Alternative Power sources - Larry Elder: How to make Bush focus on global warming

Author

Larry Elder: How to make Bush focus on global warming

lkgeo1

2007-02-10, 1:25 pm

Larry Elder: How to make Bush focus on global warming
By LARRY ELDER
Syndicated columnist
Global warming alarmists - despite their best efforts - seem incapable
of convincing the Bush administration. So here's my suggestion. Make
the scientists tell the president that global warming turns people
gay.

The idea came to me after seeing a Super Bowl commercial for Snickers
and learning of the "controversy" that followed it. In the ad, two
guys chewing on either end of the candy bar inadvertently touch lips.
Shocked, they decide to do something "manly" and demonstrate their
heterosexuality. How? They pull down their shirts and rip off their
chest hairs. A pro-gay-rights group called the ad homophobic and
demanded the Snickers people stop showing it. Clearly America runs
rampant with gay-haters.

So, imagine if scientists simply told Bush that global warming made
people gay.

Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," scared more people
than the shower scene in Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho." The former vice
president tells us the debate is over within the scientific community
concerning the consequences of global warming. But the Bush
administration yawned. And just last week, something called the IPCC -
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - a group sponsored by the
United Nations, also sounded the alarm. But, again, the Bush
administration remains unconvinced.

But the gay thing might work. That is, assuming you can get everybody
on board. Unfortunately, some pesky, politically incorrect scientists
are telling the global-warming alarmists, "Calm down." Who are these
wing-nuts?

A professor of meteorology at MIT, Richard Lindzen, for example, says,
"I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark
closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves. And
there's a lot of confusion in this, and, you know, at the heart of it,
we're talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None
of it in the last eight years, by the way. ... [I]f there's anything
that there is a consensus on, [it is that we]will do very little to
affect climate. ... And I think future generations are not going to
blame us for anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths
of a degree panic us. And I think nobody is arguing about whether our
climate is changing. It's always changing. Sea level has been rising
since the end of the last ice age. The experts on it in the IPCC have
freely acknowledged there's no strong evidence it's accelerating."

Then there's Chris Landsea, the scientist who resigned from the IPCC
last year, accusing the organization of being "subverted, its
neutrality lost." "It is beyond me why my [IPCC]colleagues would
utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane
activity has been due to global warming," wrote Landsea. "My view is
that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC
and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific
understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change
science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public
policy."

What to do about the author of "The Andromeda Strain," Dr. Michael
Crichton? No climatology specialist, Crichton recently wrote a book of
fiction called "State of Fear." The protagonist challenges the
"conventional wisdom" of the global warming alarmists. In preparation
for his book, Crichton researched scientific literature on global
warming. His conclusion? A lot of it is hype. "I do claim that open
and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being
suppressed," writes Crichton. "Leading scientific journals have taken
strong editorial positions on the side of global warming, which, I
argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any
scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to
mute their expression. ... [T]he intermixing of science and politics
is a bad combination, with a bad history."

The alarmists want the United States to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol.
This requires spending gobs of money to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. But during the Clinton administration, the Senate voted
95-0 to refuse to ratify the Kyoto accord if it excluded emissions
from countries like China and India, which it did and still does.

Sixty Canadian scientists wrote a letter to their country's prime
minister, urging an "independent climate-science review," because
"billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the
[Kyoto]protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper
assessment of recent developments in climate science."

Others, like economist Julian Morris, suggest that spending all this
money on Kyoto impoverishes the planet with very little gain. "But the
same people who predict massive climate changes," says Morris, "also
predict that in order for those climate changes to occur, we would
have had enormous amounts of economic growth. So, the poorest people
in the world will no longer be poor. ... The reality is that in the
future, people will be wealthy enough to adapt to pretty much any
change that is likely to happen."

Confused? Me, too. So let's put all this uncertainty and speculation
to rest, and get moving: Global warming turns people gay.
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregiste...cle_1569112.php

