CrazyConservative

Once, again Al Gore is caught in a lie. This time, he said "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

The problem is, not only is this data not fresh, even the scientist attributed with saying it says he is factually wrong, "It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...

This story follows close on the heals of his previous lies. He recently said in an interview that the earth's core is "several millions degrees" (not even close), and that the climate gate e-mails were all from 10 years ago (e-mails in climate gate are dated as of Nov 2009).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/16/gore-has-no-...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/al-gore-cant...

So the real question is, is Al Gore a habitual liar, or just plain stupid?

And the final question, who would be dumb enough to listen to this guy?

I am mystified why AGW proponents use the following answers as valid.

1. It was paid for by big oil, there for it is not acceptable. Sorry, but that answer goes to ANY study. they are all paid for by someone with an agenda. The data is the only thing that matters.

2. The <fill in the blank> web site is known "deniers" so can not be trusted. Again, it all has to do with the data, not the source. If not for many of these websites, then people would still be saying the hockey stick was a valid study.

3. I know the study was flawed, fraudulent, wrong, misguided, etc, but we know it is happening even if the study does not show it. WTF? If the study is any of the above, then we throw out the study and call the theory wrong. Some examples are the hockey stick, the fact that this is not the warmest climate in history, etc.

After the disaster unleashed by the climategate e-mails, will the population ever really trust "peer review"?

I have seen this temp graph before. If this temp study is true (and I have no reason to believe other wise) then saying we are at unprecedented temps is an outright lie. According to this temp graph, we are no where near the high temps, and more importantly, may be ripe to slide into very frigid weather.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick...

Suppose you smoked (yes, I know it is bad, but this is just theoretical) and a famous President (not to be named) told you that your cigarette smoke was killing others due to second hand smoke (please do not debate the dangers of 2nd hand smoke in answer). Then after telling you this and attempting to make you feel guilty because of your actions, this same president proceeded to light his own cigarette and blow smoke in your face. Would you accept this persons criticism and quit smoking (or any other behavior you personally enjoy, but others may not) or would you continue to live your own life and label this person a huge hypocrite?

Now let's look at the AGW scenario. We have famous people (politicians and actors) who fly in private jets, own multiple large mansions, drive in large cars, travel to far away destinations, and basically do every thing they want you to stop. Do you believe them or do you label them as the largest hypocrites known to man kind? Below is evidence of this behavior. My message to Al Gore any those hypocrites like him is, "Hey Al, how about my carbon footprint up your ___?"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/07/december-7th...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04...

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/al_g...

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gore-hits-the-waves-w...

Now that climate gate has hit the main stream, the AGW supporters are telling us that we can still trust the science, even though the scientist may be biased (and possibly fraudulent). Now, it appears that we can not trust the science, since the people in charge of the raw data, may be corrupting it. Are there any AGW supporters who can defend the adjustments made in this article?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-...

A new story is breaking that CRU data has been downloaded and appears to be very incriminating.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7801#comments

It will be fun watching the lefties try to cover this up. First they will attack the person who got access to the files, then they will go after Climate Audit, and finally, they will tell us that the cheating that has been going on is for a good cause and there for OK.

Everyone talks of portability in insurance, but why are we set on having the employer choose our health care? Should my employer choose my car or my house? The system is designed to have the employer choose the plan, but they have never asked me what I need. I pay about $6,000 on my employer 80/20. I would love to have a high deductible plan where I pay the 1st $10,000, then covered 100% after, but can not buy (wife with pre-existing). If this were an option, I could save about $3,600 per year. And I have never payed that much in any year for health care (except maybe kids birth). There is no reason the employer should take on this responsibility. The practice started back after WWII when the government had wage freezes. Employers could not give people raises, so they offered "perks" like health care to lure prospective employees. Unfortunately, like most things in government, once the catalyst (wage freeze) is removed, the results stick around (sort of like taxes on toll roads which were paid for decades ago).

If we really want to save money on health care (that's what this entire debate is about), then we should take responsibilty for our own insurance. This is the start.

