I posted the link to the interview and a quote by Al Gore... I don't see Karl Rove mentioned anywhere in that quote or interview.

Karl Rove is the king of dirt. He likes to sling mud and dirty up the truth. Al Gore is the king of lies. You know inventor of the internet?

I think you are delusional... Karl Rove helped cover up the outing of a CIA agent, used his office to setup political opponents for criminal investigations and helped manufacture the "WMD" lie. All of these things are common knowledge... show me how Al Gore lied... you can't without using outrageous conspiracy theories and ignoring pure science and common sense. A perfect example would be your thread title... you are taking what really happened and twisting it to fit your outrageous theories. Carbon Dioxide is only one of many greenhouse gases that Obama declared as a public danger...

The problem with you anti-Climate Change idiots is that you are just like the idiots that said the earth was flat and persecuted those who said it wasn't. You are just like a christian that claims that noone can have morals without christianity... or a politician that claims that their opponents are playing politics.

No proof? All of the "conspiracy theories" were proved. That those people were working in collusion. The code itself has explanation in it itself explaining how the data manipulation was done. They talk about how they are manipulating the data. They discuss breaking the law and ignoring and/or dumping emails so they can't be given up via FOI requests. The FDA regulations are directly from that research center. It ALL derives from there.. If they did nothing wrong then why is he no longer working there? It's a scam and a cover up. Many heads will eventually roll in all of this.. You can bank on that. Maybe we can put their own creation of a "World Court" to use and broadcast the head rolling live in HD.

It isn't called "greenhouse gas credits" it's called "carbon credits" based around carbon dioxide because they want to tax a basic element of life itself not pollutants..

You can't discuss with some people get use to it, because they can't bring You legitimate arguments.

what they are capable is only throwing insults and trying to down who opposed there stupid arguments :2 cents:

Al Gore is a fraud... Straight the hell up. His "ideas and theories" have been proven false.

Nobody declared co2 was a public danger, the EPA said Green House Gasses related to pollution, is a danger, just happens co2 is a green house gas as well. The EPA has admitted co2 is a building block of life, that forests have grown faster with increased co2, and so on.

They aren't trying to regulate co2 unless you're spewing toxic levels of it, which at mass levels is a danger, it can every type of plant life, it removes salt from water and so on.

Did you read what I posted any further than "Al Gore"? Obviously not... because you repeated what I said.

No... they weren't proven... only alot of speculation. Noone has proven that any of these scientists have done anything that you or the "Climate Gate" idiots are saying they did. There are just alot of emails taken out of context and selectively chosen to support a smear... one that was carefully orchestrated... I have no doubt that investigations will discover that a russian "hacker for hire" was hired to hack into the university email and plant the smear.

How is discussing ruining other scientists lives and careers because they are disproving your "theory" taken out of context? How is discussing dumping emails to avoid FOI requests taken out of context? How is the comments within the code explaining how the data is manipulated taken out of context? How is the BBC not reporting on the emails since they had them 6 weeks before they were put on the internet anything other than them withholding the information and acting in collusion themselves. AND then saying they were "hacked" rather than "leaked."

Moot issue - it won't be long before the main sources of energy are ones that won't emit carbon dioxide. Of course if the oil etc. companies let it happen instead of continuing to hang on to their dinosauric old forms of energy.

Moot issue - it won't be long before the main sources of energy are ones that won't emit carbon dioxide. Of course if the oil etc. companies let it happen instead of continuing to hang on to their antique forms of energy.

From what I understand of it, the whole "data manipulation" had to do with how different data bases were used to fill research gaps and does not indicate that data was fabricated. Also, I have yet to see any emails that say that data should be destroyed to avoid FOIA requests. Rather, some data had been discarded as it wasn't necessary to keep it for the research being done at that institution and that particular data was also available from the National Meteorological Service.

There's all sorts of decapitating stuff in there.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emai...=889554019.txt

"As President Obama was busily traveling by greenhouse gas-emitting jumbo jet to Copenhagen for an international conference on the weather, Lisa Jackson, his administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was busy telling the world that the United States government now officially believes carbon dioxide is a threat to public health and welfare."

