Actor and activist Larry David was quoted as saying, “You know, Al is a funny guy, but he’s also a very serious guy who believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.”
Watch out world, and we are sorry if you had not realised before reading this, the world is ending today. That’s because today is the day that climate change entrepreneur, and former US Vice President, Al Gore warned us would be the beginning of a global emergency.
And it looks like civilization still is here. A lot worse for wear because of Liberals, but it’s still here. But Iran has nuked us all out of existence or Hillary hasn’t been Coronated yet so Stay Tuned…
Mr Gore told his supporters a decade ago that the world had until 27th January 2016 to end its addiction to fossil fuels or the it would come to an end. Gore did not specify what householders might expect to happen today, but he was clear that this would be the end.
The claim was part of the marketing campaign for his hit documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”, which he maintains was not a cheap attempt to make money off the green frenzy. Although, by sheer coincidence, it did make him a pile of cash.
Shortly before the film’s release Gore warned today would see “a true planetary emergency.” Once again, he offered few details of the problems you might face on your weekly visit to Walmart.
He went on to tell the press: “If you accept the truth of that, then nothing else really matters that much… We have to organize quickly to come up with a coherent and really strong response, and that’s what I’m devoting myself to.”
Townhall would always warn readers in advance of any impending emergency but on this occasion we feel confident you need not stock up on canned beans. Gore has been making the same claim every week for the past ten years… Which has led us to believe his grim predictions might well be unfounded.
We think you should have a drive in your SUV today to celebrate how great life in America really is. Then crack open a cold beer to offend the health lobby too!
Oh, break out the Incandescent Light bulbs, your gun and that tub of Lard you have in the pantry and have a party…
“The unfortunate truth of the matter is that environmentalists will only lose credibility with those who are already skeptical of the global warming movement,” Fitch told WND. “I think time will ultimately make the difference. The global warming movement in general seems to be grasping at any and everything these days to make their case, but the more they try to tie everything (ISIS, immigration, disease, war) to global warming, the more it just falls on deaf ears.”
Average temperature has remained steady for 15 years and some climate scientists suggest the Earth is on the verge of another ice age. Yet Fitch observed environmentalists keep deploying hysterical rhetoric to win over Americans to their cause.
“One of the problems with the environmental movement is that no good news is ever good news,” said Fitch. “The fact that the polar ice caps haven’t melted is seen as a reason to fight harder for their cause rather than give pause for consideration. One would figure that their dire predictions not materializing would be seen as a ray of hope, but instead activists see it as just further reason to preach doom and gloom.”
Part of the problem for radical environmentalists, Fitch suggested, is their grim predictions don’t match up with the facts on the ground.
“There is always an explanation for why their models haven’t been correct or their dire predictions haven’t materialized,” he said. “In fact, there are usually many explanations. We’ve seen coal usage simultaneously cited as the cause of global warming and the reason that the Earth hasn’t warmed enough. With such a massively complex system like the climate, nearly any explanation can be made; it’s like playing connect the dots with the stars in the sky, there are probably millions of different lines of reasoning that can be drawn to make whatever picture you like.”
“They’re having to make excuses for the heat that never happened by claiming the ocean ate it,” he laughed. “Oh, yeah, the ocean ate the heat. It’s way down there at 700 feet below the surface. Well, 700 meters. So that would be almost a half a mile down there. That’s where all the heat is, and it’s gonna come bubbling up there. It’s gonna heat the saltwater, and the heat that the oceans ate is gonna heat up the saltwater, the saltwater is gonna flood and that’s how we’re gonna get the rising sea. This was in all of the pro-global warming, climate change analysis of last week.”
Unfortunately, Fitch said the global warming hysteria will continue for the foreseeable future, regardless of the facts, and skeptics may not live to see themselves vindicated.
“The public may grow even less concerned than they are now and politicians may eventually start to shy away from the global warming panic, but global warming activists do have time on their side,” he said.
“We know that the climate changes because it has done so in the past. We also know that it changes slowly but it does, sooner or later, shift. When that happens – whether we go into another ice age or become like the surface of Venus – some small cadre of activists will still be standing there with a sign saying that it is because of Big Oil.
“It’s like the sidewalk preacher who constantly warns, ‘The end is near.’ He doesn’t have to be right tomorrow, just right eventually. That’s the biggest asset that the activists have; they are warning about things 200 years in the future. Whether they are right or wrong doesn’t matter here and now and so they never have to admit to being wrong, just being a bit early in their predictions.” (townhall and WND)
Did you know that Climate “Deniers” and The Tobacco Industry are related? 🙂
Warmist scientists including UN IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth to Obama: ‘We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.’
