Al Gore's global warming: A Convenient Lie

A

AirRaid

Guest
http://tinyurl.com/2juhfh

There is No Global Warming

There is no global warming. Period.

You can't find a real scientist anywhere in the world who can look you
in the eye and, without hesitation, without clarification, without
saying, kinda, mighta, sorta, if, and or but...say "yes, global
warming is with us."

There is no evidence whatsoever to support such claims. Anyone who
tells you that scientific research shows warming trends - be they
teachers, news casters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or
Presidents - is wrong. There is no global warming.

Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon
measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling - very
slightly - .037 degrees Celsius.

A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out.
For example, in 1936 the Midwest of the United States experienced 49
consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another
49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was only one day over
90 degrees and in 1997 only 5 days.

Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling" trend
has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years.
Ironically, that's the same period of time the hysteria has grown over
dire warnings of "warming."

Changes in global temperatures are natural. There is no proof that
temperature is affected by anything that man has done.

In fact, recent severe weather has been directly attributed to a
natural phenomenon that occurs every so often called El Nino. It
causes ocean temperatures to rise as tropical trade winds actually
reverse for a time.

The resulting temperature changes cause severe storms, flooding and
even draught on every continent on earth.

It's completely natural. El Nino has been wreaking its havoc across
the globe since long before man appeared.

How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting?

Well, yes it is. In fact, it has been for about a million years or so.
We are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North
American and Northern Europe.

There's at least one environmentalist, named Al Gore, who is panicking
over the possibility that we may soon lose Glacier National Park in
Montana because the ice is melting.

One hates to tell him that we've already lost the glacier that used to
cover the whole country.

Perhaps he'll want to start working for new regulations from the
Interior Department to begin immediately restoring this lost
historical environmental treasure. Re-establishing a sheet of ice
covering the entire continent would certainly serve to stop mining,
timber cutting and urban sprawl.

The truth is, someday humans may be able to take tropical vacations at
the North Pole - and it will be perfectly natural.

Yet our world is being flooded with the dire predictions of Global
Warming.

We are being warned of killer heat waves, vast flooding and the spread
of tropical diseases. Ocean levels are rising, they say. America's
coast lines are doomed, they tell us. Hurricanes and tornadoes have
already become more violent, we are warned. Floods and droughts have
begun to ravage the nation, they cry.

Any change in temperatures, or an excessive storm or extended flooding
is looked upon as a sure sign that environmental Armageddon is upon
us. Diabolical environmentalists are using the natural El Nino
phenomenon to whip people into a Global Warming hysteria.

TWO KINDS OF SCIENTISTS

We are assured by the White House that scientists everywhere are
sounding these warmings and that we may only have one chance to stop
it.

Well, as the debate rages, we find that there really are two kinds of
"scientists."

There are those who look at facts and make their judgements based on
what they know.

Their findings can be matched by any other scientist, using the same
data and set of circumstances to reach the same conclusions. It's a
age-old practice called peer reviewing. It's the only true science.

And then there are those who yearn for a certain outcome and set about
creating the needed data to make it so. Usually you will find this
group of scientists greatly dependent on grants supplied by those with
a specific political agenda who demand desired outcomes for their
money.

Let's just take NASA, for example - the most trusted name in American
science.

A lot of NASA scientists have fallen into this trap. Environmental
science has become the life-blood of the space program as the nation
has lost interest in space travel. To keep the bucks coming, NASA has
justified shuttle trips through the use of earth-directed
environmental research. And the budgets keep coming.

At the same time, many of NASA's scientists come with a political
agenda in great harmony with those who advocate the green agenda. And
they're not above using their position to aid that agenda whenever the
chance is available.

This was never more clearly demonstrated than in 1992 when a team of
three NASA scientists were monitoring conditions over North America to
determine if the Ozone layer was in danger.

Inconclusive data indicated that conditions might be right for ozone
damage over North America, if certain things happened.

True scientists are a careful lot. They study, they wait and, many
times they test again before drawing conclusions.

Not so, the green zealot. Of this three-member NASA team, two could
not be sure of what they had found and wanted to do more research.

But one took the data and rushed to the microphones, with all of the
drama of a Hollywood movie, announced in hushed tones that NASA had
discovered an Ozone hole over North America.

Then Senator Al Gore rushed to the floor of the Senate with the news
and drove a stampede to immediately ban freon - five years before
Congress had intended - and without a suitable substitute. He then
bullied President George Bush to sign the legislation by saying the
Ozone hole was over Kennebunkport - Bush's vacation home.

Two months later NASA announced, on the back pages of the newspapers,
that further research had shown that there was no such damage. But it
was too late. Remember that when you have to buy a new air conditioner
or refrigerator for no reason other than your freon has run out of the
old one.

FLAWED COMPUTER MODELS

Then there are those computer models. Night after night Americans
watch the local news as the weatherman predicts what kind of a day
tomorrow will be. These meteorologists, using the most up-to-date
equipment available, boldly give you the five-day forecast.

But it's well known that, even with all of their research and
expensive equipment, it really is just a "best guess." There are just
too many variables. If the wind picks up here it could blow in a
storm, if the temperature drops here it could start to snow. The earth
is a vast and wondrous place. Weather does what it wants.

Yet those who are promoting the global-warming theory have the
audacity to tell you they can forecast changes in the global climate
decades into the future.

The truth is computer models are able to include only two out of 14
components that make up the climate system. To include the third
component would take a computer a thousand times faster than we now
have. To go beyond the third component requires an increase in
computer power that is so large only mathematicians can comprehend the
numbers.

Moreover, even if the computer power existed, scientists do not
understand all the factors and the relationships between them that
determine the global climate.

