Archive for al gore

Church of Climatology

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on July 3, 2017 by andelino

Democrats often “recommend” someone take away President Trump’s “cell phone” in order to “prevent” him from engaging in “unscripted” tweeting.

While that is not “necessary,” the same cannot be “said” for House Minority Leader Pelosi and a “live” microphone.”

Nancy invokes the “real” God in a “weak” defense of the Democrat’s religion of climatology, a sure sign that they’ve run out of “options” and their recognition that vague “alarmism” in pressing  their “wealth distribution” disguised as “environmentalism” agenda has failed them.

The same God who isn’t so “pleased” with her enabling the “murder” of unborn children as a “woman’s right” is now somehow the spokesperson for the “heathen” Democrats when it serves their “planetary” control through the “earth worship” agenda.

Pelosi says, “We have a moral responsibility to be good stewards of God’s creation and in doing so we must pay special attention to the needs of the poor.”

She got a “two-for one” in that, the facade of the “climate change” pretext combined with the “wealth redistribution” substance of the agreement.

She continued, “garbling” some of her words, describing it as an “environmental justice” issue as well as an “evangelical community” issue.

The “environmental justice” angle meant that failing “voluntarily” paying international “climate reparations,” disguised as an another form of  “wealth redistribution,” was the primary “content” of the Paris agreement.

Pelosi who knows nothing of “what she speaks” described the Pope talking of “air pollution” while visiting his globalist ally, the “impostor” Caliph Obama.

What does “air pollution have to do with CO2?”

She quotes the “globalist” Pope stating the obvious as if it is somehow “profound,” saying, “The climate is a common good belonging to all and meant for all.”

Pelosi goes on to quote the “evangelical community” issue by unwisely “fabricating” scripture as she pretends to “quote” God’s Word.

“The Bible tells us that to minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us. And that is just what we’re doing by walking away from the Paris accord.”

Good preachers cite “chapter and verse” when quoting scripture and they don’t “fabricate” Bible passages to suit their “political” goals.

Obviously, Nancy is not a “well versed preacher.”

She used that same “quote” on her religious holiday of “Earth Day, April 2008,” and was questioned on it then, since it appears “nowhere” in the Bible.

She never answered the questions then and is now “succumbing” to her mental “dementia” deterioration.

Consistent with Democrat “methodology,” vague fabrications are a Pelosi “trait,” while imagining what the Bible might “reveal” if she ever actually “opened and read” the scriptures.

She then goes on to make a “comment” that would, if she were capable of “shame,” really embarrass this “ignorant” liberal old hag.

“The question I have for Donald Trump as a mother and a grandmother of five and a grandmother of nine, how is he ever going to explain to his grandchildren what he did to the air they breathe, assuming they breathe air. And I have to assume that is the case, we all do, right?”

No, Nancy, wilting “vegetables” like you breathe “carbon dioxide,” and it’s the best “argument” made to date for “minimizing” those emissions.

Not to be outdone by “false” Preacher Pelosi, Climate “guru” and Internet “inventor” Al Gore told “Interview Magazine” that God didn’t “create” global warming but wants “him to fix it.”

Gore “equated” the fight against global warming to a “religious-based, moral crusade similar to the civil rights fight, women’s suffrage, and the abolitionist movement during the Civil War era.”

He insisted that it is a “moral imperative” to fight against climate change saying, “And if you are a believer, as I am, I think God intends for us to open our eyes and take responsibility for the moral consequences of our actions.”

Let me “boil” this down to the main question: Do we have a God “fearing” Al Gore, or do we have an Al Gore “fearing” God?

Or do they both “live in fear” of each other? And if so, who “fears whom more?”

Al Gore said he was “inaccurately” quoted. I did not say “God told me.” I said “I told God.” There’s an important “difference” since God listens to “me and not the other way around.”

That means that “Mother Earth” listens to me also. The “Trees” listen to me. The “Ants” listen to me. The “Cosmos” listens to me. And “Democrats” listen to me.