Via Politico: ‘Twenty climate scientists called for RICO investigation in a letter to Obama and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch. The scientists argue that the systemic efforts to prevent the public from understanding climate change resembles the investigation undertaken against tobacco. They draw inspiration from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse who said on the Senate floor that there might be a similar conspiracy here, and a civil trial could provide the tools of discovery needed to find out.’
Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren
September 1, 2015
Dear President Obama,Attorney General Lynch and OSTP Director Holdren,
As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture,and biodiversity.
We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking.
Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to climate change–indeed, the world’s response to climate change–is insufficient. The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity–and potential strategies for addressing them–are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014),
Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress.
One additional tool–recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)–is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.
The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer-reviewed academic research (Brulle,2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010),The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015).
We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation. The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry.
A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking.
If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.
Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren
David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park,MD
William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
University of Miami, Miami, FL
Robert Dickinson, University of
Texas, Austin, TX
Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford,VT ()
Our “The Sky is Falling!!! We’re all going to Die!!!!” unless you do exactly as we say hasn’t been working so now it’s time for the Hammer of Social Justice and The US Government to beat the infidels into submission.
The “good” Senator from Rhode Island in an Op-Ed in the Washington Post:
Fossil fuel companies and their allies are funding a massive and sophisticated campaign to mislead the American people about the environmental harm caused by carbon pollution.
Where’s the science? Oh right, it’s just evil Corporate Oil doing their mustache twirling evil deception. Unlike the disingenuous Chicken Little’s in the Global Cooling/Warming/Change holy mission of salvation. 🙂
Their activities are often compared to those of Big Tobacco denying the health dangers of smoking. Big Tobacco’s denial scheme was ultimately found by a federal judge to have amounted to a racketeering enterprise.
You mean the ones you probably supported and still take their money?
Well, Liberals are like Orwellian Nazis as they have “often been compared”. 🙂
The Big Tobacco playbook looked something like this: (1) pay scientists to produce studies defending your product; (2) develop an intricate web of PR experts and front groups to spread doubt about the real science; (3) relentlessly attack your opponents.
The Global Warming playbook goes something like this: (1) pay scientists to produce studies defending your product; (Climate Gate, anyone?) (2) develop an intricate web of PR experts and front groups to spread doubt about the real science; “97% Consensus” anyone? (3) relentlessly attack your opponents. Attack “Deniers” with RICO statutes and EPA regulations anyone?
Thankfully, the government had a playbook, too: the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. In 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil RICO lawsuit against the major tobacco companies and their associated industry groups, alleging that the companies “engaged in and executed — and continue to engage in and execute — a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO.”
Is the Tobacco Industry still around? Yep. They just are 1/10 the Lobbying juggernaut they used to be.
Do people still smoke? Yep.
Tobacco spent millions of dollars and years of litigation fighting the government. But finally, through the discovery process, government lawyers were able to peel back the layers of deceit and denial and see what the tobacco companies really knew all along about cigarettes.
You mean the million in lobbying money. And amazing how they can uncover all this and not be able to figure out Benghazi, or the IRS scandal, or Hillary’s Emails? 🙂
In 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decided that the tobacco companies’ fraudulent campaign amounted to a racketeering enterprise. According to the court: “Defendants coordinated significant aspects of their public relations, scientific, legal, and marketing activity in furtherance of a shared objective — to . . . maximize industry profits by preserving and expanding the market for cigarettes through a scheme to deceive the public.”
The parallels between what the tobacco industry did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now are striking.
Only in your fervently anti-capitalist Luddite little mind.
In the case of fossil fuels, just as with tobacco, the industry joined together in a common enterprise and coordinated strategy.
Just like the Sky is Falling Global Warming “Consensus” crowd.
He has his own Political Action group: Oceans PAC and he gets his primary support from tech company investors & lobbyists from Comcast.
I created the OCEANS PAC because candidates who support oceans and environmental issues need our support. Indeed, the other side is funded by big polluters who don’t hesitate to put millions of dollars behind their lies. As I’ve said many times – I’m tired of bringing a knife to a gun fight. The OCEANS PAC is one way we can fight back.