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-ro...he-econom.html

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
- Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
- Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

Once again, the people behind this agenda.

You typed out the opinion part of the article. The only actual quote of information I saw on the page was this....

"The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and now motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare."

Actually, in that article the word carbon only appears twice, both written by the author.

I copied the first Paragraph. Carbon monoxide is a pollutant. Not carbon dioxide, it is an element of all life. Most areas already have emissions testing. Carbon trading is trading carbon dioxide credits not greenhouse gas credits. Cows fart carbon dioxide, you exhale carbon dioxide. This is a tax on life... How many times does a person have to explain this??

http://www.nation-x.com/thestupiditburns.jpg

The primary health dangers of carbon dioxide are:
- Asphyxiation. Caused by the release of carbon dioxide in a confined or unventilated area. This can lower the concentration of oxygen to a level that is immediately dangerous for human health.
- Frostbite. Solid carbon dioxide is always below -78 oC at regular atmospheric pressure, regardless of the air temperature. Handling this material for more than a second or two without proper protection can cause serious blisters, and other unwanted effects. Carbon dioxide gas released from a steel cylinder, such as a fire extinguisher, causes similar effects.
- Kidney damage or coma. This is caused by a disturbance in chemical equilibrium of the carbonate buffer. When carbon dioxide concentrations increase or decrease, causing the equilibrium to be disturbed, a life threatening situation may occur.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

"Carbon dioxide is used by plants during photosynthesis to make sugars, which may either be consumed in respiration or used as the raw material to produce other organic compounds needed for plant growth and development. It is produced during respiration by plants, and by all animals, fungi and microorganisms that depend either directly or indirectly on plants for food. It is thus a major component of the carbon cycle.

As of March 2009[update], carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration of 387 ppm by volume"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide


There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Ca...s_climate.html

Let me explain to you why this assertion is just stupid... global warming proponents who are scientists do not say that global warming will result in warmer temperatures for the whole period... as a matter of fact they are saying that once the ocean currents are interrupted by the lack of polar ice that we will actually enter another ice age... this is the biggest concern... warming itself is not a threat... changing the ocean currents is.

What is this mysterious other factor?

The Sun
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

Imagine that. That big thing that gives us light warms things up on occasion..

Should we tax the use of the sun? Or is this the roundabout way of doing it? I mean after all we are going to move to solar and wind power eh?

These arguments are ludicrous... seriously.

Which scientists are you referring to the 2500 IPCC fraud ones? I'll give you 30,000 other including 9,000 PHDs that say those scientists can't predict next weeks weather. That is without their weather manipulation avenues..

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh Whos being ridiculous? You don't believe the sun causes warming? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

No... the ones that want to tax your ability to breathe... :error :321GFY

Asphyxiation??? lol So do you not think plants regulate our oxygen ? More Co2 more O2 released. Wouldn't you think? lol

Nobody said Carbon Dioxide was a pollutant, I said and the article said green house gasses are pollutants, and they are.

Even the EPA says it's not at pollutant, that it's used by trees, water, put out by humans, etc. Nobody, not the Gov or EPA is trying to hide/mask that.

That article doesn't talk about taxing carbon dioxide, nothing I have seen so far talks about taxing carbon dioxide put out by humans or farm animals.

More Co2 does not mean more O2, it means, more Co2. Add in enough Co2 and everything dies, ie: Venus.

http://www.neonsumo.com/wp-content/u.../oh-really.jpg

"A carbon tax is a tax on the carbon content of fuels — effectively a tax on the carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. Thus, carbon tax is shorthand for carbon dioxide tax or CO2 tax."

http://www.carbontax.org/introduction/

So what now? Are we going to change the course and call it "greenhouse gas tax" to fit the bill much like we went from "global warming" to "climate change?"

Thanks, I understand what a carbon tax is..