“Everyone” and “Everything listen to me “except” Polar Bears and Tipper.

Polar Bears used to “listen” to me, but when I “predicted” their extinction, they stupidly began “multiplying” and are now threatening to “extinct” baby seals.

Tipper stopped “listening” to me, after I asked a Portland OR “therapist” for back rubs and “penis” massages, and now she’s a “non-entity.”

But we must “ignore” the Polar Bears and Tipper because it’s “scientifically” proven that there are “heretics” in any scientifically “conclusively” proven religion.

Well, this should settle the ”Church of Climatology” religion.

God ‘Can Take Care of’ Climate Change
Al Gore Says God Told Him to Fight Global Warming
Pope Al Gore brings us a message from God!
Climate Alarmists: Abort Your ‘Extra’ Children
Science fights back against the global warming fraud


Meat or Insects

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , on May 19, 2017 by andelino

Eric Worrall at Watts Up With That? highlighted in a recent post a study “suggesting” people consume more “insects” as a way to cut “greenhouse gas emissions,” which some scientists believe are “responsible” for causing higher temperatures and all the alleged “harms” resulting from warmer climates.

The study, titled “Could Consumption of Insects, Cultured Meat or Imitation Meat Reduce Global Agricultural Land Use?,” was published on April 22 in the journal “Global Food Security.”

The researchers, all of whom come from Europe or Australia, wrote in their abstract, “Animal products, i.e. meat, milk and eggs, provide an important component in global diets, but livestock dominate agricultural land use by area and are a major source of greenhouse gases. Cultural and personal associations with animal product consumption create barriers to moderating consumption, and hence reduced environmental impacts.”

The researchers wrote one of their “goals” was to determine a way to “reduce” animals’ land use and “greenhouse gas emissions” by examining nutritious alternatives to “eating” animals, such as cows.

“The results suggest that imitation meat and insects have the highest land use efficiency, but the land use requirements are only slightly greater for eggs and poultry meat,” the researchers wrote.

“The efficiency of insects and their ability to convert agricultural by-products and food waste into food, suggests further research into insect production is warranted.”

“We conclude that although a diet with lower rates of animal product consumption is likely to create the greatest reduction in agricultural land, a mix of smaller changes in consumer behavior , such as replacing beef with chicken, reducing food waste and potentially introducing insects more commonly into diets, would also achieve land savings and a more sustainable food system.”

In its report of the researchers’ findings, an “unnamed” writer at wrote, “Replacing half of the meat eaten worldwide with crickets and meal worms would cut farmland use by a third, substantially reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.”

Cows have long been a target of “global warming alarmists,” who say they are one of the greatest “contributors” to climate change.

According to a United Nations 2011 report, livestock “methane” emissions, a scientific way of saying “animal farts”, accounted for 39 percent of all “greenhouse gas emissions” from agriculture, which itself made up a large “chunk” of the total emissions.

Even Barack Obama “chimed” in during the “Global Food Innovation Summit” in Milan, Italy were he “warned” the world that more people on the planet were “eating” meat, causing a dramatic rise in “climate” emissions.

During his roughly 100-minute “remarks” for which he received a “reported” $3,000,000, he talked about “himself” 216 times.

Obama said “I” 168 times, “me” or “my” 40 times, and said “we,” “us” or “our” referring to his family “8” times. They definitely got their money’s worth.

Thankfully Barry’s brain didn’t “short circuit” into a stuttering rampage, which “drugs” do when used long term.

“As people want to increase meat consumption, that in turn is spiking the growth of greenhouse emissions coming out of the agricultural sector,” Obama said, pointing to countries that were “consuming” more meat.

The former president “shared” his views about the growing “threat” during a conversation about “food” with his former chef Sam Kass at the food “innovation” summit.

“People aren’t as familiar with the impact of cows and methane,” Obama said, adding that “as people want to increase more meat consumption, that in turn is spiking the growth of greenhouse emissions coming out of the agricultural sectors.”

