You gotta love this…when The Goracle speaks, out comes hot air! Love it…see all of this at http://www.frozengore.com
Politics, rantings, comments and such!
January 7, 2010
You gotta love this…when The Goracle speaks, out comes hot air! Love it…see all of this at http://www.frozengore.com
December 30, 2009
What is it they say? The best plans of mice and men. Hopefully the same thing will happen over here in the US if the Democrats vote in Cap & Trade later in 2010.
This new French carbon tax was scheduled to go into law on Jan1, 2010. The tax was steep: 17 euros per ton of carbon dioxide (USD $24.40). In a stunning move, and surely a blow to warmists everywhere, the tax has been found unconstitutional and thrown out. Originally found here (Google Translation).
Lord Monckton was kind enough to assist me in deciphering the meaning of the ruling and writes:
In France, if at least 60 Deputies of the House and 60 Senators appeal to the Constitutional Council, it has the power to pronounce on the constitutionality of a proposed law – in the present case, the 2010 national budget of France, which contained enabling provisions (loi deferee) for a carbon levy. The Council found that these enabling provisions were unconstitutional on two grounds: that the exemptions contained within the provisions for a carbon levy vitiated the primary declared purpose of the levy, to combat carbon emissions and hence “global warming”; and that the exemptions would cause the levy to fall disproportionately on gasoline and heating oils and not on other carbon emissions, thereby breaching the principle that taxation should be evenly and fairly borne.
Here’s a Deustch-Welle news article on the reversal.
France’s Constitutional Council says the country’s proposed carbon tax is illegal. This is a severe blow to French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s plans to fight climate change.
France’s Constitutional Council has struck down a carbon tax that was planned to take effect on January 1st. The council, which ensures the constitutionality of French legislation, said too many polluters were exempted in the measure and the tax burden was not fairly distributed.
It was estimated that 93 percent of industrial emissions outside of fuel use, including the emissions of more than 1,000 of France’s top polluting industrial sites, would be exempt from the tax, which would have charged 17 euros per ton of emitted carbon dioxide.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has argued the tax is necessary to combat climate change and reduce the country’s dependence on oil.
However, the council’s ruling is a severe blow to both Sarkozy’s environmental plan as well as France’s budget for 2010. The government now has to find a way to come up with about 4.1 billion euros in revenue that was expected from the tax.
December 15, 2009
Hahahaha…don’t ya love it. When stupidity unraveled…
Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don’t add up
Al Gore’s office admitted that the percentage he quoted in his speech was from an old, ballpark figure.
Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusets Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said: “He’s just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero.”
December 9, 2009
Wednesday, December 09, 2009 at 06:54pm
Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?
A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.
And in case you think that was a mere slip of the tongue:
Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded, which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open and fair debate.
A: I think it’s been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you’re referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn’t be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included, referenced, and discussed. So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago including somebody’s opinion that a particular study isn’t any good is one thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really is.
In fact, thrice denied:
These people are examining what they can or should do to deal with the P.R. dimensions of this, but where the scientific consensus is concerned, it’s completely unchanged. What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.
In fact, as Watts Up With That shows, one Climategate email was from just two months ago. The most recent was sent on November 12 – just a month ago. The emails which have Tom Wigley seeming (to me) to choke on the deceit are all from this year. Phil Jones’ infamous email urging other Climategate scientists to delete emails is from last year.
How closely did Gore read these emails? Did he actually read any at all? Was he lying or just terribly mistaken? What else has he got wrong?
December 4, 2009
From the LA Times…can you believe it?
December 4, 2009 | 2:03 am
No, it wouldn’t do anything for the environment.
But two Hollywood conservatives (yes, there are some) have called upon the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to rescind the prestigious, profitable gold Oscar statuette that it gave ex-Vice President Al Gore two years ago for the environmental movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Roger L. Simon and Lionel Chetwynd, both Academy members, are among a small, meandering pack of known political conservatives still believed to be on the loose in the liberal bastion of movie-making.
In 2007, Hollywood’s Academy sanctified Gore’s cinematic message of global warming with its famous statue, enriched his earnings by $100,000 per 85-minute appearance and helped elevate the Tennesseean’s profile to win the Nobel Peace Prize despite losing the election battle of 2000 to a Texan and living in a large house with lots of energy-driven appliances.