So it's an outrage for Al Gore, Bill Clinton and the Sierra Club to
tell you that Global Warming is a fact and that we Americans must now
suffer dire changes in our lifestyle to stop it.

SCIENTISTS ARE NOT ON AL'S BAND WAGON

And so too is it an outrage for Al Gore to tell you that most true
scientists now agree that global warming is a fact.

What he doesn't tell you is that almost 500 scientists from around the
world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992 just prior to the Earth
Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the
delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global
warming. Today that figure has grown to over 4000.

He also doesn't tell you that recently a Gallup Poll of eminent North
American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them debunked the
global warming theory.

And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report
at the end of 1996 saying Global Warming was a fact, yet before
releasing the report two key paragraphs were deleted from the final
draft.

Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual
scientific analysis said:

1. "none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we
can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse
gases."

2. "no study to date has positively attributed all or part of the
climate change to ...man-made causes."

Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of
the world - bar none.

THE CLIMATE CHANGE PROTOCOL

Those who have been fighting against the green agenda have been
warning that modern-day environmentalism has nothing whatsoever to do
with protecting the environment.

Rather it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the
world economies, dictate development and redistribute the world's
wealth.

They use the philosophical base of Karl Marx, the tactics of Adolph
Hitler and the rhetoric of the Sierra Club.

The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid
environmentalists.

School children have been told that recycling is a matter of life and
death.

Businesses have been shut down. Valuable products like freon have been
removed from the market. Chemicals and pesticides that helped to make
this nation the safest and healthiest in the world are targeted for
extinction.

Our entire nation is being restructured to fit the proper green mold.
All of it for a lie about something that doesn't exist.

But the lie is about to grow to massive proportions --- and the game
is about to get very serious indeed.

In December of this year Bill Clinton will travel to Kyoto, Japan to
sign a legally-binding United Nations treaty called the Climate Change
Protocol.

The sole argument for this treaty is that Global Warming is a fact and
we must take severe action to stop it.

Right now the Clinton Administration is bombarding the airwaves with
the sales pitch. Conferences are being held in cities across the
country. Special reports, magazine articles and documentaries are all
being used to pound home the message - global warming is here - we
must stop it.

But the most offensive assault on the expression of free thought by
the American people, as the Administration drives to sell you this
snake oil, was committed by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. Babbitt
said that anyone opposed to the fight to stop Global Warming was
"unAmerican."

He accused those opposed to the Climate Change Treaty of engaging in a
"conspiracy to hire pseudo scientists to deny the facts." So now,
according to Babbitt, to disagree with the Clinton Administration is
tantamount to treason.

In fact the Climate Change Protocol is a legally binding international
treaty through which signing nations agree to cut back their energy
emissions to 15 percent below 1990 levels. And the treaty says this
goal is to be accomplished by as early as the year 2010.

That means that all of the energy growth since 1990 would be rolled
back, plus 15 percent more in just twelve years.

Yes, there are negotiations, debates and arguments taking place over
the exact terms of the treaty as we speak. Perhaps the final version
won't be so severe.

But it doesn't matter. Such a massive disruption in the American
economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the
environment, will devastate this nation.

To meet such drastically-reduced energy standards will, in the short
run, cost the United States over one million jobs. Some estimate it
will cost over seven million jobs in 14 years. If the treaty sends the
economy into a tailspin, as many predict, it will cost even more jobs.

It will cost the average family $1,000 to $4,000 dollars per year in
increased energy costs. The cost of food will skyrocket.

It has been estimated that in order for the United States to meet such
a goal the U.S. gross domestic product will be reduced by $200 billion
- annually.

To force down energy use the Federal government will have to enforce a
massive energy tax that will drive up the cost of heating your home by
as much as 30 to 40 percent.

In all likelihood there will be a tax on gasoline - as high as 60
cents per gallon.

There will be consumption taxes and carbon taxes.

The purpose of these punitive costs is to drive up the cost of modern
living in order to force you to drastically change your lifestyle.
That is the diabolical plan behind this restructuring scheme.

Every single product that is produced with the use of energy will
increase in price. Including items like aspirin, contact lenses and
tooth paste.

Yet just recently Bill Clinton said that compliance with the treaty
would not hurt the economy. He said he can "grow the economy and do
right by the environment."

The truth is, to date, the Clinton administration has refused to
release an economic impact analysis of the effects of the treaty.

But a leaked study by the Department of Energy's Argonne Laboratory
finds that the treaty will cripple six U.S. industries including
paper, steel, petroleum refining, chemical manufacturing, aluminum and
cement. That about sums up the economy.

When Clinton is through complying with the treaty you may find
yourself sitting in a dark house after lights have been ordered off
early in the evening, unable to drive your car because of gas
shortages, unable to walk to the shopping mall because stores will be
ordered closed after dark, even if you have a job and money to spend.

GLOBAL RAID ON AMERICAN WEALTH

But perhaps you still are not convinced. Maybe you still cling to the
idea that such drastic action is necessary - that our president and
the UN delegates are really in a panic over global warming and are
trying to find a solution.

Then ask yourselves why the treaty will only bind developed nations to
its draconian emission levels.

You see, only developed industrial nations will be bound by the
treaty.

Undeveloped Third-World nations will be free to produce whatever they
want. These will include China, India, Brazil and Mexico. And guess
what? 82% of the projected emissions growth in coming years is from
these countries.

Now ask yourself, if the Climate Change Protocol is all about
protecting the environment - then how come it doesn't cover everybody?
The truth, of course, is that the treaty is really about
redistribution of the wealth.