The amount of “cows,” Obama explained, were contributing to “global pollution,” alluding to the amounts of “methane gas” emissions from cow herds.

“No matter what, we are going to see an increase in meat consumption,” Obama said, pointing to “developing” economies in China, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam.

More “advanced” countries, Obama said, would have to teach people to “have a smaller steak” and explore “reductions” to their meat consumption.

“What it does mean is that we’re also going to have to find ways to produce protein in a more efficient way,” he said.

During the conversation, Obama “argued” with Kass about how many “steaks” he had cooked him. Kass said he probably cooked “thousands of steaks” for the president, but Obama “interrupted.”

“I don’t think, thousands,” he protested. “Well hundreds maybe,” Kass backtracked. “I’ve been cooking for you for 10 years.”

“What is true is that I’m not a vegetarian,” Obama admitted, adding that he “respected vegetarians” but continued to eat meat.

How would you like some “meal-worms and crickets” instead of a “burger” at your Memorial Day barbecue?

Climate change “activists” say humans should start eating “insects” as a way to eventually cut the world’s “meat” consumption by 50 percent.

Doing that, activists “argue,” would greatly reduce “greenhouse gas emissions” by livestock.

The report on stated: “Replacing half of the meat eaten worldwide with crickets and meal-worms would cut farmland use by a third, substantially reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, researchers say.”

While consumers’ “reluctance” to eat insects may limit their “consumption,” even a small increase would bring “benefits,” the team says. This could potentially be “achieved” by using insects as ingredients in some “pre-packaged” foods.

Tucker Carlson “weighed” in on his show, calling on “prominent” climate change activists “to go first.”

“If I’m gonna give up grilled meat for worms, I’ll need Leonardo DiCaprio to show the way. When Al Gore starts serving crickets for lunch on his private jet, I’m in,” he said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a “press” conference where he “called out” Barack Obama and the American “mainstream” media in a “brilliant” and much “deserved” way.

Obama: Eating Steaks Contributes to Climate Change
Obama Pitches Alternatives To Meat

Ten More Years

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on May 16, 2017 by andelino

In 1988 “Climate Czar” Gore told the world that “We only have ten years left to save the planet.”

In 1989 the United Nations “decreed” the same thing.

During the 2000 “election” season Climate Czar Gore who has “never been wrong,” issued a fatwa that “we only had ten years left to save the planet.”

In 2006, Climate Czar Gore “issued” another fatwa: “we only had ten years left to save the planet.”

Unfortunately, nobody “listened nor paid attention” to Climate Czar Gore’s “predictions.”

But now, we are told we only have “Ten Years to Save the Earth.”

Here’s a fun link listing the wrong apocalyptic predictions made at the first “Earth Day” in 1970.

In the latest radical climate “doom-saying,” a new report “warns” that fossil fuel consumption will need to be reduced “below a quarter of primary energy supply by 2100” to avoid possibly “disastrous effects on global temperatures.”

In their report, titled “Pathways for balancing CO2 emissions and sinks,” a team of eight scientists warns that “anthropogenic emissions need to peak within the next 10 years, to maintain realistic pathways to meeting the COP21 emissions and warming targets.”

The statement was immediately repackaged by environmentalists to read: “Scientists say we have ten years to save the earth.”

As is always the case in studies of this sort, the scientists “juggle” dozens of variables, none of which is entirely “predictable” and which taken together tell us virtually “nothing” about the future of the environment.

Although the scientists admit that “there are significant uncertainties associated with projecting energy consumption several decades into the future,” they fail to acknowledge a number of even greater “uncertainties” implicit in their calculations.

Despite their “valiant” efforts to produce trustworthy “projections,” the scientists rely on basic “presumptions” that are contested by extremely “capable” minds within their own field.

Dr. Duane Thresher, a climate scientist with a PhD. from Columbia University and NASA GISS, has stated bluntly that it is “mathematically impossible for climate models to predict climate.”