And fight we must, because climate change is not a problem that will go away. Climate change is not a problem that can wait. But climate change is a problem that can be solved. We can and we must leave a healthy environment, which includes healthy oceans, to our children and grandchildren. The public is ready for action; unfortunately, the missing piece is Congress. Congress is sleepwalking through history. It is time for Congress to hear the alarms, roll up our sleeves, and do what needs to be done. It is time to wake up. But for Congress to wake up, it needs more members who will support ocean and environmental issues – OCEANS PAC will support those candidates.
This is certainly not something I can do alone. There are high stakes involved and I need your help. I hope you will accompany me on this new journey, and that I can count on your enthusiastic support as we go forward.
Sheldon Whitehouse United States Senator
So no conflict of interest there. 🙂 All, pure science!
2011 – 2016 PAC Contribution Breakdown
Based on Federal Election Commission data available electronically on Monday, August 17, 2015.
Just pure as the driven snow and twice as virtuous!
In 1998, the Clinton administration was building support for international climate action under the Kyoto Protocol. The fossil fuel industry, its trade associations and the conservative policy institutes that often do the industry’s dirty work met at the Washington office of the American Petroleum Institute. A memo from that meeting that was leaked to the New York Times documented their plans for a multimillion-dollar public relations campaign to undermine climate science and to raise “questions among those (e.g. Congress) who chart the future U.S. course on global climate change.”
Climate Gate anyone?
The shape of the fossil fuel industry’s denial operation has been documented by, among others, Drexel University professor Robert Brulle. In a 2013 paper published in the journal Climatic Change, Brulle described a complex network of organizations and funding that appears designed to obscure the fossil fuel industry’s fingerprints. To quote directly from Brulle’s report, it was “a deliberate and organized effort to misdirect the public discussion and distort the public’s understanding of climate.” That sounds a lot like Kessler’s findings in the tobacco racketeering case.
The coordinated tactics of the climate denial network, Brulle’s report states, “span a wide range of activities, including political lobbying, contributions to political candidates, and a large number of communication and media efforts that aim at undermining climate science.” Compare that again to the findings in the tobacco case.
Funny, sounds just like the Global Warming crowd!
The tobacco industry was proved to have conducted research that showed the direct opposite of what the industry stated publicly — namely, that tobacco use had serious health effects. Civil discovery would reveal whether and to what extent the fossil fuel industry has crossed this same line. We do know that it has funded research that — to its benefit — directly contradicts the vast majority of peer-reviewed climate science. One scientist who consistently published papers downplaying the role of carbon emissions in climate change, Willie Soon, reportedly received more than half of his funding from oil and electric utility interests: more than $1.2 million.
To be clear: I don’t know whether the fossil fuel industry and its allies engaged in the same kind of racketeering activity as the tobacco industry. We don’t have enough information to make that conclusion. Perhaps it’s all smoke and no fire. But there’s an awful lot of smoke.
And he knows smoke when he sees it…
Senator Whitehouse stated (On the Iran Deal): “I thank the many Rhode Islanders who have contacted me on every side of this question. I appreciate their thoughtful input. I’ve decided to support the P5+1 agreement with Iran, not because it assures anything on its own, but because — with persistent watchfulness and effort — it could open a new doorway in the precarious Middle East. I do not see a better credible option.
And since he knows a good deal when he sees it, he must be right about Global Warming! 🙂
It’s all a Vast Right-Wing Capitalist Conspiracy!! 🙂
Be Sexually molested for Freedom and Security! Hurrah! 🙂
Former Vice President Al Gore admitted Monday that his pivotal 1994 Senate vote for ethanol subsidies was bad policy but good politics. That says a lot about the reality of environmentalism in government.
As the ethanol tax credit comes up for renewal in Congress on Dec. 31, it’s worth noting it only came about because the vice president cast the decisive 51st vote in favor of it in 1994.
At the time, he packaged it as a big move to preserve the environment in a market-friendly, sustainable manner, and for years defended his vote because it was supposedly good for us.
“The more we can make this home-grown fuel a successful, widely-used product, the better-off our farmers and our environment will be,” he recounted in 1998.
Now the real story emerges. On Monday he matter-of-factly told a bankers group in Greece it was actually about helping himself.
“One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president,” the former vice president said.
One is tempted to praise a man who admits mistakes, but the magnitude of what Gore actually did through his cynically cast vote as an elected leader in a position of trust suggests sorry isn’t enough.
Gore’s vote drove food prices higher, trashed the environment, and drew American capital into inefficient energy sources over efficient ones. This should be an object lesson in the importance of not trusting politicians on the environment.
