HOW IN THE HELL CAN ANY HUMAN BEING BE SO ARROGANT TO ASSUME THAT OUR PRESENCE CAN EITHER CHANGE NOR CONTROL OUR PLANET, HELLO PLANET SAY IT AGAIN GD HUGE PLANET'S ENVIRONMENTS CYCLICAL CHANGES.

GROW THE FUCK UP WOULD YOU PEOPLE. Better still ask the folks in HAITI about MOTHER EARTH.

GOD DAMN RIGHT I AM YELLIN LOL. FUCKIN A RIGHT BUBBAZ I ALSO OWN GUNS . You creeps make me want to puke/

I see alot of people here and at Jihad watch are not aware of the huge scheme by internattional bankers and governent elites to usher in a one world government.

Don't dismiss me as a "conspiricy theorist". That label is used to discredit and end any debate. Do the research for yourself. google, NWO
and go from there

Your entire frame of mind is a strawman…the old "environmentalist want us to revert" schtick. When your momma called you for supper you probably screamed at her "stop trying to micromanage my life!".

Vast untouched wilderness…..give me a break you idiot. Go shove your imaginary physics degree up your pooper.

Step one is stop pretending someone wants you to feel guilty. Set aside the fact that celebrities and Al Gore buy "carbon credits" to offset a tremendous amount of use (jets and multiple homes in some cases, etc). That is as much for show and to set an example than actually preventing pollution. No one expects you to buy carbon credits. The average person in this modern, complex society can do little or nothing personally that will make any difference. If people would just not do stupid things like pouring oil down the drain, or littering, that is as much as one can expect.

In Al Gore's case it is ridiculed because his critics distort what he is saying as if he wants us all to revert to playing with sticks. So they simply won't take him seriously until he stops using energy and is unable to run an office or his websites or continue speaking out against pollution. Then his message will be valid…lol

The entire concept of "carbon credits" on a global scale is simple. Burning coal and oil is the cheapest and best thing we have going right now. We dig up the earth and burn it to release energy. It's cheap because it is the low hanging fruit. What we really need are alternative forms of energy production that don't exist yet. But our society is one of commodities and monetary value. The alternatives are currently much more expensive than just burning coal. Part of the reason coal and other dirty energy is cheap is that there is no monetary value attached to them dumping pollutants into the atmosphere, lakes, rivers, etc. So your energy is a certain price (sans the expensive or impossible measure of not polluting). You "pay" for it later when your kid has asthma or you get sick, or your ship runs into the massive island of garbage floating in the ocean.

So the movement is to start attaching a monetary value to polluting so that alternative forms of energy can have funding and maybe it becomes cheaper to actually pollute less. Energy producers and oil companies in the United States are the worst offenders simply because we have advanced further, industrialized decades and decades ago, and produce more energy and drive more cars….so naturally they(we) are the biggest critics of any cost being added to them doing business. But what it is designed to do glabally is to make sure that as 3rd world countries industrialize and China continues to develop…it is a good value to develop clean instead of taking our route. It's not that what we did was bad or having your car is bad…it's that we need to begin to move in a new direction and that just can't be left up to the energy companies and the oil industry.

Assertion by someone
Assertion by someone
Hearsay Evidence by someone
Author agrees
Earlier Assertion by FPM article
Earlier Assertion by FPM Article
Author's surprise conclusion

Then pepper it with worthless links that go back to "Discover the Network" or just silly ones like the word "financial" which links back to this article.

The Weather Channel guy has discovered that pandering to certain ideologies makes you popular and people become interested in what you are saying (because you are saying what they want to hear). Just like the Democratic Senator that put forward an anti-abortion bill and was suddenly a National political figure instead of another obscure politician…it's sometimes profitable to go with a splinter group.

If you were an author or just trying to make some cash what would you write a book on right about now?

The second group (the leaders) includes primary, government funded researchers, left leaning political leaders, activist and environmentalist leadership, and, of course, the Hansens, Gores, Manns, Briffas, Pachauri, and the rest of the extremists with which we are burdened. To the surprise of those in the first group, but not at all to the rest of us, these people do not necessarily believe or, for the most part, even care if global warming is anthropogenic. And, unlike the first group, these people are not only evil and wrong but also dangerous. They are not out to save the world but to gain political power and financial control over individuals, businesses and countries.

There are legitimate environmental issues. Surly we must continue to fight for and to find a way to protect our environment, reduce stress on fisheries, manage water, land and forest resources, protect endangered species if possible and were practical, and a myriad other environmental issues and crises we face. The real tragedy of the AGW shibboleth is that it will destroy the credibility of legitimate environmental movements, divert needed funding away from them, and make the efforts of those movements even more difficult. And this is why the people of the first group, if and when they ever figure it out, should forever condemn those of the second.

The rest of us already have.

In the U.S., we have Al Gore as the most famous proponent of these schemes. He has been revealed as nothing other than a cheap flim-flam artist, a con man.

Figures don't lie, but liars figure. That IS the lesson of the entire global warming episode.

I'd like to add this: There is zero evidence that CO2 is causing any harm at all. It is NOT a pollutant, it is a necessary gas in our atmosphere. Basic 3rd grade science… plants can't live without CO2. An alternate way to look at CO2 is as airborne plant food.

We don't know if CO2 even IS a problem, never mind whether or not we should destroy our worlds' economies by cutting back.

Don't ever forget… airborne plant food…

Think about it that way before you go off half-cocked.