“An Inconvenient Truth” has indeed become convenient, or should I say a convenience, in Britain where Global Cooling has turned into Global Freezing. The extreme temperatures they are experiencing over there has overcome the Brit’s reluctance to buy Al Gore’s book. In fact, not only are they buying them and taking them home, they are hoping Al will write more books, since his global climate change book has turned out to be so heart (and butt) warming, and very good for the environment, too, because it burns so clean.

The inconvenient Truth about Global Cooling is that it is happening now

Check out this short video to see how those Brits are warming to the idea of buying Al baby’s books as long, that is, as it is convenient and good for the environment.

For the sake of my British cousins I certainly hope Al baby writes more clean burning and, hence, environmentally friendly books that can be freely purchased for practically nothing.

Global Warming ain’t here; Global Cooling is

Click on the link, Global Cooling, for several more videos that will further enlighten anyone who needs it,  that Global Warming is a farce perpetrated on the American people for a larger cause, a dictatorial one-world government.

One World or one-world or oneworld or however you want to spell it, the Global Warming crowd wants it

I am definitely of the opinion all the Global Warming malarkey is gearing  up to cause the U.S.A.  to accept one-world government without a fight. I, for one, am prepared to die fighting rather than give up the hard-won freedoms we Americans have received from the founders of our country and the fighting men who have die already defending it from tyranny.

Buy “An Inconvenient Truth” and read it or burn it for heat or both

And, finally, there is a link in the first sentence of this post that takes one to the book, “An Inconvenient Truth,” so that anyone who is so inclined may buy Al’s book. It is up to the buyer whether they read it before considering whether they should send it to Great Britain, so a Brit or two might be warmed by the clean blaze that arises once it is fired up.

How did Great Britain get to be Great Britain?

I have one more click in me mind. Click on Great Britain and watch the delightful video short, “Remember Great Britain.” Whether you click on any of there links, click on that one and watch it. You won’t regret having watched it, I promise.

Ah, come on now. You aren’t that harried.  Take some time and get a little learnin’ in your head by clicking and reading or watching what’s on the links in this post. You might be surprised and surprise yourself before you are through.

Actually, I am just kidding you all a bit. You are standup Americans or else you wouldn’t bother reading this post.

Thanks for reading. My miserable writing would stop anyone without some grit.

God bless you all.

Related articles by Zemanta

• LETTER TO THE EDITOR | Taking Away Our Freedoms for a Hoax (kitsapsun.com)
• Pachauri: the real story behind the Glaciergate scandal (telegraph.co.uk)

Related posts:

1. Why Propaganda Trumps Truth
2. The Great Mockery: Climate-change
3. Climate Meeting Opens Under a Cloud of Threatening Doubt

The much-ballyhooed global meeting of representatives of 192 +/- nations seeking so far elusive common ground on the issue of climate change got under way under a threatening cloud of doubt Monday. Some of these people strongly this is humanity’s last chance to stop global warming. The motive of some of these people is perhaps more sinister. Some, and perhaps many of them, are aiming at instituting a one-world government as part of the fallout from this supposed climate-change catastrophe cum hoax.

According to United Nations’ climate chief, Yvo de Boer, “The clock has ticked down to zero.” He was probably thinking at the time as much about the movement in public opinion away from the idea of global warming as about any man-made scientific deadline.

From now until December 18, delegates will try to knock out some of the most perplexing details in the pursuit of a global climate deal. Among those: getting some of the bigger polluters like the United States, China, and India to commit to deliver what could ultimately be hundreds of billions in financing to help the poor countries with their part in of problem. As always, of the three nations mentioned, only the United States is expected to actually pony up much money.

Several countries, including China, Brazil, the United States and most recently India and South Africa announced new emissions goals that are considered quite feeble by standards set by many of the climate control participants.

The global climate change meet-up started off with a slickly-produced video appeal from children around the world asking to be saved from what looked like an apocalyptic future. This regrettable video was intended to spur the participants to produce favorable results.

Connie Hedegaard, the Danish minister presiding over the conference speaking of the recent string of emissions commitments, said, “Every positive announcement will improve our changes of staying below the two-degree-Celsius target, but as we all know only too well,: she added, “we are not there yet.” Two degrees Celsius is the climate scientists recommended cap on temperature increases.