Chetwynd and Simon were prompted to make their hopeless demand this week by the….
…leak two weeks ago of a blizzard of British academic e-mails purporting to show that scientists at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit systematically falsified data to document the appearance of global warming in recent years.
The university is reportedly investigating the claims, which added dry fuel to the never-ending political debate over whether the Earth really is warming as a result of human activity or if it’s just normal natural cycles and the debate is what’s heated. The demand to withdraw Gore’s award provides yet another opportunity to argue.
The startling leak comes at an inconvenient time just before next week’s United Nations’ climate change meeting that will cause an immense carbon footprint with thousands of people flying up or over to Denmark to talk about saving the environment.
These airplanes will include Air Force One with its primary passenger President Obama, who’s returning to the Copenhagen scene where he didn’t help win the 2016 Summer Olympics for Chicago, which could do with a little global warming at this time of year.
Simon, a screenwriter who is also chief executive officer of Pajamas Media, a network of conservative online blogs, conceded he knew of no precedent for the Academy withdrawing a previously-awarded Oscar, despite decades of Hollywood hijinks and worse. But, he added, “I think they should rescind this one.”
The television news-watching world in America has not learned much about the so-called Climategate scandal because it has not really been mentioned on the air except for a notorious cable news channel named for a three-lettered, wily, wild animal that often seems to revel in debunking liberal shibbeloths.
Network news programs have been far more concerned with the obviously more important White House party-crasher story involving a couple of formally-dressed phonies.
The falsified documents do not come up in Gore interview excerpts published late last night here by Politico’s John F. Harris and Mike Allen.
This week White House Press Secy. Robert Gibbs claimed that global warming was no longer in dispute by most people. But a subsequent Rasmussen Reports poll of Americans finds only one in four adults believe most scientists agree on the topic.
And while only 20% claim to have followed the leaked e-mail story Very Closely, nearly 60% believe it is at least somewhat likely that scientists have falsified environmental data to support their own global warming beliefs and theories.
– Andrew Malcolm
July 12, 2009
Gore: U.S. Climate Bill Will Help Bring About ‘Global Governance’
Climate Depot Exclusive
“I bring you good news from the U.S., “Gore said on July 7, 2009 in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by UK Times.
“Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore said, noting it was “very much a step in the right direction.” President Obama has pushed for the passage of the bill in the Senate and attended a G8 summit this week where he agreed to attempt to keep the Earth’s temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C.
Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming.
“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Editor’s Note: Gore makes the “global governance” comment at the 1min. 10 sec. mark in this UK Times video.)
Gore’s call for “global governance” echoes former French President Jacques Chirac’s call in 2000.
AND NOW THE UNDISCOVERED TRUTH:
On November 20, 2000, then French President Chirac said during a speech at The Hague that the UN’s Kyoto Protocol represented “the first component of an authentic global governance.”
In addition, calls for a global carbon tax have been urged at recent UN global warming conferences. In December 2007, the UN climate conference in Bali, urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”
“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, said at the 2007 UN conference after a panel titled “A Global CO2 Tax.”
Schwank noted that wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.” The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”
The environmental group Friends of the Earth advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations during the 2007 UN climate conference.
“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.
From McClatchy News:
WASHINGTON — If the Senate doesn’t pass a bill to cut global warming, says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more.
She says there’s a huge upside, however, if the Senate does act: millions of clean-energy jobs, reduced reliance on foreign oil and less pollution for the nation’s children.
Boxer is engaged in her biggest sales job ever. The stakes couldn’t be higher as she faces one of the toughest high-profile acts of her lengthy career: getting Congress to sign off on historic legislation to lower greenhouse-gas emissions.
“For Barbara Boxer , it’s both the opportunity and a challenge of a lifetime,” said Frank O’Donnell , the president of Clean Air Watch .
As the Senate’s top-ranked environmentalist, Boxer heads the influential committee that began hearings on the issue this week. She’s aiming to get her panel to pass a bill by the end of September. For months now, she’s been meeting with senators one on one and hosting a group of about 30 senators for “Tuesday at 12″ meetings to develop a strategy to win 60 votes, enough to overcome a Republican filibuster.