Appealing to corollaries of the well-known “Butterfly Effect,” Thresher said that long-term climate forecasting is “a quintessential example of this phenomenon” because of the elevated number of variables playing into climate phenomena.

“Climate models are just more complex/chaotic weather models,” Thresher has noted, “which have a theoretical maximum predictive ability of just 10 days into the future.”

“Predicting climate decades or even just years into the future is a lie, albeit a useful one for publication and funding,” he said.

Undaunted, the team of scientists has “declared” that achieving global, net decarbonization of human activities “would halt and even reverse anthropogenic climate change through the net removal of carbon from the atmosphere.”

Among the many “unproven” assumptions behind this assertion is the “implied” claim that human-induced climate change (itself a contested concept) is a function solely of “carbon emissions, such that “net decarbonization” would halt or reverse it.

Here the scientists state as “fact” what is by all accounts very much an “unproven” hypothesis.

In recent studies, plants have been found to adapt to a greater carbon concentration in the atmosphere, unexpectedly “accelerating” their ability to assimilate carbon, something “unaccounted” for in the new report.

Moreover, there is still significant “debate” within the scientific community regarding the precise relationship between “carbon presence in the atmosphere, global temperatures and the health of the planet.”

While this study takes for “granted” that carbon dioxide is an “evil” that must be severely “restricted,” other eminent scholars have suggested that the “contrary is true.”

One such scientist, Dr. William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, has “insisted” that the earth can handle substantially more “carbon dioxide” than is currently found in the atmosphere and would actually “benefit” from a higher concentration.

“We’ve heard that CO2 is a demon molecule that causes global warming,” Happer has stated, whereas in “reality” more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere produces increased “crop yields and a greener planet.”

According to Happer, an “increase” in carbon dioxide would “benefit” both plant life and human life.

Similarly, Dr. Indur Goklany, who has previously “represented” the United States on the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (IPCC), has asserted that the rising level of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere “is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally”.

“The benefits are real, whereas the costs of warming are uncertain,” he said in a 2015 paper titled “Carbon Dioxide: The Good News.”

It’s a good thing that the “Sheeple” have short memories. They might accuse us of “crying Wolf” or something.

As a rather “modest” student of Earth’s history, I’m “vexed, flummoxed, concerned and confused,” but mostly, I just don’t “trust” these climate scientists.

What “exactly” is the Earth’s normal “temperature” anyway? As far as I’m concerned the Earth’s “normal” temperature is 61F.

61F (16 C) is a lovely temperature “if” the humidity is low. Why does “no one” talk about humidity?

Everyone says, “it’s not the heat, it’s the humidity” and yet this issue “remains unresolved.

Did I get that “wrong?” Are they saying “something” else? Like, “it’s not the heat, it’s the stupidity.”

None other “but” NASA/GISS itself has an answer.

This is “undeniable,” scientific-consensus “proof” that the glorious world of “Ten More Years” is at hand.

Just “ten” more years.

Global warming: Science or dogma?
When climate change warriors can’t keep their stories straight
Climate “Science” Rocked By Another Scandal
100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering

Feminizing Glaciers

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on March 9, 2016 by andelino

What does “gender” theory have to do with “climate change” and the depiction of “glaciers” in popular culture?

You can decide for yourself by “reading” what must be the least “essential” paper ever written: “Glaciers, Gender, and Science—A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental climate change.”

The recently published, utterly “incomprehensible” paper was co-authored by a team of “historians” at the University of Oregon, and funded via a “grant” from the National Science Foundation.

I hope American “taxpayers” feel like they got their “money’s” worth.

From the abstract:

“Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.”

You are probably wondering whether I am “trolling” you. You might be checking the date to make sure this isn’t an “April Fool’s” joke.

Surely a “satirist” who set out to write a deliberate “parody” of left-wing papers using the jargon of the earnest “social justice warrior” could not have done a better job than a paper on “just and equitable human-ice interactions.”

But the paper is “real”—very real. The University of Oregon, in fact, put out a glowing press release touting its existence.