The wealth of the United States is and has always been the target. The
new scheme to grab the loot is through environmental scare tactics.

If, today, you were to attend a UN session on the Climate Change
Protocol you would find yourself in a discussion with excited
delegates from Third-World countries. They would make comments to you
like, "when the technology transfer takes place my country will begin
producing this or that item."

Translation - when the United States is stupid enough to fall for this
scheme, the third world will take up the slack and get rich.

And international corporations, who owe allegiance to no nation, will
bolt America and move their factories, lock, stock and computer chip,
to those Third-World countries where they will be free to carry on
production.

But that means the same emissions will be coming out of the jungles of
South America instead of Chicago.

So where is the protection of the environment? You see it's not about
that - is it?

Still not convinced? One more thing. Hidden in the small print of the
treaty is a provision that calls for the "harmonizing of patent laws."

Now, robbing a nation of its patent protection is an interesting
tactic for protecting the environment, don't you think?

CAN IT BE STOPPED?

Bill Clinton, pushed by Al Gore and the massive green lobby, is
determined to sign that treaty. The war has been engaged.

Industry is finally beginning to wake up to the terrifying threat of
the green monster that it helped to create. For the past three decades
industry has given into every outrageous green demand. And it has
fueled the monster by filling green coffers with massive tax-
deductible donations. Now industry finds itself trapped.

But more frightening is the fact that many prominent proponents of
property rights and limited government still fail to see the danger in
the treaty. Many say the Senate will never ratify such a treaty.

They point out that, in a vote of 95-0, the U.S. Senate rejected in a
"non-binding" resolution the Climate Change Protocol. That
overwhelming vote, they say, will stop Clinton in his tracks.

That resolution was presented by Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia.
He, along with Congressman John Dingle of Michigan have led the
opposition against the treaty. Republican leadership, so far, has been
silent.

It is, of course, commendable that Senator Byrd and Congressman Dingle
have taken the lead to do "something" to protect American interests.
But both of them are established liberal Democrats, who have based
their opposition solely on the fact that only industrial nations are
tied to the treaty.

That's not fair, they say, and so they oppose the treaty - "as now
written." Apparently they are taking the stand that if America must be
enslaved, then it's only fair that the rest of the world share our
misery.

Not once have they said the whole concept is wrong. Not once have they
challenged the validity of the science that is based on the supposed
fact of global warming.

Is this then the wall of defense that we are to hide behind? Are we
now to entrust the very future of our Republic onto the shoulders of
Senator Byrd and Congressman Dingle? That appears to be the current
wisdom of our leaders on Capitol Hill.

Wary Americans, of course, know what will happen next. The story is
all too familiar. Very soon Clinton will summon Byrd and Dingle to the
White House and offer them a compromise. Then everyone will smile for
the cameras and the Republicans, in the spirit of bipartisanship, will
give away the store. In fact, that process has already begun.

So Bill Clinton is moving full-speed-ahead with his plan to travel to
Kyoto, Japan this December to sign the Climate Change Protocol. When
he does, and after the Senate has ratified it, the final blow will
have been struck.

The United States of America will begin a long, agonizing decent -
strangled by its own hand.

The question now is; can it be stopped? And more importantly, will we
even try.$ e target. The new scheme to grab the loot is through
environmental scare tactics.
 
On Mar 21, 5:42 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:

Cuz <snipped nonsense>

cracks you over the head

You, Al Gore and anyone that pushes the propaganda / lies of "global
warming" are all lying sacs of wretched ****.

so please SHUT your toxic ****ing ****hole--LOL--something that is
pumping more pollution into the atmosphere than all the cars in the
USA combined.

****ing idiot.
 
OK... so next time somebody wants to discuss global warming, I'll tell
him/her that some character called AirRaid on the Usenet says there is no
such thing as global warming. That will automatically cut off all
discussion on the subject.