Miss Hedegaard went on to admit that the financing required to fund any emissions cut commitments will be the bigger challenge.

Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, had pointed remarks for those who “find it difficult to accept” climate change science after email messages and files allegedly stolen from a British climate research center recently raised questions about data manipulation among some leading climate scientists.

To counter bring our attention to those damning emails, Dr.Pachauri went on to point out a list of trends that suggest global warming.

The mood among negotiators and other participants was one of cautious optimism. The American, Jonathan Pershing, the State Department’s special envoy for climate said at the opening plenary session that he saw strong evidence the conference would prove critical to moving forward on curbing emissions and helping poor countries limit vulnerability to climate hazards. He was certain the decision by more than 100 leaders, including President Obama, to attend would give their efforts a strong boost.

He also said he saw no indication that efforts could be blunted by Saudi Arabia and other countries that have raised concerns about climate findings based on the e-mail scandal.

The environmental group, Friends of the Earth, sent an open letter that condemned what it called “undemocratic practices adopted by the Danish presidency of convening small and exclusive groups of countries before the Copenhagen meeting”—a reference to the rumored existence of an “alternate” treaty document being readied by some big players in the negotiations, including conference organizers, should efforts to sort out differences on the current text prove undoable.

Other blocs — including China — are rumored to be working on similar alternative documents of their own.

Meanwhile, in what appeared to be an unprecedented action, 50 or so newspapers around the world published the identical editorials calling for “decisive action” in Copenhagen.

“In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage,” read the editorial, spearheaded by Britain’s Guardian newspaper. “Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.”

Continued inaction, the authors asserted, would ravage the planet and wreak havoc on economies and livelihoods.

“The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history’s judgment on this generation. . . .” In conclusion the editorial added, “We implore them to make the right choice.”

Related articles by Zemanta

• Meeting on Climate Opens With Calls for Urgent Action (nytimes.com)
• Copenhagen climate summit: UN warns of damage over hacked emails (telegraph.co.uk)
• Climate at turning point, says official (thestar.com)
• Copenhagen climate summit: who’s who (telegraph.co.uk)
• `Time is up’ on climate talks, UN says (thestar.com)

Related posts:

1. The Great Mockery: Climate-change
2. Globalism vs. Americanism

With a lot of journalists, plus delegates and advocates heading for the big meet up there, Copenhagen is being billed as the Earth’s last chance to curb the carbon footprint we humans are accused of exacerbating everyday by using of common everyday conveniences and conveyances like cheap coal-generated electricity and gasoline- and diesel-fueled cars and trucks.

The organizers of this extravagant outing to Copenhagen hope to produce binding caps on emissions, global taxation to redistribute trillions of dollars, and micromanage everyone’s choices of almost everything; and what they forget to micromanage this time, they will surely not overlook at next opportunity.

Just to give you a hint of how the players are lining up to help, here is what the top two players on the world stage have in mind. China will give a tiny bit by promising to reduce its carbon footprint, which means in effect its emissions will continue to rise; while, on the other hand, our lord-high, ultraliberal ruler, B. Hussein Obama, understanding well the histrionics required in climate-change debates, promises that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 83 percent below 2005 levels. If that happens, it will mean 2050 emissions will be equal to those of 1910, when there were about 92 million Americans. But there will be closer to 420 million American in 2050, which means that for Obama’s promise to be fulfilled per capita emissions then will have to be about what they were in 1875. Folks. That. Ain’t. Gonna. Happen. So why will B. Hussein promise that? Well, that’s just the measure of man; that’s why

Newly discovered emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Britain—a collaborator with the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—reveals some scientists’ willingness to deliberately exclude or knead data and manipulate the peer-review process and publication of scholarly work. The CRU materials reveal how their paranoid scientists believe that in trying to engineer a consensus about global warming, they are a brave and persecuted minority. This is without a doubt the first time in peacetime history that the government-media-academic complex has been in such an enduring propaganda-mongering lockstep about any subject.

An odd lesson is to be found in the CRU materials: Climate scientists should not let themselves be goaded by the irresponsibility of deniers into overstating the certainties of complex science or, worse, censoring discussion of them.” Do you think these scientists overstated and censored because they were “goaded” by skepticism?