When UO historian Mark Carey hired Jaclyn Rushing, an undergraduate student in the Robert D. Clark Honors College, to explore how nongovernmental organizations were addressing “melting” Himalayan glaciers, he got an unexpected return.

Her dive into the literature found that women’s voices are “rarely” heard in glacier-related research, a finding that “triggered” a larger project and led to a paper now online ahead of print by the journal “Progress in Human Geography.”

Feminizing Glaciers 03

Jaclyn Rushing, an undergraduate student.

“Jaclyn found a report that noted how women are more vulnerable to glacier changes and hazards than are men,” said Carey, associate dean of the Clark Honors College and a professor of history and environmental studies.

“I had never researched these gendered vulnerabilities.”

That report linked “flooding” from a glacial lake with an increase of “sexually transmitted infections” in women. “I was fascinated by how two seemingly disparate issues could be so intimately linked through glacial ice,” Rushing said. “I wanted to know more about the relationship between women and ice, so we pursued the topic from climate-change vulnerability to knowledge.”

Expanding the investigation made sense, Carey said. “In disaster studies you always look at who is more vulnerable to hazards, and it’s usually the marginalized populations. It’s the poor groups, the underrepresented groups based on race and ethnicity, and gender has been discussed some in that.”

“What I’m trying to do in my research is provide more of a human story about how shrinking glaciers, warming temperatures, changing precipitation, how that plays out for different people,” said lead author Mark Carey, an associate dean of Oregon’s history department, in a interview accompanying the press release.

Feminizing Glaciers 01

I’m sure Carey is well-intentioned, but if his goal was to put a “human face” on climate change, he failed. The paper is simply impossible to “read” with a straight face.

It employs liberal buzzwords—“colonialism, marginalization, masculinist discourses, etc.”—with such frequency that the entire thing comes off like a “joke.”

Just try to follow along with this paragraph:

“Feminist and postcolonial theories enrich and complement each other by showing how gender and colonialism are co-constituted, as well as how both women and indigenous peoples have been marginalized historically (Schnabel, 2014). Feminist glaciology builds from feminist postcolonial science studies, analyzing not only gender dynamics and situated knowledge, but also alternative knowledge and folk glaciologist that are generally marginalized through colonialism, imperialism, inequality, unequal power relations, patriarchy, and the domination of Western science (Harding, 2009).”

Remember, this is a paper about how to “feminize a giant hunk of ice.”

Feminizing Glaciers 05

In his write-up of the study, Powerline’s Steven Hayward quips, “This is why you get Trump.” He’s not wrong. Disaffected college students are “rebelling” against the hegemonies of “leftist dogma and political correctness” that rule their campuses—and “Trump!” is, sadly, their rallying cry.

In a country where “working class” people are being “forced” to fund research on the “postcolonial gender theory of melting ice caps,” is it any wonder some of them are rooting for a “charismatic demagogue who promises to bully their tormentors?”

Feminizing Glaciers 02

Of course, “Climate Czar” Al Gore, the Scientist who “started it all,” has always been involved in “feminist glacier studies”

Feminizing Glaciers 06

Feds Paid $709,000 To Academic Who Studies The Sexism Behind Glaciers

Al Gore Apocalypse

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , on January 5, 2016 by andelino

Global Warming 02

As the global warming fraud continues to garner support from the world’s political leaders, who recently jetted to Paris by the hundreds to affirm their need to “seize control and tax the world’s use of energy,” the bogus nature of the “evidence” for it continues to be exposed.

It’s time to roll out Saul Alinsky’s Rule #5:

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.”

And who better to target than Al Gore, that “fat” profiteer, who has made a nine figure fortune off the “con game,” and who flies around in “private jets,” has multiple gigantic, “energy-sucking” houses, and is generally a pathetic “excuse for a seer.”