--
Lubow
"AirRaid" <AirRaid1500@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174512801.354139.318170@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> http://tinyurl.com/2juhfh
>
> There is No Global Warming
>
> There is no global warming. Period.
>
> You can't find a real scientist anywhere in the world who can look you
> in the eye and, without hesitation, without clarification, without
> saying, kinda, mighta, sorta, if, and or but...say "yes, global
> warming is with us."
>
> There is no evidence whatsoever to support such claims. Anyone who
> tells you that scientific research shows warming trends - be they
> teachers, news casters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or
> Presidents - is wrong. There is no global warming.
>
> Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon
> measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling - very
> slightly - .037 degrees Celsius.
>
> A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out.
> For example, in 1936 the Midwest of the United States experienced 49
> consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another
> 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was only one day over
> 90 degrees and in 1997 only 5 days.
>
> Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling" trend
> has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years.
> Ironically, that's the same period of time the hysteria has grown over
> dire warnings of "warming."
>
> Changes in global temperatures are natural. There is no proof that
> temperature is affected by anything that man has done.
>
> In fact, recent severe weather has been directly attributed to a
> natural phenomenon that occurs every so often called El Nino. It
> causes ocean temperatures to rise as tropical trade winds actually
> reverse for a time.
>
> The resulting temperature changes cause severe storms, flooding and
> even draught on every continent on earth.
>
> It's completely natural. El Nino has been wreaking its havoc across
> the globe since long before man appeared.
>
> How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting?
>
> Well, yes it is. In fact, it has been for about a million years or so.
> We are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North
> American and Northern Europe.
>
> There's at least one environmentalist, named Al Gore, who is panicking
> over the possibility that we may soon lose Glacier National Park in
> Montana because the ice is melting.
>
> One hates to tell him that we've already lost the glacier that used to
> cover the whole country.
>
> Perhaps he'll want to start working for new regulations from the
> Interior Department to begin immediately restoring this lost
> historical environmental treasure. Re-establishing a sheet of ice
> covering the entire continent would certainly serve to stop mining,
> timber cutting and urban sprawl.
>
> The truth is, someday humans may be able to take tropical vacations at
> the North Pole - and it will be perfectly natural.
>
> Yet our world is being flooded with the dire predictions of Global
> Warming.
>
> We are being warned of killer heat waves, vast flooding and the spread
> of tropical diseases. Ocean levels are rising, they say. America's
> coast lines are doomed, they tell us. Hurricanes and tornadoes have
> already become more violent, we are warned. Floods and droughts have
> begun to ravage the nation, they cry.
>
> Any change in temperatures, or an excessive storm or extended flooding
> is looked upon as a sure sign that environmental Armageddon is upon
> us. Diabolical environmentalists are using the natural El Nino
> phenomenon to whip people into a Global Warming hysteria.
>
> TWO KINDS OF SCIENTISTS
>
> We are assured by the White House that scientists everywhere are
> sounding these warmings and that we may only have one chance to stop
> it.
>
> Well, as the debate rages, we find that there really are two kinds of
> "scientists."
>
> There are those who look at facts and make their judgements based on
> what they know.
>
> Their findings can be matched by any other scientist, using the same
> data and set of circumstances to reach the same conclusions. It's a
> age-old practice called peer reviewing. It's the only true science.
>
> And then there are those who yearn for a certain outcome and set about
> creating the needed data to make it so. Usually you will find this
> group of scientists greatly dependent on grants supplied by those with
> a specific political agenda who demand desired outcomes for their
> money.
>
> Let's just take NASA, for example - the most trusted name in American
> science.
>
> A lot of NASA scientists have fallen into this trap. Environmental
> science has become the life-blood of the space program as the nation
> has lost interest in space travel. To keep the bucks coming, NASA has
> justified shuttle trips through the use of earth-directed
> environmental research. And the budgets keep coming.
>
> At the same time, many of NASA's scientists come with a political
> agenda in great harmony with those who advocate the green agenda. And
> they're not above using their position to aid that agenda whenever the
> chance is available.
>
> This was never more clearly demonstrated than in 1992 when a team of
> three NASA scientists were monitoring conditions over North America to
> determine if the Ozone layer was in danger.
>
> Inconclusive data indicated that conditions might be right for ozone
> damage over North America, if certain things happened.
>
> True scientists are a careful lot. They study, they wait and, many
> times they test again before drawing conclusions.
>
> Not so, the green zealot. Of this three-member NASA team, two could
> not be sure of what they had found and wanted to do more research.
>
> But one took the data and rushed to the microphones, with all of the
> drama of a Hollywood movie, announced in hushed tones that NASA had
> discovered an Ozone hole over North America.
>
> Then Senator Al Gore rushed to the floor of the Senate with the news
> and drove a stampede to immediately ban freon - five years before
> Congress had intended - and without a suitable substitute. He then
> bullied President George Bush to sign the legislation by saying the
> Ozone hole was over Kennebunkport - Bush's vacation home.
>
> Two months later NASA announced, on the back pages of the newspapers,
> that further research had shown that there was no such damage. But it
> was too late. Remember that when you have to buy a new air conditioner
> or refrigerator for no reason other than your freon has run out of the
> old one.
>
> FLAWED COMPUTER MODELS
>
> Then there are those computer models. Night after night Americans
> watch the local news as the weatherman predicts what kind of a day
> tomorrow will be. These meteorologists, using the most up-to-date
> equipment available, boldly give you the five-day forecast.
>
> But it's well known that, even with all of their research and
> expensive equipment, it really is just a "best guess." There are just
> too many variables. If the wind picks up here it could blow in a
> storm, if the temperature drops here it could start to snow. The earth
> is a vast and wondrous place. Weather does what it wants.
>
> Yet those who are promoting the global-warming theory have the
> audacity to tell you they can forecast changes in the global climate
> decades into the future.
>
> The truth is computer models are able to include only two out of 14
> components that make up the climate system. To include the third
> component would take a computer a thousand times faster than we now
> have. To go beyond the third component requires an increase in
> computer power that is so large only mathematicians can comprehend the
> numbers.
>
> Moreover, even if the computer power existed, scientists do not
> understand all the factors and the relationships between them that
> determine the global climate.
>
> So it's an outrage for Al Gore, Bill Clinton and the Sierra Club to
> tell you that Global Warming is a fact and that we Americans must now
> suffer dire changes in our lifestyle to stop it.
>
> SCIENTISTS ARE NOT ON AL'S BAND WAGON
>
> And so too is it an outrage for Al Gore to tell you that most true
> scientists now agree that global warming is a fact.
>
> What he doesn't tell you is that almost 500 scientists from around the
> world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992 just prior to the Earth
> Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the
> delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global
> warming. Today that figure has grown to over 4000.
>
> He also doesn't tell you that recently a Gallup Poll of eminent North
> American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them debunked the
> global warming theory.
>
> And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report
> at the end of 1996 saying Global Warming was a fact, yet before
> releasing the report two key paragraphs were deleted from the final
> draft.
>
> Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual
> scientific analysis said:
>
> 1. "none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we
> can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse
> gases."
>
> 2. "no study to date has positively attributed all or part of the
> climate change to ...man-made causes."
>
> Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of
> the world - bar none.
>
> THE CLIMATE CHANGE PROTOCOL
>
> Those who have been fighting against the green agenda have been
> warning that modern-day environmentalism has nothing whatsoever to do
> with protecting the environment.
>
> Rather it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the
> world economies, dictate development and redistribute the world's
> wealth.
>
> They use the philosophical base of Karl Marx, the tactics of Adolph
> Hitler and the rhetoric of the Sierra Club.
>
> The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid
> environmentalists.
>
> School children have been told that recycling is a matter of life and
> death.
>
> Businesses have been shut down. Valuable products like freon have been
> removed from the market. Chemicals and pesticides that helped to make
> this nation the safest and healthiest in the world are targeted for
> extinction.
>
> Our entire nation is being restructured to fit the proper green mold.
> All of it for a lie about something that doesn't exist.
>
> But the lie is about to grow to massive proportions --- and the game
> is about to get very serious indeed.
>
> In December of this year Bill Clinton will travel to Kyoto, Japan to
> sign a legally-binding United Nations treaty called the Climate Change
> Protocol.
>
> The sole argument for this treaty is that Global Warming is a fact and
> we must take severe action to stop it.
>
> Right now the Clinton Administration is bombarding the airwaves with
> the sales pitch. Conferences are being held in cities across the
> country. Special reports, magazine articles and documentaries are all
> being used to pound home the message - global warming is here - we
> must stop it.
>
> But the most offensive assault on the expression of free thought by
> the American people, as the Administration drives to sell you this
> snake oil, was committed by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. Babbitt
> said that anyone opposed to the fight to stop Global Warming was
> "unAmerican."
>
> He accused those opposed to the Climate Change Treaty of engaging in a
> "conspiracy to hire pseudo scientists to deny the facts." So now,
> according to Babbitt, to disagree with the Clinton Administration is
> tantamount to treason.
>
> In fact the Climate Change Protocol is a legally binding international
> treaty through which signing nations agree to cut back their energy
> emissions to 15 percent below 1990 levels. And the treaty says this
> goal is to be accomplished by as early as the year 2010.
>
> That means that all of the energy growth since 1990 would be rolled
> back, plus 15 percent more in just twelve years.
>
> Yes, there are negotiations, debates and arguments taking place over
> the exact terms of the treaty as we speak. Perhaps the final version
> won't be so severe.
>
> But it doesn't matter. Such a massive disruption in the American
> economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the
> environment, will devastate this nation.
>
> To meet such drastically-reduced energy standards will, in the short
> run, cost the United States over one million jobs. Some estimate it
> will cost over seven million jobs in 14 years. If the treaty sends the
> economy into a tailspin, as many predict, it will cost even more jobs.
>
> It will cost the average family $1,000 to $4,000 dollars per year in
> increased energy costs. The cost of food will skyrocket.
>
> It has been estimated that in order for the United States to meet such
> a goal the U.S. gross domestic product will be reduced by $200 billion
> - annually.
>
> To force down energy use the Federal government will have to enforce a
> massive energy tax that will drive up the cost of heating your home by
> as much as 30 to 40 percent.
>
> In all likelihood there will be a tax on gasoline - as high as 60
> cents per gallon.
>
> There will be consumption taxes and carbon taxes.
>
> The purpose of these punitive costs is to drive up the cost of modern
> living in order to force you to drastically change your lifestyle.
> That is the diabolical plan behind this restructuring scheme.
>
> Every single product that is produced with the use of energy will
> increase in price. Including items like aspirin, contact lenses and
> tooth paste.
>
> Yet just recently Bill Clinton said that compliance with the treaty
> would not hurt the economy. He said he can "grow the economy and do
> right by the environment."
>
> The truth is, to date, the Clinton administration has refused to
> release an economic impact analysis of the effects of the treaty.
>
> But a leaked study by the Department of Energy's Argonne Laboratory
> finds that the treaty will cripple six U.S. industries including
> paper, steel, petroleum refining, chemical manufacturing, aluminum and
> cement. That about sums up the economy.
>
> When Clinton is through complying with the treaty you may find
> yourself sitting in a dark house after lights have been ordered off
> early in the evening, unable to drive your car because of gas
> shortages, unable to walk to the shopping mall because stores will be
> ordered closed after dark, even if you have a job and money to spend.
>
> GLOBAL RAID ON AMERICAN WEALTH
>
> But perhaps you still are not convinced. Maybe you still cling to the
> idea that such drastic action is necessary - that our president and
> the UN delegates are really in a panic over global warming and are
> trying to find a solution.
>
> Then ask yourselves why the treaty will only bind developed nations to
> its draconian emission levels.
>
> You see, only developed industrial nations will be bound by the
> treaty.
>
> Undeveloped Third-World nations will be free to produce whatever they
> want. These will include China, India, Brazil and Mexico. And guess
> what? 82% of the projected emissions growth in coming years is from
> these countries.
>
> Now ask yourself, if the Climate Change Protocol is all about
> protecting the environment - then how come it doesn't cover everybody?
> The truth, of course, is that the treaty is really about
> redistribution of the wealth.
>
> The wealth of the United States is and has always been the target. The
> new scheme to grab the loot is through environmental scare tactics.
>
> If, today, you were to attend a UN session on the Climate Change
> Protocol you would find yourself in a discussion with excited
> delegates from Third-World countries. They would make comments to you
> like, "when the technology transfer takes place my country will begin
> producing this or that item."
>
> Translation - when the United States is stupid enough to fall for this
> scheme, the third world will take up the slack and get rich.
>
> And international corporations, who owe allegiance to no nation, will
> bolt America and move their factories, lock, stock and computer chip,
> to those Third-World countries where they will be free to carry on
> production.
>
> But that means the same emissions will be coming out of the jungles of
> South America instead of Chicago.
>
> So where is the protection of the environment? You see it's not about
> that - is it?
>
> Still not convinced? One more thing. Hidden in the small print of the
> treaty is a provision that calls for the "harmonizing of patent laws."
>
> Now, robbing a nation of its patent protection is an interesting
> tactic for protecting the environment, don't you think?
>
> CAN IT BE STOPPED?
>
> Bill Clinton, pushed by Al Gore and the massive green lobby, is
> determined to sign that treaty. The war has been engaged.
>
> Industry is finally beginning to wake up to the terrifying threat of
> the green monster that it helped to create. For the past three decades
> industry has given into every outrageous green demand. And it has
> fueled the monster by filling green coffers with massive tax-
> deductible donations. Now industry finds itself trapped.
>
> But more frightening is the fact that many prominent proponents of
> property rights and limited government still fail to see the danger in
> the treaty. Many say the Senate will never ratify such a treaty.
>
> They point out that, in a vote of 95-0, the U.S. Senate rejected in a
> "non-binding" resolution the Climate Change Protocol. That
> overwhelming vote, they say, will stop Clinton in his tracks.
>
> That resolution was presented by Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia.
> He, along with Congressman John Dingle of Michigan have led the
> opposition against the treaty. Republican leadership, so far, has been
> silent.
>
> It is, of course, commendable that Senator Byrd and Congressman Dingle
> have taken the lead to do "something" to protect American interests.
> But both of them are established liberal Democrats, who have based
> their opposition solely on the fact that only industrial nations are
> tied to the treaty.
>
> That's not fair, they say, and so they oppose the treaty - "as now
> written." Apparently they are taking the stand that if America must be
> enslaved, then it's only fair that the rest of the world share our
> misery.
>
> Not once have they said the whole concept is wrong. Not once have they
> challenged the validity of the science that is based on the supposed
> fact of global warming.
>
> Is this then the wall of defense that we are to hide behind? Are we
> now to entrust the very future of our Republic onto the shoulders of
> Senator Byrd and Congressman Dingle? That appears to be the current
> wisdom of our leaders on Capitol Hill.
>
> Wary Americans, of course, know what will happen next. The story is
> all too familiar. Very soon Clinton will summon Byrd and Dingle to the
> White House and offer them a compromise. Then everyone will smile for
> the cameras and the Republicans, in the spirit of bipartisanship, will
> give away the store. In fact, that process has already begun.
>
> So Bill Clinton is moving full-speed-ahead with his plan to travel to
> Kyoto, Japan this December to sign the Climate Change Protocol. When
> he does, and after the Senate has ratified it, the final blow will
> have been struck.
>
> The United States of America will begin a long, agonizing decent -
> strangled by its own hand.
>
> The question now is; can it be stopped? And more importantly, will we
> even try.$ e target. The new scheme to grab the loot is through
> environmental scare tactics.
>
 