How many lives could have been saved if we would have used even a portion of the $75 billion that has been used trying to prove AGW, to provide clean drinking water to poor nations?

Over $75 billion has been spent in an attempt to prove global warming is man's fault. To date, no scientific research has been able to pin the change in temp (whether up or down) to human activity (and this includes trying to intentionally fabricate reports). Imagine if even a portion of this money went instead to provide clean drinking water for the poorer nations? Millions could be saved next year alone, and every year after that. But instead, rich nations continue to pour money into "science" in an effort to prove man is evil and bad for the planet.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091119/ap_on_re_as/as...

1. Tort Reform (Loser Pays) - This is not a silver bullet, but it will reduce costs. Even Obama has acknowledged this. Losers of lawsuits pay the opposing sides legal bills.

2. Open up the market nationally – Allow consumers to buy insurance where ever they can get the best plan for their family, whether or not it is in their state.

3. Make consumers of health care responsible for purchasing insurance – There is no reason my employer should select my insurance plan. I should be responsible to purchase insurance just like I purchase my car or home insurance. Insurance companies should be accountable to me, not my employer. Currently, if I am unsatisfied, I have no where to go. To this end, employers can drop insurance plans for employees, but they must pass on the amount they used to pay for health care to the employee. This solution would also remove the issue of insurance portability whenever an employee leaves. Also, insurance companies can charge more for lifestyle behavior which is proven to be more risky (smoking, etc).

4. Tax deduction for individual buyers of insurance, but not for companies – Since employees will now be responsible for their own health care, they will receive the same tax benefits employers currently have.

5. Reduce government regulation – Government should not regulate what will and will not be covered. Consumers should be allowed to choose their specific coverage based on their family needs. Insurance companies should provide a wealth of options in order to capture more business. However, people need to realize they will not be covered for care they have not previously selected (same as home and car insurance).

6. Change the way consumers view insurance – Currently, consumers expect insurance to pay for all health care. Consumers have stopped price shopping because they only pay a small portion of the total cost. Consumers should expect to pay for routine or planned for events like check ups and pregnancy). Imagine if car insurance paid for gas, oil changes, and tire rotations. How much would car insurance go up every year? The way to hold prices down is by having the consumers of health care shop for the best value. To this end, hospitals and doctors should be prepared to give prices for specific procedures, just like car repair shops. These estimates are required after initial tests. Suppliers will also need to justify when the cost is more than the estimate.

7. Preexisting conditions – At an early age (once off parent’s insurance), allow anyone to purchase insurance irregardless of preexisting conditions. If they opt to not purchase insurance, they can be turned down at a later time for preexisting conditions. However, allow them to buy in later by paying a lump sum “buy in” amount to be determined by the free market. Thus, if I wait till I am 30 to buy insurance, maybe I need to pay $3,000 to buy in. If I am 50 before purchasing insurance, maybe I pay $10,000 buy in. Let the market decide. For those who choose not to buy insurance and become seriously ill, they will need to pay for any services they receive.

If your head is permanently stuck in the sand, you may have missed this article. I am not sure why this has not been covered on the nightly news..wait, oh yea, I do know why, they only run stories which promote AGW. More and more stories are surfacing which shows the benefit of warmer temps. The Romans knew it during the medieval optimum, and we have been lucky enough to benefit. Now if only the supporters would realize it.

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/full/25973/S...

Every time a new scientific study comes out that rejects the "Climate Change" theory, or, demonstrates a net positive gain because of "Climate Change", the supporters of AGW always have a "but" scenario. These scenarios always follow good news with predictions of doom and gloom. Not that these doom and gloom scenarios have occurred or are supported by any studies. No, they are just thrown out there in order to keep the lie going. Following is a perfect example. The article is about how the vegetation on the earth has increased 6% over the study period (from 80's to 90's). they also go over how the Amazon Rain Forest has increased, "Owing to the added sunshine, photosynthesis has been rampant. The Amazon basin accounts for 42 percent of the global increase in vegetation.." In a normal world without politics, people (specifically the lefties) would be dancing in the streets to learn that even with us cutting down vast tracks of trees, the rain forest is increasing. This is awesome news. BUT, hold your horses, the article then goes into how in the future, things MAY not be so good. At this point in the article, it really is not worth reading as there is ZERO scientific evidence to support the "but" scenario.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/06...