Start with what it is — a tax credit for special interests that has cost U.S. taxpayers $16 billion. And costs are rising. The centrally planned ethanol mandate has risen from 7.5 billion gallons by 2012 to 35 billion by 2022. In the last year alone, it’s cost $7 billion.
From the tax credit, refiners make a profit on blended ethanol even when it costs more than gasoline, an unfair price distortion.
No wonder refiners told farmers they could buy all the corn they could grow — Uncle Sam was picking up the tab. Today, 41% of all corn grown in America goes to ethanol — not to the dinner table.
As corn exports fell, inflation soared abroad. In Mexico, riots broke out over rising tortilla prices. Inflation hurts the poor most.
Then there was the product itself, ethanol, a fuel that’s been around since the days of Henry Ford. It burns 30% less efficiently than other forms of energy, such as oil, clean coal, shale and natural gas. As IBD wrote earlier this month, ethanol “has never made much sense economically or environmentally.” Gore confirms this.
Still, ethanol mandates did wonders for Gore’s political life, bringing him everything from a 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for environmentalism to big bucks to speak in places like Athens, Greece.
By his own admission, Gore’s mistake came at our expense and for that he deserves scorn. More importantly, the feel-good era of environmentalism by government diktat must end.
Taxpayers shouldn’t be sacrificed on the altar of environmentalism to satisfy one man’s ambitions.
Among the unintended consequences, farmland that had been efficiently planted with multiple crops ended up as monolithic cornfields, using 1,700 gallons of water to make a gallon of ethanol. Food prices surged as the government’s ethanol monster got fed. (Ibd)
So does this whole sorry mess of enviromentalist whackos come down to one man’s ambitions unrealized. Is that why liberals are STILL mad about the 2000 election and have gone off the rails ever since?
And just think of all the food shortages and hunger (and there was in other countries) because 1 man decided that his presidential ambition out weighed the nation or the world.
Gee, sounds like Obama now. 😦
But it’s hardly over. “Green” has gone GREEN. As in Money!
A high-ranking member of the U.N.’s Panel on Climate Change admits the group’s primary goal is the redistribution of wealth and not environmental protection or saving the Earth.
Money, they say, is the root of all evil. It’s also the motivating force behind what is left of the climate change movement after the devastating Climate-gate and IPCC scandals that saw the deliberate manipulation of scientific data to spur the world into taking draconian regulatory action.
Left for dead, global warm-mongers are busy planning their next move, which should occur at a climate conference in relatively balmy Cancun at month’s end. Certainly it should provide a more appropriate venue for discussing global warming than the site of the last failed climate conference — chilly Copenhagen.
Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change (say that twice), told the Neue Zurcher Zeitung last week: “The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.” After all, redistributing global wealth is no small matter.
Edenhofer let the environmental cat out of the bag when he said “climate policy is redistributing the world’s wealth” and that “it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.”
In his IPCC post, Edenhofer was a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. Based on anecdotal evidence, it contained unsubstantiated claims that the Himalayan glaciers would soon disappear and Bangladesh would be totally submerged.
Edenhofer claims “developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community” and so they must have their wealth expropriated and redistributed to the victims of their alleged crimes, the postage stamp countries of the world. He admits this “has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
It has everything to do with a different kind of green. U.N. warm-mongers are seeking to impose a global climate reparations tax on everything from airline flights and international shipping to fuel and financial transactions. At first, this punitive tax on progress is expected to net $100 billion annually, though that amount, like our energy costs, is expected to necessarily skyrocket.
We’ve seen such plans before. Just before Copenhagen, a group of “chicken littles” along with some gullible corporations ran an ad campaign titled “Hopenhagen.” It pushed a global wealth redistribution scheme based on the theory that Western nations, particularly the U.S., owe a “climate debt” for having initiated the Industrial Revolution and plundered the world’s fossil fuel resources in the name of unbridled capitalism.
According to a Hopenhagen pocket guide, there will be a “Green New Deal” that “will be based on the polluter-pays principle, on the historically high emissions of developed nations and on the capacity of the rich nations to help the poor.”
This sounds like the Marxist principle: to each according to his need from each according to his ability — with a guilty conscience thrown in for good measure. As President Obama might put it, U.N. officials are seeking a “fundamental transformation” of the globe.
Given this administration’s willingness to compromise American sovereignty, we could soon see Americans taxed to fund a global scam — the ultimate form of taxation without representation. (IBD)
The only cure for this is flush every Democrat out of the system. Otherwise, this cancer will just keep coming back and keep growing. It will kill the patient eventually.