On Mar 21, 1:53 pm, "AirRaid" <airraid.mach...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 21, 5:42 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>
> Cuz <snipped nonsense>
>
> cracks you over the head
>
> You, Al Gore and anyone that pushes the propaganda / lies of "global
> warming" are all lying sacs of wretched ****.
>
> so please SHUT your toxic ****ing ****hole--LOL--something that is
> pumping more pollution into the atmosphere than all the cars in the
> USA combined.
>
> ****ing idiot.


Airraid...
Stifle the sirens already.

Read this following article for educational purposes, and then tell me
if the trees are...
- Moving north to get away from DHS Chertoff
- Moving north because it is warmer
- Moving north just to trick you

"Surprising New Arctic Inhabitants: Trees
By Andrea Thompson
LiveScience Staff Writer posted: 09 March 2007 09:38 am ET

Rising temperatures fueled by global warming are causing forests of
spruce trees to invade Arctic tundra faster than scientists originally
thought, evicting and endangering the species that dwell there and
only there, a new study concludes.

Tundra is land area where tree growth is inhibited by low temperatures
and a short growing season. In the Arctic, the tundra is dominated by
permafrost, a layer of permanently frozen subsoil.

Hot Topic
Goldilocks and the Greenhouse
What makes Earth habitable? This LiveScience original video explores
the science of global warming and explains how, for now, conditions
here are just right.

The only vegetation that can grow in such conditions are grasses,
mosses and lichens. Forests of spruce trees and shrubs neighbor these
tundra areas, and the boundary where they meet is called the treeline.

In summer, the permafrost thaws, and the tundra becomes covered in
bogs and lakes, allowing a unique habitat for plants. Climate change,
meanwhile, has extended the summer warming season and promoted tree
growth, causing the treeline to encroach on the tundra.

By looking at tree rings, researchers reconstructed a 300-year history
of tree density and treeline position. The results show trees can
creep up on the tundra faster than previously thought.

"The conventional thinking on treeline dynamics has been that advances
are very slow because conditions are so harsh at these high latitudes
and altitudes," said Ryan Danby of the University of Alberta. "But
what our data indicates is that there was an upslope surge of trees in
response to warmer temperatures. It's like it waited until conditions
were right and then it decided to get up and run, not just walk."

While in many places the idea of more trees is a good one, this Arctic
takeover endangers species like caribou and sheep that thrive in the
tundra, as well as the native people who depend on these species for
their survival.

The details of the study are published in the March issue of the
Journal of Ecology. Danby plans to continue his research as a part of
the International Polar Year research effort."

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070309_tundra_takeover.html
 
On Mar 21, 5:04 pm, "lubow" <l...@lubow-industries.com> wrote:
> OK... so next time somebody wants to discuss global warming, I'll tell
> him/her that some character called AirRaid on the Usenet says there is no
> such thing as global warming. That will automatically cut off all
> discussion on the subject.
>
> --
> Lubow"AirRaid" <AirRaid1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174512801.354139.318170@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/2juhfh

>
> > There is No Global Warming

>
> > There is no global warming. Period.