With a House of Representatives bill already approved, all eyes are on Boxer, who must overcome plenty of skepticism on Capitol Hill among her fellow Democrats.
“It’s going to be a tough slog, but I’m excited about it. . . . I know that my Republican colleagues are going to try to do everything to stop it and distort it,” Boxer said Friday in an interview.
Last year, Boxer’s standalone climate-change bill fell to defeat, but there’s a new strategy this year that will make it harder for senators to reject it. Six committees — Environment and Public Works, which Boxer heads, Finance, Commerce, Energy , Agriculture and Foreign Relations — will have jurisdiction over the bill. Those committee heads have been meeting for months withof Nevada , who’ll help combine their work into one massive bill this fall.
Boxer said the approach was unlike any she’d experienced since she joined the Senate in 1993, and she predicted that it will simplify passage.
“It’s a different dynamic, and it will make it easier,” she said in the interview. “There will be so much in this bill. There will be investments in transportation. There will be great opportunities for agriculture. There will be great incentives for energy efficiency. There will be so much in there. There will be help for areas that need flood control. It should have a broader appeal. Having said that, it’s all difficult.”
While vote counts vary, most observers say that the bill’s fate will lie with 15 or so Democratic moderates, many of whom fear that a vote for climate-change legislation could hurt their re-election chances. Boxer is trying to round up some Republican votes to offset opposition from the likes of Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska .
Boxer has been telling audiences for years that Congress must act, and that it will. After years of battling with the Bush administration, Boxer figures she has the best odds ever of getting a bill signed into law.
It still won’t be easy, however.
Oklahoma , the top-ranked Republican on the environment committee, predicts that Boxer will fail. He said the public would see the legislation as a large tax increase once people understood that they’d ultimately bear the costs of any bill that forced companies to reduce global-warming emissions.of
“Once the American public realizes what this legislation will do to their wallets, they will resoundly reject it,” Inhofe said Tuesday at a hearing.
NOW, THE REAL TRUTH:
Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile — the list goes on and on.No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year’s time. For all four sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn’t itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
Let’s hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans — and most of the crops and animals we depend on — prefer a temperature closer to 70.
Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.
CAN’T WAIT TIL THE GORACLE FIGURES OUT A MONEY MAKING PLAN FOR THE COOLING…
June 29, 2009
The Petition reads: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 carbon dioxide, 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. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. YOU CAN READ THE SUPPRESSED EMAILS & COMMENTS HERE:
The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.
Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”
The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward… and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”
The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency — and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.
Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. “It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else,” Carlin said. “That was obviously coming from higher levels.”
E-mail messages released this week show that Carlin was ordered not to “have any direct communication” with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.
“I was told for probably the first time in I don’t know how many years exactly what I was to work on,” said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA. “And it was not to work on climate change.” One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead.
Carlin’s report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there’s “little evidence” that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth’s temperature.
In the last few days, Republicans have begun to raise questions about the report and e-mail messages, but it was insufficient to derail the so-called cap and trade bill from being approved by the U.S. House of Representatives.
The revelations could prove embarrassing to Jackson, the EPA administrator, who said in January: “I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.” Similarly, Mr. Obama claimed that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over… To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy. It is contrary to our way of life.”
“All this talk from the president and (EPA administrator) Lisa Jackson about integrity, transparency, and increased EPA protection for whistleblowers — you’ve got a bouquet of ironies here,” said Kazman, the CEI attorney.
June 4, 2009
More fair and balanced treatment from our great United Nations.
In an interesting turn of events during the debate, Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA) issued a warning saying, “we’re setting up a global warming Gestapo.” The comment was made in reference to Section 201 of the act which establishes a national building code. Under that code, the Secretary of Energy would have the power to assess civil penalties for buildings that do not meet the new code.
Scalise described a situation where a home that was destroyed by a natural disaster was rebuilt but with superior material than were dictated by the new national building code. According to Scalise, the homeowner would be in violation of federal law, even if the material exceeded the federal standard.
Now living in your home is considered unlawful under this bill.
~ Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)
“The federal government can come in and inspect your house and send you the bill. And if they find that you’re out of compliance with this new federal code, ‘The Secretary shall assess a civil penalty for violations of this section,’” Scalise said. “Now living in your home is considered unlawful under this bill. This is ludicrous.”
Taking his argument a step further, Scalise called into question the very constitutionality of the measure. He reminded his fellow congressmen that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to states respectively or to the people.”
This bill comes in and basically says throw out the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
~ Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)
By creating its own enforcement measures and own building code that will usurp those which states have already established, the act stands to violate the Constitution. Scalise said, “This bill comes in and basically says throw out the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the federal government’s gonna throw out your building code.”
The text, obtained by CNSNews.com, was submitted in early May to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is developing a new international global warming treaty that is expected to be finalized at an international conference to be held in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December.
The treaty will reduce carbon emissions from the U.S. and other “developed” countries while allowing “developing” countries–which include the world’s largest polluter, China, and oil-rich nations such as Saudi Arabia–to avoid equal restrictions.
Specifically, developed countries are expected to meet higher standards than developing countries.
“With respect to developing country Parties whose national circumstances reflect greater responsibility or capability,” says the draft, “… Each such Party shall formulate and submit a low-carbon strategy for long-term net emissions reductions by 2050, consistent with the levels of ambition needed to contribute to meeting the objective of the Convention.”
Another set of developing countries will only need to achieve whatever standard is deemed “consistent with their capacity.”
May 10, 2009
Well, I made the statement I was beginning to be proud to be from Tennessee, and then I read this from WSMV-TV. I’m a doubter again:
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A resolution urging the creation of statues to be built on the Tennessee Capitol grounds of the state’s two Nobel Peace Prize winners, Al Gore and Cordell Hull, is on its way to a full Senate vote.
The Senate State and Local Government Committee on Tuesday advanced the measure supporting the privately funded statues on a 9-0 vote. The resolution previously passed in the House unanimously.
Gore was awarded his Nobel prize in 2007 for his work on global warming, while Hull received the award in 1945 for his role in creating the United Nations and improving international trade relations.
Both men served as Democratic congressmen and senators from Tennessee before moving on to the executive branch, Hull as secretary of state and Gore as vice president.
April 28, 2009
Former VP Al Gore compared scientists who question global warming with indicted stock swindler Bernie Madoff Friday, arguing that they are all guilty of perpetuating a fraud.
During testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the VP turned environmental advocate got into a brief verbal tussle with global warming skeptic Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) who questioned Gore’s statistics about carbon emissions.
“It is important to look at sources of science you rely on,” Gore told Barton. “With all due respect, I believe you have relied on people you have trusted who have given you bad information. I don’t blame the investors who trusted Bernie Madoff but he gave them bad information.”
Gore also took aim Global Climate Coalition, which represents the oil and coal industry, calling the group the “Bernie Madoff’s of global warming.”
The NY Times reports today that the group ignored it’s own scientific advice in trying to keep alive doubts about the science behind climate change.
“They have committed a fraud larger than Madoff’s fraud….they lied to people who trusted them in order to make money,” Gore said.
Gore’s assault on global warming skeptics came as the House deliberates a “cap and trade” bill sponsored by Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) that would mandate carbon emission cuts.
Gore lauded the energy bill as “one of the most important pieces of legislation ever introduced in the Congress,” and compared it to landmark legislation including the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after WWII and 1960s Civil Rights bill.
“This bill will simultaneously address the climate crisis, the economic crisis, and the national security threats that stem from our dependence on foreign oil,” he said in his opening statement to the committee.
“We cannot afford to wait any longer for this transition. Each day that we continue with the status quo sees more of our fellow Americans struggling to provide for their families. Each day that we continue on our path, America loses more of its competitive edge. And each day we wait, we increase the risk that we will leave our children and grandchildren an irreparably damaged planet,” Gore said. “Passage of this legislation will restore America’s leadership of the world and begin, at long last, to solve the climate crisis. It is truly a moral imperative. Moreover, the scientific evidence of how serious this climate crisis is becoming continues to amass week after week.”
Gore’s testimony caps off four days of hearings on the legislation. Former VA Sen. John Warner and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich also testified before the committee Friday.