Global Warming 05

Back when the “fraud” was widely accepted, Al made a foolish “prediction” that Anthony Watts of is holding him to:

“On January 25th, 2006, while at the Sundance film festival, screening “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore said this as chronicled in an article by CBS News:

The former vice president came to town for the premiere of “An Inconvenient Truth,” a documentary chronicling what has become his crusade since losing the 2000 presidential election: Educating the masses that global warming is about to toast our ecology and our way of life.

Gore has been saying it for decades, since a college class in the 1960s convinced him that greenhouse gases from oil, coal and other carbon emissions were trapping the sun’s heat in the atmosphere, resulting in a glacial meltdown that could flood much of the planet.
Americans have been hearing it for decades, wavering between belief and skepticism that it all may just be a natural part of Earth’s cyclical warming and cooling phases.

And politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return, Gore said.

He sees the situation as “a true planetary emergency.”

“If you accept the truth of that, then nothing else really matters that much,” Gore said in an interview with The Associated Press. “We have to organize quickly to come up with a coherent and really strong response, and that’s what I’m devoting myself to.”

That’s it. Few weeks from tomorrow, it is “all over for us,” because CO2 emission have continued to grow. Watts deploys the scientific data showing that the “Gore Apocalypse” is not developing in surface temperatures, killer storms, and the other indicia of doom.

Make no mistake. If a prominent “conservative,” much less a former VP and GOP presidential candidate, had predicted “doom” by a certain date, the media would “dog” that person everywhere, asking where is the “apocalypse?”

Global Warming 04

Gore has been keeping a “low” profile of late. Perhaps he is “diving” into his money bin? Or getting hotel room massages?

Global Warming 03

I say let’s continue to “highlight the countdown.” We have only “until” January 25, 2016 before we all “burn in hell” according to Al.

Global Warming 06

Screams surround everything, anxiety-ridden fear
Hundred piled corpses
Mixed with those alive, a rotten mess
Penetrated by death

In sludge of body parts crawl those who still breathe
Cold dead corpses
Crushed beneath still screaming bodies
Bowels gushed from wounds

Scream into pools of blood
Floats into a sea of death

Dead or buried alive
The skin burst underground
Suffocated by a hundred corpses
Broken bodies decompose

Erased from mankind’s history
Shoveledinto mass graves
When the victim is sent to eternal sleep
Still colored by fresh blood

Stream into pools of blood
Floats into a sea of death

The global warming consensus that isn’t
Al Gore Armageddon Clock About To Hit Zero After Ten Years

2015 Climate Summit

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , on December 3, 2015 by andelino

Bogus Climate Summit 02

President Barack Obama was met with what appeared to be the U.N.’s version of the Oscars’ “wrap-it-up” music at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference after he significantly “overran” his allotted time to speak.

Obama was one of 147 world leaders given a “three-minute slot” at the COP21 conference to outline his “vision” for the future of the “planet” Earth.

Bogus Climate Summit 01

Apparently, the “Teleprompter Of The United States” (TOTUS) was a bit slow while “lecturing” attendees at the bogus “2015 Climate Change Summit,” when a racist beeper interrupted his address.

Once Obama “reached” his allotted time, the subtle “triple ring beeps” signaled that the “time was up.” But POTUS “kept” on talking. Then it “rang” again. POTUS kept “talking.” More “ringing.” More “talking.”

POTUS reached a point in his speech when he said, “Let’s end that signal.” As if on cue, the “chime” rang yet again. To no avail.

Bogus Climate Summit 03

That put a real “damper” to his brilliant sermon. Everyone could barely “hear” him speak while the “beeper” continuously “heckled” one of the greatest “climate speech” of all time.

The multiple beeps rang “half the time” he was on the podium but the president of the “free world,” however, had other ideas.

More than “eight and a half minutes” into Obama’s address, and with no sign he was “stopping” soon, three beeps “chimed” across the auditorium, clearly “audible” to everyone present and watching on TV.

The “punctuating” sounds appeared to be the conference’s “not-so-subtle” attempt to get Obama to “wrap it up.”