Because of this "But" phenomenon, I am now officially labeling anyone of these types of people "But Heads". This is not to be confused with the more common name associated with the pronunciation of the word "But" which refers to people's derriere.

So come on everyone, refer to the doom and gloom crowd as "But Heads".

We live in a dangerous world. Every year, natural disasters take a multitude of lives. And yet, we talk of changing the climate, but we never talk about spending trillions of dollars to stop these disasters that happen all the time.

On average, there are 90 deaths from lightning related accidents. Currently, no deaths can be attributed to global warming. Should we start spending trillions of dollars in an effort to eliminate all lightning strikes, or should we spend a fraction on educating people about lightning strikes?

A single tsunami from Dec 2004 caused an estimated 225,000 deaths in Sumatra alone. Currently, no deaths can be attributed to global warming. Should we start spending trillions of dollars in an attempt to control tsunamis, or should we focus our energy on detection and avoidance?

In 1985, a volcano released a mud flow which killed 25,000 people in Ruiz, Colombia. Should we spend our children's life savings trying to cap all volcanoes, or should we change our behavior to minimize the danger?

In 1976, a 7.5 magnitude earthquake in China killed 255,000 people. In 2005, a 7.6 earthquake killed 80,361 people in Pakistan. Should we spend trillions trying to eliminate the earthquakes, or should we spend a miniscule amount adapting to the dangerous planet we call Earth?

Why don't we spend the $75 billion spent trying to prove global warming (as yet an utter failure) on trying to stop these other disasters (yes, I know, it would be stupid. Now do you get my point?)

I keep hearing how skeptics are paid for by big oil. Just wondering if any skeptics here are paid for by big oil. And, if you work for big oil, e-mail me and we can set up some payment options.

Also, if taking funding from big oil negates the study, does this mean any money from government agencies like the IPCC must also be negated? It would seem so since the IPCC ONLY exists to prove AGW. If it was disproved today, the IPCC would be disbanded tomorrow. Mean while, big oil at least provides us with gas, oil, and an actual product which we all need.

This is one of the few open debates I have seen or read about. There are 8 parts to the debate. Please watch all if you are going to comment.

This is part 1. There are links to the other 7 on this page.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCGlcAfxNjI&feature...

I can only think that it is easier for guys to get dates if they say they feel AGW is killing us. With the piles of evidence against the theory, this really is the only thing I can think of which keeps the myth alive.

The reason we are in financial difficulties is because of 2 things.

1. Government required banks to extend loans to uncredit worthy people.

2. Fannie and Freddie allowed the poor credit people by buying the loans from the banks. The banks would not loan to uncredit worthy people because they do not want the risk. But because of fannie and freddie they could without taking on the risk (until they bought up the fannie/freddie prepackaged loans.

With the bail out, congress has perpetuated the practice of making bad loans. This means in 10 to 20 years, we will have a bigger bail out necessary than now. They should have let the banks go, and banks would again start loaning money to those who could pay.

Do those who support Obama really want socialism in this country? Just wondering, because a vote for Obama, is a vote for socialism, bigger government, less freedom.

The federal government has completely destroyed our schools. And yet, their only answer is to throw more and more money at the problem.

If they can not do a much more simple task of teaching, why would anyone think they can manage your health?

Call me old fashion, but does anyone actually read a book or do research any more? It seems most of the kids these days ask the question online and spit out someone else's work. Yep, the great strides our educational system has achieved. Thank god there are some of us old people still around to do the research for the younger kids today.

As a side note, I do expect to be foot noted in all these reports I have helped people write.