>
> > You can't find a real scientist anywhere in the world who can look you
> > in the eye and, without hesitation, without clarification, without
> > saying, kinda, mighta, sorta, if, and or but...say "yes, global
> > warming is with us."

>
> > There is no evidence whatsoever to support such claims. Anyone who
> > tells you that scientific research shows warming trends - be they
> > teachers, news casters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or
> > Presidents - is wrong. There is no global warming.

>
> > Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon
> > measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling - very
> > slightly - .037 degrees Celsius.

>
> > A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out.
> > For example, in 1936 the Midwest of the United States experienced 49
> > consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another
> > 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was only one day over
> > 90 degrees and in 1997 only 5 days.

>
> > Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling" trend
> > has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years.
> > Ironically, that's the same period of time the hysteria has grown over
> > dire warnings of "warming."

>
> > Changes in global temperatures are natural. There is no proof that
> > temperature is affected by anything that man has done.

>
> > In fact, recent severe weather has been directly attributed to a
> > natural phenomenon that occurs every so often called El Nino. It
> > causes ocean temperatures to rise as tropical trade winds actually
> > reverse for a time.

>
> > The resulting temperature changes cause severe storms, flooding and
> > even draught on every continent on earth.

>
> > It's completely natural. El Nino has been wreaking its havoc across
> > the globe since long before man appeared.

>
> > How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting?

>
> > Well, yes it is. In fact, it has been for about a million years or so.
> > We are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North
> > American and Northern Europe.

>
> > There's at least one environmentalist, named Al Gore, who is panicking
> > over the possibility that we may soon lose Glacier National Park in
> > Montana because the ice is melting.

>
> > One hates to tell him that we've already lost the glacier that used to
> > cover the whole country.

>
> > Perhaps he'll want to start working for new regulations from the
> > Interior Department to begin immediately restoring this lost
> > historical environmental treasure. Re-establishing a sheet of ice
> > covering the entire continent would certainly serve to stop mining,
> > timber cutting and urban sprawl.

>
> > The truth is, someday humans may be able to take tropical vacations at
> > the North Pole - and it will be perfectly natural.

>
> > Yet our world is being flooded with the dire predictions of Global
> > Warming.

>
> > We are being warned of killer heat waves, vast flooding and the spread
> > of tropical diseases. Ocean levels are rising, they say. America's
> > coast lines are doomed, they tell us. Hurricanes and tornadoes have
> > already become more violent, we are warned. Floods and droughts have
> > begun to ravage the nation, they cry.

>
> > Any change in temperatures, or an excessive storm or extended flooding
> > is looked upon as a sure sign that environmental Armageddon is upon
> > us. Diabolical environmentalists are using the natural El Nino
> > phenomenon to whip people into a Global Warming hysteria.

>
> > TWO KINDS OF SCIENTISTS

>
> > We are assured by the White House that scientists everywhere are
> > sounding these warmings and that we may only have one chance to stop
> > it.

>
> > Well, as the debate rages, we find that there really are two kinds of
> > "scientists."

>
> > There are those who look at facts and make their judgements based on
> > what they know.

>
> > Their findings can be matched by any other scientist, using the same
> > data and set of circumstances to reach the same conclusions. It's a
> > age-old practice called peer reviewing. It's the only true science.

>
> > And then there are those who yearn for a certain outcome and set about
> > creating the needed data to make it so. Usually you will find this
> > group of scientists greatly dependent on grants supplied by those with
> > a specific political agenda who demand desired outcomes for their
> > money.

>
> > Let's just take NASA, for example - the most trusted name in American
> > science.

>
> > A lot of NASA scientists have fallen into this trap. Environmental
> > science has become the life-blood of the space program as the nation
> > has lost interest in space travel. To keep the bucks coming, NASA has
> > justified shuttle trips through the use of earth-directed
> > environmental research. And the budgets keep coming.

>
> > At the same time, many of NASA's scientists come with a political
> > agenda in great harmony with those who advocate the green agenda. And
> > they're not above using their position to aid that agenda whenever the
> > chance is available.

>
> > This was never more clearly demonstrated than in 1992 when a team of
> > three NASA scientists were monitoring conditions over North America to
> > determine if the Ozone layer was in danger.

>
> > Inconclusive data indicated that conditions might be right for ozone
> > damage over North America, if certain things happened.

>
> > True scientists are a careful lot. They study, they wait and, many
> > times they test again before drawing conclusions.

>
> > Not so, the green zealot. Of this three-member NASA team, two could
> > not be sure of what they had found and wanted to do more research.

>
> > But one took the data and rushed to the microphones, with all of the
> > drama of a Hollywood movie, announced in hushed tones that NASA had
> > discovered an Ozone hole over North America.

>
> > Then Senator Al Gore rushed to the floor of the Senate with the news
> > and drove a stampede to immediately ban freon - five years before
> > Congress had intended - and without a suitable substitute. He then
> > bullied President George Bush to sign the legislation by saying the
> > Ozone hole was over Kennebunkport - Bush's vacation home.

>
> > Two months later NASA announced, on the back pages of the newspapers,
> > that further research had shown that there was no such damage. But it
> > was too late. Remember that when you have to buy a new air conditioner
> > or refrigerator for no reason other than your freon has run out of the
> > old one.

>
> > FLAWED COMPUTER MODELS

>
> > Then there are those computer models. Night after night Americans
> > watch the local news as the weatherman predicts what kind of a day
> > tomorrow will be. These meteorologists, using the most up-to-date
> > equipment available, boldly give you the five-day forecast.