“I’ve come here personally, as the leader of the world’s largest economy and the second-largest emitter, to say that the United States of America not only recognizes our responsibility in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it,” Obama told the summit.

The beeps continued “every” 30 seconds, but the president “plowed” on.

“One of the enemies that we’ll be fighting at this conference is cynicism, the notion we can’t do anything about climate change,” he continued, seemingly “undeterred” by the regular “interruptions” over his speech.

He called for the talks to work toward “a world that is worthy of our children” and also took time to pay “tribute” to the victims of the Paris attack.

After 11 minutes, whoever was manning the “beep” button had clearly given up, and no more “prompts” were heard until Obama ended his “epic discourse” just shy of 14 minutes.

By the time POTUS was “done,” he had spoken for nearly the length of time set aside for “four” world leaders. If all “147 speakers” had taken as long as Obama, their “combined” addresses would have lasted “more than 33 hours.”

And it was not as if he went off on a “tangent” in the heat of the moment; his prepared “remarks” released by the White House “ran to more than 1,700 words.”

Bogus Climate Summit 05

“I don’t want my grand-kids to not be able to swim in Hawaii or not be able to climb a mountain and see a glacier because we didn’t do something about it,” Obama said in the “emotional” conclusion to his speech. “That’d be shameful of us.”

There is never a “time limit” for our President. He is “limitless” and will choose the “punishment” for the person “hitting” the chime “over and over” again.

Bogus Climate Summit 08
1.The man-made climate change hoax has become so widely and fervently believed that some are calling for the actual arrest of anthropogenic global warming or climate change deniers.

2. Of course these climate change/global warming faithful are afraid – afraid that the denying apostates might just prevent all the new laws, regulations, restrictions, taxes, and drastic changes in lifestyles planned by the force that is behind the global warming/climate change scare.

3. These global warming loyalists need not worry, however, as the real power on earth will have their way; but the global warming enthusiasts, and the quasi-enthused, will become badly disappointed with the fate they have had so long.

4. This fraudulent religion began simply as man-made global warming, with CO2 (carbon dioxide) being the main culprit.

5. Then when it became obvious to most everyone that the seasons seemed to be getting colder, the great switch began in the controlled, corporate media: Global Warming became Climate Change.

6. The words “climate change” were perfect for the international fraudsters as any abnormal weather could then be attributed to man and his CO2.

7. So now when we have abnormally cold weather (even in the summer), it is said to be caused by climate change, caused by global warming, caused by man and his CO2 emissions. But whatever it is called, it must be caused by man for the scheme to work.

8. What the mainstream corporate media purposely overlooks is CO2 does not cause higher temperatures; warmer weather produces more CO2 in the atmosphere, which is wonderful news.

9. You see, plant life feeds on CO2. Plant life needs CO2. More CO2 means more food for animals and humans. And most importantly, plants give us the oxygen necessary for human and animal life.

10. No CO2 in our world means no life on earth, which may be exactly what the clandestine controllers of our world are working toward.

Bogus Climate Summit 07

Paris climate change conference promises much, will deliver little
Obama’s climate policy is “practically worthless.”
Climate Challenge Numbers for COP21

CO2 Makes You Stupid

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on November 16, 2015 by andelino

CO2 Makes You Stupid 00

First Al Gore took the initiative in “creating” the Internet and now he has found the “holy grail” of Climate Change through a peer-reviewed study “proving” that carbon dioxide actually makes you stupid.

The “piece” to which Gore is referring concerns a study by the Harvard School of Physical Health, which says that carbon dioxide (CO2) has a “negative” effect on “cognitive abilities and decision-making.”

According to the study, which “tested” participants in a “controlled” office environment under a “range” of conditions, an “increase” in CO2 intensity of 400 ppm (parts per million) can “impair” people’s cognitive scores by an average 21 per cent. Its biggest impacts were on “Crisis Response, Information Usage and Strategy.”

There were noticeable “effects” at CO2 concentrations of 950 ppm, about what you’d find in a typical “office,” and even bigger ones at 1400 ppm, quite common in “school” classrooms. Current atmospheric CO2 concentrations are around 400 ppm.