Arnold Walker

2007-02-10, 5:25 pm

"lkgeo1" <lkgeo1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1171133228.051096.64770@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Larry Elder: How to make Bush focus on global warming
> By LARRY ELDER
> Syndicated columnist
> Global warming alarmists - despite their best efforts - seem incapable
> of convincing the Bush administration. So here's my suggestion. Make
> the scientists tell the president that global warming turns people
> gay.
>
> The idea came to me after seeing a Super Bowl commercial for Snickers
> and learning of the "controversy" that followed it. In the ad, two
> guys chewing on either end of the candy bar inadvertently touch lips.
> Shocked, they decide to do something "manly" and demonstrate their
> heterosexuality. How? They pull down their shirts and rip off their
> chest hairs. A pro-gay-rights group called the ad homophobic and
> demanded the Snickers people stop showing it. Clearly America runs
> rampant with gay-haters.
>
> So, imagine if scientists simply told Bush that global warming made
> people gay.
>
> Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," scared more people
> than the shower scene in Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho." The former vice
> president tells us the debate is over within the scientific community
> concerning the consequences of global warming. But the Bush
> administration yawned. And just last week, something called the IPCC -
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - a group sponsored by the
> United Nations, also sounded the alarm. But, again, the Bush
> administration remains unconvinced
And for good reason the IPCC is a 21page summary dome by UN polilticians.
(7 of them pages are charts and graphs....which makes for 14 pages of text.)
The actual 2100 page science report is not due to be out for another 3
months.
And from the sound of it. The IPCC summary is in conflict with the science
report that it was
supposed to be based on .Due dramatic liscense by some alarmist.
>
> But the gay thing might work. That is, assuming you can get everybody
> on board. Unfortunately, some pesky, politically incorrect scientists
> are telling the global-warming alarmists, "Calm down." Who are these
> wing-nuts?
>
> A professor of meteorology at MIT, Richard Lindzen, for example, says,
> "I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark
> closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves. And
> there's a lot of confusion in this, and, you know, at the heart of it,
> we're talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None
> of it in the last eight years, by the way. ... [I]f there's anything
> that there is a consensus on, [it is that we]will do very little to
> affect climate. ... And I think future generations are not going to
> blame us for anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths
> of a degree panic us. And I think nobody is arguing about whether our
> climate is changing. It's always changing. Sea level has been rising
> since the end of the last ice age. The experts on it in the IPCC have
> freely acknowledged there's no strong evidence it's accelerating."
>
> Then there's Chris Landsea, the scientist who resigned from the IPCC
> last year, accusing the organization of being "subverted, its
> neutrality lost." "It is beyond me why my [IPCC]colleagues would
> utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane
> activity has been due to global warming," wrote Landsea. "My view is
> that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC
> and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific
> understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change
> science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public
> policy."
Which in point of fact they did.......in total conflict with the science
report.
>
> What to do about the author of "The Andromeda Strain," Dr. Michael
> Crichton? No climatology specialist, Crichton recently wrote a book of
> fiction called "State of Fear." The protagonist challenges the
> "conventional wisdom" of the global warming alarmists. In preparation
> for his book, Crichton researched scientific literature on global
> warming. His conclusion? A lot of it is hype. "I do claim that open
> and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being
> suppressed," writes Crichton. "Leading scientific journals have taken
> strong editorial positions on the side of global warming, which, I
> argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any
> scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to
> mute their expression. ... [T]he intermixing of science and politics
> is a bad combination, with a bad history."
>
> The alarmists want the United States to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol.
> This requires spending gobs of money to reduce greenhouse gas
> emissions. But during the Clinton administration, the Senate voted
> 95-0 to refuse to ratify the Kyoto accord if it excluded emissions
> from countries like China and India, which it did and still does.
>
> Sixty Canadian scientists wrote a letter to their country's prime
> minister, urging an "independent climate-science review," because
> "billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the
> [Kyoto]protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper
> assessment of recent developments in climate science."
>
> Others, like economist Julian Morris, suggest that spending all this
> money on Kyoto impoverishes the planet with very little gain. "But the
> same people who predict massive climate changes," says Morris, "also
> predict that in order for those climate changes to occur, we would
> have had enormous amounts of economic growth. So, the poorest people
> in the world will no longer be poor. ... The reality is that in the
> future, people will be wealthy enough to adapt to pretty much any
> change that is likely to happen."
>
> Confused? Me, too. So let's put all this uncertainty and speculation
> to rest, and get moving: Global warming turns people gay.
Hell yeah ,that would make more sense than going with actual scientific info
that is coming out in a couple of months..
It would be conduct unbecoming a liberal to do otherwise.

>

----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

joe

2007-02-11, 3:25 am

"Arnold Walker" wrote

> Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," scared more people
> than the shower scene in Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho."

Jeremy Leggett's book 'Half Gone' is a lot more scary, especially if you
have money in the bank or invested in the share market but if you really
want to hairs to stand up on the back of your neck, how about 'Hegemony Or
Survival' by Noam Chomsky? Isn't he supposed to be one of the most lucid
human beings ever?

Anyone got a opinion on those two books?

Cheers, Joe

hallerb@aol.com

2007-02-11, 1:25 pm

BUSH IS TOO STUPID AND PIGHEADED to listen to ANYONE...

Our president is a MORON google moron and you will see what I mean!

LinkBot