>
> > But it's well known that, even with all of their research and
> > expensive equipment, it really is just a "best guess." There are just
> > too many variables. If the wind picks up here it could blow in a
> > storm, if the temperature drops here it could start to snow. The earth
> > is a vast and wondrous place. Weather does what it wants.

>
> > Yet those who are promoting the global-warming theory have the
> > audacity to tell you they can forecast changes in the global climate
> > decades into the future.

>
> > The truth is computer models are able to include only two out of 14
> > components that make up the climate system. To include the third
> > component would take a computer a thousand times faster than we now
> > have. To go beyond the third component requires an increase in
> > computer power that is so large only mathematicians can comprehend the
> > numbers.

>
> > Moreover, even if the computer power existed, scientists do not
> > understand all the factors and the relationships between them that
> > determine the global climate.

>
> > So it's an outrage for Al Gore, Bill Clinton and the Sierra Club to
> > tell you that Global Warming is a fact and that we Americans must now
> > suffer dire changes in our lifestyle to stop it.

>
> > SCIENTISTS ARE NOT ON AL'S BAND WAGON

>
> > And so too is it an outrage for Al Gore to tell you that most true
> > scientists now agree that global warming is a fact.

>
> > What he doesn't tell you is that almost 500 scientists from around the
> > world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992 just prior to the Earth
> > Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the
> > delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global
> > warming. Today that figure has grown to over 4000.

>
> > He also doesn't tell you that recently a Gallup Poll of eminent North
> > American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them debunked the
> > global warming theory.

>
> > And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report
> > at the end of 1996 saying Global Warming was a fact, yet before
> > releasing the report two key paragraphs were deleted from the final
> > draft.

>
> > Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual
> > scientific analysis said:

>
> > 1. "none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we
> > can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse
> > gases."

>
> > 2. "no study to date has positively attributed all or part of the
> > climate change to ...man-made causes."

>
> > Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of
> > the world - bar none.

>
> > THE CLIMATE CHANGE PROTOCOL

>
> > Those who have been fighting against the green agenda have been
> > warning that modern-day environmentalism has nothing whatsoever to do
> > with protecting the environment.

>
> > Rather it is a political movement led by those who seek to

>
> ...
>
> read more
 
AirRaid wrote:

> On Mar 21, 5:42 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>
> Cuz <snipped nonsense>
>
> cracks you over the head


Ah, yes, the fascist violence thing.

> You, Al Gore and anyone that pushes the propaganda / lies of "global
> warming" are all lying sacs of wretched ****.


Ah yes, the fascist all science is bad thing.

> so please SHUT your toxic ****ing ****hole--LOL--something that is
> pumping more pollution into the atmosphere than all the cars in the
> USA combined.


Can you quantify that for us, in SI units of fascist kneejerks?

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
 
On Mar 21, 3:33 pm, "AirRaid" <AirRaid1...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>


>From the article:


++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You can't find a real scientist anywhere in the world who can look you
in the eye and, without hesitation, without clarification, without
saying, kinda, mighta, sorta, if, and or but...say "yes, global
warming is with us."

There is no evidence whatsoever to support such claims. Anyone who
tells you that scientific research shows warming trends - be they
teachers, news casters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or
Presidents - is wrong. There is no global warming.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is demonstrably false. Given the author's extreme carelessness,
or downright dishonesty here, why should anyone believe anything else
in this article?

Baldin Lee Pramer
 
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:38:06 -0600, kT wrote:

> AirRaid wrote:
>
>> On Mar 21, 5:42 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>>
>> Cuz <snipped nonsense>
>>
>> cracks you over the head

>
> Ah, yes, the fascist violence thing.
>
>> You, Al Gore and anyone that pushes the propaganda / lies of "global
>> warming" are all lying sacs of wretched ****.

>
> Ah yes, the fascist all science is bad thing.
>
>> so please SHUT your toxic ****ing ****hole--LOL--something that is
>> pumping more pollution into the atmosphere than all the cars in the USA
>> combined.

>
> Can you quantify that for us, in SI units of fascist kneejerks?


14.7 TLE
 
Don't you know all the evils in the world are caused by a lack of
government funding?!? LOL Notice the big media ignores the fact that
Gore hasn't gotten the permission of the rest of the world as to whether
they want their thermostat turned down.

------------
Here's a 1 hour documentary on their plans for massive government
spending programs to cut global warming:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=286000425078890061

It lays out 5 basic plans:

1) Ocean going cloud salters - to make clouds more reflective.

2) Using rockets to put sulphur into the atmosphere to mimic the effect
of a volcano on global temperatures.

3) Space based sun shades - (and if it backfires, an even bigger program
to undo it)

4) Plankton feeding - to make ocean organisms eat more CO2.

5) Huge artificial trees - to absorb CO2 out of the air.

arblcle on the show:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/6369971.stm
------------
75 min documentary:
The Great Global Warmin Swindle

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4340135300469846467
 
In article <1174514019.210049.10150@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
"AirRaid" <airraid.mach2.5@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 21, 5:42 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>
> Cuz <snipped nonsense>
>
> cracks you over the head
>
> You, Al Gore and anyone that pushes the propaganda / lies of "global
> warming" are all lying sacs of wretched ****.



Wrong, wrong, wrong. There IS global warming, it's just that aLBore and
John Edwards are immune to it. They're fully entitled to produce more
than ten people's share of carbon dioxide because they're rich and can
afford to buy indulgences while telling the average working joe that
he's got to cut back. Quite DemocRATic of them.
 
Back
Top