If their science as undisputable as they insist it is, and if the consensus among scientists is as broad as they say it is, and if they were brave as they claim to be, they would not be “goaded” into such intellectual depravity. Nor would they gaudily bandy the word “deniers” to decry skepticism that shocks communicants in the faith-based global warming community.

Skeptics about the shrill certitudes concerning catastrophic man-made warming are skeptical because climate change is constant: From time immemorial down to the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1300), through the Little Ice Age (1500 to 1850), and ever since, climate change has always been a certainty. Skeptics doubt that scientists’ models, which cannot explain the present, can infallibly map the distant future.

In a peculiar response to the CRU materials, The Financial Times wrote: The scientific case for alarm about global warming “is growing more rather than less compelling.” Meanwhile the CRU wrote in an email that: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment”—this “moment” is in its second decade—”and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

The travesty is the intellectual arrogance of the authors of climate-change models that are partially based on the problematic practice of reconstructing long-term prior climate changes. It is on such models they want us to wager trillions of dollars—and a substantially diminished freedom.

Some climate scientists compound their delusions of intellectual adequacy with messiah complexes; supposing themselves a small intelligentsia entrusted with the most urgent truth ever discovered. That being the case, some of them consider it virtuous to embellish facts, exaggerate certainties, suppress inconvenient data, and manipulate the peer-review process to suppress scholarly dissent and, above all, to declare that the debate is over.

Consider the sociology of science, the push and pull of interests, incentives, appetites and passions. Governments’ attempts to manipulate Earth’s temperature now comprise one of the world’s largest industries. Tens of billions of dollars are being dispensed by the U.S. Energy Department, which has suddenly become, in effect, a huge venture capital operation, speculating in green technologies. Political, commercial, academic, and journalistic prestige and advancement can be contingent on not disrupting the (claimed) consensus that is driving the gigantic and fabulously lucrative industry of repelling global warming.

Copenhagen is the culmination of all the prior maneuvering by people determined to fix the world’s climate by breaking the world’s—and especially America’s—resistance to the ever-more-minute supervision by governments. It is not as if Copenhagen will be the last chance of the climate-change crowd; Copenhagen is meant to be a prologue for the 2010 climate change summit in Mexico City, which will be planet Earth’s last chance, until the next one.

Folk, do you suspect a one-world collectivist government is the real endgame being played out by the liberals in this government-media-academic complex, which hopes to deliver binding caps on emissions, global taxation to redistribute trillions of dollars, and micromanage everyone’s choices of almost everything? All of a sudden there appears to be an international consensus gaining momentum that believes this is the endgame of all this climate-change hysteria that has been espoused by such liberals as, former V.P. Albert Gore.

Think about it; it is true that almost to a man, everyone involved in this government-media-academic complex has a liberal bias, and it is true that liberals—like Obama, Albert Gore, and, don’t forget, Jimmie Carter and Bill Clinton—always think that government is the answer to all our ills, and they are sure we can not survive, much less flourish, without their help and guidance.

It would appear that “Climate-change” or “Global Warming,” as it is frequently known has now been shown for “The Great Mockery” it is and quite possibly the greatest mockery the world has ever known.

I have an idea that this farce is far from over. Let us hope though that its defeat is in the offing.

Background: The climate-change travesty by George F. Will

Related articles by Zemanta

• ‘Climate change’ group think and the heretics (tech.bl0x.info)
• Climate research chief Phil Jones stands down pending inquiry into leaked emails at East Anglia university (guardian.co.uk)
• Obama Adviser Pushes Climate Action (online.wsj.com)
• Scientists Respond to “Climategate” E-Mail Controversy (scientificamerican.com)
• University in climate flap details inquiry (msnbc.msn.com)
• ClimateGate III: The Mystery of the Missing Data (meganmcardle.theatlantic.com)
• United Nations to probe climate e-mail leak (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Deniers in denial over climate information (openparachute.wordpress.com)
• The Guardian’s carbon calculator: this is how we did the maths (guardian.co.uk)
• This week: slippery surfaces, greenhouse heaters and house plant care (telegraph.co.uk)
• Obama shifts visit to climate summit (msnbc.msn.com)

No related posts.