to reading it. So far, I haven’t seen one…

Posted by: Colette | Dec 7, 2009 10:27:00 AM
You lost me at “Per the NYT”
You state “The truth is anyone interested in climate change has seen the graphs and plots showing strong correlations between CO2 and temperature.”
I’m interested in climate change (which has happened for millions of years) and I have NOT seen these graphs and plots…
Let’s try another question: Can you explain why temperatures in the Middle Ages were warmer than they are today? Unlike some “climate scientists”, tree rings do not lie…

“Actually,most of your questions are pretty typical canards and rather superficial. You can easily find answers to them at…”
Actually, I’d prefer to hear from you…rather than your cut-and-paste responses.

“Problem is you can’t find a respected science magazine or journal that denies global warming theory”
No – The editors will not allow dissent!
“Or the need for alternative energy sources and technologies”
This “need” can be debated from several angles – I support cost effective althernative technologies, but do not believe in AGW.
What you seem not to realize (insted choosing to attack the messenger) is that those of us who do not believe in AGW DO believe in a clean environment and sustainable energy and that the climate does change (through natural processes).

No real doubt about climate change or the damage it does however the solution based on carbon trading being presented at Copenhagen has failed to cut emissions but has made bankers very rich.
My thoughts here http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2009/12/copenhagen-no-nonsense-guide.html