But "I" do not have a carbon tax and no law has been suggested to add one. Companies already get taxed on green house gases they put out, produce, create, etc.. this is a limit to those, and if they want to go over, then they pay more - which goes back to the people/public fund, and not the gov/world bank.

But, but, but you said it wasn't a tax on carbon dioxide? If they are already paying a tax then why the need for another? Unless you want to tax and regulate "the people" which is what this does.

It doesn;t go to the gov/world bank? Hmm you might want to tell that to the World bank

"The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ay-danish-text

Either way the money is going to the World Bank and the IMF to be used and disbursed by the World Government. It's another level of what we already have in multiple layers as far as local gov, national gov now > world gov.. Only these bureaucrats will be unelected. More or less an EU gov on a World scale.

EPA 'Cow Tax' Could Charge $175 per Dairy Cow to Curb Greenhouse Gases
http://businessandmedia.org/articles...230165231.aspx

EPA to Tax Farts and Belches of Cows and Pigs!

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...s_of_cows.html

Once again these are the dumbfucks behind this agenda..

They tax green house gasses, they don't tax carbon DIRECTLY...Even the EPA has said, it's not pollution.

The Document gives Countries access to the World Bank, access they already had. In 100's of UN regulations already put out. The reference of taxing and going to the public, is under our tax and cap.

Why would they want access to the World Bank or the IMF those two have been bankrupting countries since their inception. Just like they are now in collusion with the other central banks they own IE Federal Reserve. Do you think that's going to change now? No, no, no we need much less of them. Those fucking people aren't a goddamn charity. They are fucking thieves. Have you already forgotten about the disappearance of 24+ trillion dollars by them?

And those Countries have a "choice" they don't have to borrow from the World Bank, it's not forced, it's an option.. just like complying to the U.N. Climate agreement. And from what I understand, every Country that has any type of banking system, is tied to the World Bank.

So they aren't talking anything they don't already have.

hmm, Just like we don't have to borrow from the Federal Reserve > IMF eh? Then why do we? An option to comply? Umm wrong again. Only 51% have to vote on it and 100% have to vote to let us out. It's a rigged game..

Our Country is part of the group that set up the world banking system, I'm sure we have the option to comply, but we would need to take control back first.

51% vote on what? The U.N. Climate Document doesn't cover voting for anything, you don't have to be part of it or even be in the United Nations.

No our country fought against the central banking system for quite some time. We were duped into it by fraud. This is the next con job. 51% of the participating countries. I believe there are 190 or so in attendance. Of which the US is one.

haa the rock obama

The World Bank president has always been ran by U.S. Citizen, voted in by the U.S. from day 1. The World Bank was primarly setup by the U.S. and U.K.


Where are you getting the voting from? The U.N. Climate Agreement thing requires no votes to be part of it, it doesn't even require you to be part of the U.N.

good fucking god, onwebcam... you are a fucking lunatic that is constantly contradicting whatever you previously say. It's people like you that are ruining it for everyone else. You really believe that if you spew lies enough, that enough people will start to agree with you.

I will not enter into a factual debate with you, so don't even bother to ask me to point out your contradictions... it will do no good... it will be like talking to a wall... so, don't ask...

just know that in the grand scheme of things that you are simply an idiot that has 'believed' one too many times. sigh...

one thing I will point out earlier in this thread where Cykoe posted that idiots like you distract from non-idiots with legitimate concerns that paralell your views... only they don't do it in a nutcase manner... Cykoe made a good point, but it went right over your head and you just attacked him back with more nonsense... way to alienate even the people that might have listened to you... were you not a nutcase.

Vote, sign whatever. Same difference. The fact is the modern form of central banking originated in England. It was used to usurp our government. Do I need to dig up Andrew Jackson quotes and others?


What the hell are you talking about? Please do explain where I have contradicted myself.. Or are you going to come in here and act all big and bad without giving any proof of your own like these other fools. Seems I'm the only fucking one giving any proof everyone else is saying "it ain't so"

see... like talking to a wall.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh Explain yourself fool. Am I raining on your green day parade? What?