Though the report was specifically about “indoor” environments, it has understandably been “seized” on by green “activists” with an interest in bolstering the “ailing” climate change scare narrative.

That’s why it has been written up “enthusiastically” by George Soros’s pet climate “attack dog” Joe Romm at the green propaganda site “Think Progress.”

CO2 Makes You Stupid 01

And why, of course, Al Gore is “bigging” it up on his Twitter feed.

It matters to them very much that carbon dioxide should be “demonized” in the run up to this December’s UN “climate” conference in Paris because, otherwise, people might be under the “impression” that CO2 is in fact a benign “trace” gas which does far more “good” to the world than “harm.”

This was what Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore “argued” in his speech to the “Global Warming Policy Foundation” earlier this month:

“It is a proven fact that plants, including trees and all our food crops, are capable of growing much faster at higher levels of CO2 than present in the atmosphere today. Even at the today’s concentration of 400 ppm plants are relatively starved for nutrition.”

The optimum level of CO2 for plant “growth” is about 5 times higher, 2000 ppm, yet the alarmists “warn” it is already too high.

They must be “challenged” every day by every “person” who knows the “truth” in this matter. CO2 is the “giver of life” and we should “celebrate” CO2 rather than “denigrate” it as is fashion today.

We are witnessing the “Greening of the Earth” as higher levels of CO2, due to human “emissions” from the use of “fossil” fuels, promote “increased” growth of plants around the world.

This has been “confirmed” by scientists with CSIRO in Australia, in Germany, and in North America. Only half of the CO2 we are “emitting” from the use of fossil fuels is “showing” up in the atmosphere.

The “balance” is going somewhere else and the best science says most of it is going into an “increase” in global plant biomass. And what could be wrong with that, as “forests and agricultural crops” become more productive?

Naturally, the “green” movement needs to find a counter-argument to this “heresy.”

So many “vested” interests are now “embroiled” in the campaign to “decarbonize” the global economy that it is “far too late” for them to row back now and “admit” that carbon dioxide isn’t the “big” problem the alarmists’ computer models “predicted” it would be.

That was one of the reasons the “ocean acidification” scare was invented: as a fallback position in case it were to become clear,  as it increasingly has, that “anthropogenic” global warming theory is a “busted” flush.

And it’s why, of course, “attempts” will be made to use this “new” study as further “evidence” that CO2 is a “hazardous” pollutant.

CO2 Makes You Stupid 03

If the study is indeed an “accurate” representation of the effects of CO2 on humans, though, it will come as a big “surprise” to the US navy “submarine” service, where “confined” CO2 concentrations frequently reach 8,000 ppm (20 times current atmospheric levels) with few observed “adverse” reactions.

Yes, CO2 can “cause” headaches but normally these start at “concentrations” of 30,000 ppm; and at even higher concentrations it can be “fatal.”

But submariners are “capable” of performing high level tasks “efficiently” at CO2 levels “dramatically” higher than the ones “claimed” to be a problem in the Harvard study.

Of course, if the study does “prove” to be accurate and CO2 really is making everyone more “stupid” than Al Gore has a lot of “explaining” to do.

His carbon “footprint” is bigger than almost anyone’s, so you could “argue” that if the world is getting “dumber,” then Gore “bears” a significant chunk of “responsibility” for it.

It sure looks like Al Gore has been “sucking” at the teat of CO2 for a “long, long time.”

If there is a person on the “face” of the Earth that knows what causes “stupidity,” Gore is as “reliable” as any other source.

He has been a “babbling fool since the cradle” and is completely “illiterate” on intelligence.

The only persons who comprehend “intelligence” less than Gore are those who “think” he could possibly be “relevant” at all.

CO2 Makes You Stupid 02

Russian President: Climate Change is Fraud
Oh-oh! NASA study finds Antarctic ice cap growing
Global Warming Will Kill Your Sex Life

%d bloggers like this: