B-Man Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 French Foreign Minister: '500 Days to Avoid Climate Chaos' http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/french-foreign-minister-500-days-avoid-climate-chaos_792736.html Could he be wrong ? maybe its 493 ?............................or 507? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 French Foreign Minister: '500 Days to Avoid Climate Chaos' http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/french-foreign-minister-500-days-avoid-climate-chaos_792736.html Could he be wrong ? maybe its 493 ?............................or 507? Funny. If he were a Christian talking about end times in 500 days, he'd be mocked mercilessly. But yelling about climate chaos in 500 days has him sharing a podium with Secretary of State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 (edited) French Foreign Minister: '500 Days to Avoid Climate Chaos' http://www.weeklysta...aos_792736.html Could he be wrong ? maybe its 493 ?............................or 507? Why are they waiting until 2015 to have their climate change conference? Cutting kind of close no? French never have had a knack for strategic thought. At least not the modern era versions of France.http://www.diplomati...the-parties-on/ Edited May 14, 2014 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 Why are they waiting until 2015 to have their climate change conference? Cutting kind of close no? French never have had a knack for strategic thought. At least not the modern era versions of France. Climate Change, Greenpeace protests, German invasions...if nothing else, the French excel at surrendering to the inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 Climate Change, Greenpeace protests, German invasions...if nothing else, the French excel at surrendering to the inevitable. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 (edited) Science as McCarthyism :Another scientist gets blackballed for his skepticism about global warming. On Monday, Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson took a tilt at climate skeptics. “The assumption that the vast majority in a scientific field is engaged in fraud or corruption is frankly conspiratorial,” Gerson wrote. As a non-scientist, he decided that the answer to the question of whether humans had warmed the planet was to trust scientists. The article’s timing was unfortunate. Three weeks ago, Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist approaching his 80s, announced that he was joining the avowedly skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank. In an interview with Speigel Online, Bengtsson spoke of the need for climate-model predictions to be validated against observations. “Since the end of the 20th century, the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show,” he said. more at link: . Edited May 15, 2014 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 15, 2014 Author Share Posted May 15, 2014 (edited) Science as McCarthyism :Another scientist gets blackballed for his skepticism about global warming. On Monday, Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson took a tilt at climate skeptics. “The assumption that the vast majority in a scientific field is engaged in fraud or corruption is frankly conspiratorial,” Gerson wrote. As a non-scientist, he decided that the answer to the question of whether humans had warmed the planet was to trust scientists. The article’s timing was unfortunate. Three weeks ago, Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist approaching his 80s, announced that he was joining the avowedly skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank. In an interview with Speigel Online, Bengtsson spoke of the need for climate-model predictions to be validated against observations. “Since the end of the 20th century, the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show,” he said. more at link: Yes, and it's "conspiratorial" to suggest that Union members work together, for the purposes of receiving a pay increase. How popular is the one guy who stands up at the union meeting, and suggests that they don't have their facts straight, that their demands might put the company out of business, and/or that they haven't made a convincing case for higher wages? A group of people, acting in shared self-interest...is an impossible to imagine phenomenon? Therefore, it must be "conspiratorial"? It's as I've said: the only people they are fooling is themselves. The best is that they think this is still 2006, and that the soccer moms believe them. EDIT: Oh yeah, and: The French! :lol: 500 days? At least ALGORE did his predicting over 10 years(which by the way, the bill comes due on that in 2016). Edited May 15, 2014 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Report: Obama To Make Global Warming One of His “Top Tier” Issues For Remainder of His Presidency… Because it makes his base feel all warm and fuzzy inside, other than them nobody cares. Via Bloomberg: U.S. President Barack Obama plans to personally unveil proposed carbon-emissions rules for power plants, elevating climate change policy as a top tier issue for his final two years in office, according to two people familiar with White House strategy. Obama is preparing to make the announcement with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy, who said this week the rules are on track to be proposed by June 2, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the schedule is still being planned. After relegating climate change to the back burner during his first term, Obama would be taking an unusual step of announcing regulatory proposals before they are finalized by the federal government and years before they would be implemented. His direct engagement is intended to demonstrate to environmental advocates and business interests that he’s committed to stricter emissions standards. Now why would he do that (unusual step) ? Because its ALL about the APPEARANCE, not the SUBSTANCE P.S.................................499 days to go................ . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 His direct engagement is intended to demonstrate to environmental advocates and business interests that he’s committed to stricter emissions standards. Isn't that what Twitter's for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 (edited) http://www.breitbart...e-scandal-grows Finally, it seems, the MSM is beginning to wake up to something it really ought to have picked up on long ago: the greatest and most expensive scientific scandal in history, in which a cabal of lavishly grant-funded, activist-scientists from Britain to Australia, Germany to the US, has exaggerated the evidence for "man-made global warming" and attempted ruthlessly to suppress the work of sceptical scientists who dispute the "consensus." Professor Bengtsson's McCarthyite purging may one day come to be seen as the climate alarmists' "Bridge Too Far" moment. As Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has argued, "It has the potential to do as much harm to climate science as did the Climategate emails." The reason, quite simply, is that it shows the climate change establishment in such an appalling light. These people have long traded on the public's acceptance that they are the "experts", the guys we can trust. Yet here they are shown behaving not like loftily-minded seekers-after-truth but simple playground bullies. One German physicist is said hysterically to have compared Bengtsson's decision to join the Global Warming Policy Foundation (a politically neutral think tank) to joining the Ku Klux Klan. Another warmist scientist - an American one this time - petulantly refused to be named as co-author on any of Bengtsson's papers, a form of professional assassination. This does all rather invite the question: if the climate establishment is really so sure of the solidity of the science underpinning its doomsday predictions, how come it needs to adopt such desperate, unethical and unscientific methods to shut out dissenting voices? Edited May 16, 2014 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Do you take in information from all sources and form your own opinion and viewpoint.....or do you read posts from a news source that is clearly only going to have one - and only one - stance on an issue and take it as fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 From the London Times: GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS COVERED UP SCEPTIC'S 'DAMAGING' REVIEW... (498 days to go..........) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 I'm still waiting for the explanation as to how we got out of the ice age without burning fossil fuels and how that process then stopped and the burning of fossil fuels took over as the driver of higher global temps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 I'm still waiting for the explanation as to how we got out of the ice age without burning fossil fuels and how that process then stopped and the burning of fossil fuels took over as the driver of higher global temps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Do you take in information from all sources and form your own opinion and viewpoint.....or do you read posts from a news source that is clearly only going to have one - and only one - stance on an issue and take it as fact? Just because you choose to be a prig and ask that in such a morally superior manner doesn't mean I have to answer in kind. My sources are derived from a variety of outlets. I can't help it if the real news is generally only being reported by what some might consider conservative sources. I choose the news that I think is important to follow. Guess what, I'm not normally going to get the kind of hard hitting reporting on Benghazi, the IRS scandal, fast & furious or the other dozen scandals this administration is responsible for in The Huffington Post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 http://en.wikipedia...._glacial_period http://en.wikipedia..../Glacial_period http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age Doesn't even begin to answer the question and suggests we will all freeze to death during the next ice age. That is of course if we don't burn up before then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Do you take in information from all sources and form your own opinion and viewpoint.....or do you read posts from a news source that is clearly only going to have one - and only one - stance on an issue and take it as fact? http://en.wikipedia...._glacial_period http://en.wikipedia..../Glacial_period http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 (edited) Climate Change, Greenpeace protests, German invasions...if nothing else, the French excel at surrendering to the inevitable. in my mind, I always thought that the Germans considered France kind of a pre season game before the real war started. Make sure the equipment works well. Logistical stuff like fuel estimates, food and other supplies are deployed correctly that kind of thing. Much like any NFL team tries out schemes they like. Make sure players are good to go and so on. Edited May 16, 2014 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 in my mind, I always thought that the Germans considered France kind of a pre season game before the real war started. Make sure the equipment works well. Logistical stuff like fuel estimates, food and other supplies are deployed correctly that kind of thing. Much like any NFL team tries out schemes they like. Make sure players are good to go and so on. Nah, that was Poland. Really...the German reaction was largely "Hey, we kinda !@#$ed some things up. We better fix that **** before the real war starts." France was more like playing Cleveland in Week 1. A pleasant warm-up that makes you overconfident going in to a real game in New England or Green Bay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 I know Poland was first but I actually have respect for them and their military and fighting spirit and would never joke about them. Your right on though about Cleveland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts