Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Al Gore Group Demands $15 Trillion To Fight 'Global Warming'...
#1
Yes,,,, You read the Title Correctly,  smallroflmao Gore can Wish In one Hand and Shit in the Other!  smallroflmao
[Image: 2017-01-18T184339Z_1_LYNXMPED0H1K5_RTROP...187566.jpg]
Quote:A group of executives who want to fight global warming has published a new report calling for countries to spend up to $600 billion a year over the next two decades to boost green energy deployment and energy efficiency equipment.
The Energy Transitions Commission’s (ETC) report claims “additional investments of around $300-$600 billion per annum do not pose a major macroeconomic challenge,” which they say will help the world meet the goals laid out in the Paris agreement.
ETC is made up of energy executives, activist leaders and investment bankers, including former Vice President Al Gore, who would no doubt get a piece of the trillions of dollars they are calling for.
ETC’s goal is to “accelerate change towards low-carbon energy systems that enable robust economic development” and limit global warming. ETC’s report comes out as the Trump administration considers whether or not to stay party to the Paris agreement, which went into effect in 2016.

Source
They want us to stay in the Paris Agreement so the United States Can Shoulder The Majority of the Cost!
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
Reply
#2
They can suck their 15T outta my ass. When investment bankers, politicians, and corporate executives all get together behind an idea, money is going to be fleeced out of someone, and that is the SOLE reason for this. That is the only thing that motivates them - financial gain. Nothing else, not "social conscience" not "eco-conscience".

Nothing but money.

There is a reason that is called "the bottom line".

They can kiss my ass until their lips are chapped.


.
" I don't mind killin' a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight... or if there's money involved... or a woman... "

 - Jayne Cobb, Hero of Canton
Reply
#3
Pffffffffffttttthhhhhh ...... al bore can fuck off and die .....
Better to reign in hell ....
  than serve in heaven .....



Reply
#4
[Image: 1nx8g4.jpg]
Reply
#5
I find it odd that after decades of hearing diesel-engine vehicles are preferred to petrol-driven
vehicles by the mainstream (Gov) media in the United Kingdom, suddenly after the referendum
regarding leaving the EU, car pollution is back on the table.

The famous smog of London had gone and the only air-borne problem was pollen.
Children were breathing in better air and everything was okay...

BREXIT: Pollution rife in the country's capital. Car manufacturers had been lying to us about exhaust
output and roads across Britain have breached UK and EU limits for nitrogen dioxide for 2017.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=1698]
Pollution in January 2017 over south east London.

It began just after the referendum and without any of the MSM questioning why it has suddenly just
reappeared back in the news, the same sell-outs are shouting for vehicle reduction for the major towns
and cities (Actually, it seems they're just banging on about London!)... and an increase in bicycle use.

The brown envelopes of money from Gore and his cronies must have been delivered late to the Editors
of the state-run outlets due to the Postman to the suggested mode of transport.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply
#6
(04-26-2017, 02:50 AM)Ninurta Wrote: They can suck their 15T outta my ass...
...They can kiss my ass until their lips are chapped.

Posted by Daitengu
Quote:Pffffffffffttttthhhhhh ...... al bore can fuck off and die .....

This is why you two will never do well in politics. Grey areas and nuance holds no place
for such opinions and I get the impression you think Mr. Gore is full of methane-producing
waste.
tinywondering

Seriously, I don't get it... either Climate Change is real and directly connected to us or it isn't.
If the world media were genuine, this would make a great story, unless they enjoy the taste of
snake-oil.

'...The global warming charade may be on its death bed, but Gore seems hellbent on milking

the cultural phenomenon for all its worth before its inevitable end.  With republican Donald Trump
in the White House, and with conservatives making up a majority of both houses of Congress,
it could prove rather difficult for the profiteering “activist” to accomplish any project that requires
such a leftist leap of faith.

As with all trendy pseudoscience, the global warming hoax will likely go the way of spiritualism
and Uri Geller’s bending-spoon tricks...'
SOURCE:
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply
#7
BIAD
(04-26-2017, 02:50 AM)Ninurta Wrote: They can suck their 15T outta my ass...
...They can kiss my ass until their lips are chapped.

Posted by Daitengu
Quote:Pffffffffffttttthhhhhh ...... al bore can fuck off and die .....

This is why you two will never do well in politics. Grey areas and nuance holds no place
for such opinions and I get the impression you think Mr. Gore is full of methane-producing
waste.
tinywondering

Seriously, I don't get it... either Climate Change is real and directly connected to us or it isn't.
If the world media were genuine, this would make a great story, unless they enjoy the taste of
snake-oil.

'...The global warming charade may be on its death bed, but Gore seems hellbent on milking

the cultural phenomenon for all its worth before its inevitable end.  With republican Donald Trump
in the White House, and with conservatives making up a majority of both houses of Congress,
it could prove rather difficult for the profiteering “activist” to accomplish any project that requires
such a leftist leap of faith.

As with all trendy pseudoscience, the global warming hoax will likely go the way of spiritualism
and Uri Geller’s bending-spoon tricks...'
SOURCE:

Heh .... got standards an am too honest ..... besides ..... would have to give up drinking large quantities alcohol ..... chasing cute bargirls ..... playing with things that go boom ..... an all the other fun stuff that keeps me occupied ..... nah ..... will pass on being in politics ..... besides ..... am picky on who associate with ..... not even I go that low to associate with politicians ......
Better to reign in hell ....
  than serve in heaven .....



Reply
#8
BUMP, BUMP, BUMP,,,,ACCUWEATHER Founder: No evidence heatwaves becoming more common because of 'climate change'...


More proof that Al Gore and his UN buddies are Scammers, Thieves, Scum and Carpetbaggers.
Quote:Throwing cold water on extreme heat hype
OK here is the Truth.
Quote:A story came to my attention recently that merited comment.

It appeared in London’s The Telegraph, and was headlined, “Give heat waves names so people take them more seriously, say experts, as Britain braces for hottest day.”

The story’s leaping-off point was a press release from the London School of Economics (LSE), which noted, “A failure by the media to convey the severity of the health risks from heat waves, which are becoming more frequent due to climate change, could undermine efforts to save lives this week as temperatures climb to dangerous levels.”
Really,,,,, Why do we need to give Hot Days Names? 
Think about it, just in Phoenix, AZ. alone, you would have over 4 or 5 months of above 100 degree weather, you have enough names for that?


Quote:It added, “So how can the media be persuaded to take the risks of heat waves more seriously?
Perhaps it is time ... to give heat waves names [as is done] for winter storms.”

We disagree with some of the points being made.
The Media has enough to talk about, they don't need to throw people into a Panic because Today is 101 degrees and we'll call today George day.
STUPID!
Thank God someone has a Brain!
Quote:First, and most important, we warn people all the time in plain language on our apps and on AccuWeather.com about the dangers of extreme heat, as well as all hazards.

Furthermore, that is the reason we developed and patented the AccuWeather RealFeel® Temperature and our recently expanded AccuWeather RealFeel® Temperature Guide, to help people maximize their health, safety and comfort when outdoors and prepare and protect themselves from weather extremes.

The AccuWeather RealFeel Temperature Guide is the only tool that properly takes into account all atmospheric conditions and translates them into actionable behavior choices for people.


Second, although average temperatures have been higher in recent years, there is no evidence so far that extreme heat waves are becoming more common because of climate change, especially when you consider how many heat waves occurred historically
compared to recent history.


New York City has not had a daily high temperature above 100 degrees since 2012, and it has had only five such days since 2002. However, in a previous 18-year span from 1984 through 2001, New York City had nine days at 100 degrees or higher. When the power went out in New York City earlier this month, the temperature didn’t even get to 100 degrees – it was 95, which is not extreme. For comparison, there were 12 days at 95 degrees or higher in 1999 alone.


Kansas City, Missouri, for example, experienced an average of 18.7 days a year at 100 degrees or higher during the 1930s, compared to just 5.5 a year over the last 10 years. And over the last 30 years, Kansas City has averaged only 4.8 days a year at 100 degrees or higher, which is only one-quarter of the frequency of days at 100 degrees or higher in the 1930s.


Here is a fact rarely, if ever, mentioned: 26 of the 50 states set their all-time high temperature records during the 1930s that still stand (some have since been tied). And an additional 11 state all-time high temperature records were set before 1930 and only two states have all-time record high temperatures that were set in the 21st century (South Dakota and South Carolina).


So 37 of the 50 states have an all-time high temperature record not exceeded for more than 75 years. Given these numbers and the decreased frequency of days of 100 degrees or higher, it cannot be said that either the frequency or magnitude of heat waves are more common today.


Finally, there is the question of whether heat waves should be named. That’s an easy one: I oppose naming heat waves.


If such warnings existed, what would be the cutoff point or the boundary line? A heat wave in one state is not in another? In other words, if you say the criteria is where the AccuWeather RealFeel Temperature is above some number, what happens in a nearby location that is one degree below the cutoff number?

Of course some people still may be at risk because there is variability of risk.
An AccuWeather RealFeel Temperature of 95 may be a risk to infants and the elderly but minimal risk to others. And if the cutoff is set too low, the naming of heat waves would become so frequent it would be meaningless and ultimately will undermine the credibility of meteorologists.


What else are these people going to suggest we name? Hurricanes and tropical storms already get names and they have since the 1940s, and the names are selected by international agreement.
Yet, even for them, the criteria of whether and when to name a particular storm or not has left some leeway to the judgment of forecasters at the National Hurricane Center.

If we were to name heat waves, should we also name cold waves, high wind events, pollution events? What about whiteouts due to blowing snow?

All that would do is cause more confusion. AccuWeather believes in clearly warning of all extreme weather and explaining what the impact will be on people.


Heat-related deaths are one of the deadliest extreme weather health outcomes in the United States, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which notes that many heat-related deaths and illnesses are preventable.

We agree.


AccuWeather’s core mission is to save lives, protect property and help people and businesses prosper, a directive we take to heart 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That’s one of the reasons why we developed the AccuWeather RealFeel Temperature and the guide that explains specifically what each number means, which can be found on our website.
It’s also why AccuWeather meteorologists carefully consider the words we use in our forecasts so our users understand the risk of extreme weather to themselves and their families.
Source
Climate Change and Global Warming is All BULLSHIT!!!!
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
Reply
#9
Well, now we also have geo-engineering, aka: chemtrails, to worry about.  I was watching Pete Santilli last night and his guest was the guy from Geo-Engineering Watch. He made some good points. Actually, I was going to add the video here today, but when I went to look for it, it was gone.   tinyshocked 

I don't know if this is another scare tactic to grab the money from our hands before it even goes in our pocket, but if what he was saying is true, this problem is much more serious than climate change...

According to his team's research, we only have until 2026 before our ozone layer is completely destroyed, and then we all die. He also said, at this point, there isn't a whole lot we can do about it.

  Sigh...  smallnotamused
Reply
#10
The United States of America (not including California, New York and New Jersey) should pull out of the United Nations.
What a bunch of Corrupt Ass Holes.
Quote:Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet
Really?
What kind of Stupid Nonsense are they Pushing?
For millions of year Dinosaurs (meat eaters/Raptor types) ate raw meat, and had Large Guts with Huge Intestines and Big, Large and Smelly Farts,,, I Would Imagine.
Was there Climate Change Then?
NO!

Quote:Efforts to curb greenhouse gas-emissions and the impacts of global warming will fall significantly short without drastic changes in global land use, agriculture and human diets, leading researchers warn in a high-level report commissioned by the United Nations.

The special report on climate and land by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) describes plant-based diets as a major opportunity for mitigating and adapting to climate change ― and includes a policy recommendation to reduce meat consumption.
Source
 
I thought it was already proven that the IPCC was a SCAM!
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
Reply
#11
(08-08-2019, 06:02 PM)guohua Wrote: I thought it was already proven that the IPCC was a SCAM!

It has, but that doesn't mean a story can't be spun a different way for outage ratings!

It's about deforestation in certain countries for farming. The UN were saying that use of land for
agriculture, the overuse of artificial fertilisers and wood used for fuel would assist a decrease in
the use fossil fuels to slow global warming.

And the trick is in the wording. If you constantly come up with ideas on how to stop global warming
or whatever the trendy name is, you'll argue about the possible remedies but ignore and accept the
premise that Global warming is real.

If we stop eating cows and eat vegetables instead, the ozone-layer-destroying farting will stop?!!
Cows eat vegetation and they're currently to blame, so it's not a meat problem!
Do we destroy all farting animals or just the cattle...?  Will the dead bodies give off methane during
their decomposing?!!!

The beef industry in the United States is an important factor of control when it comes to the UN
attempting to rein-in President Trump, this is a mere shot across his bow and in the background is
Gore's sneaky carbon-credit scam, a scheme that doesn't fix anything except move the blame.

No, this twisted story is all about certain associates of some UN members wanting the public to look
to plant-based foods, such as coarse grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables under the heading of
'healthy eating', and with such a suggestion, sticks its tongue out the US beef industry.

The Amazon jungle isn't in the USA and red meat is part of a human's natural diet, so a change is
something somebody wants for some other reason than stopping the cows from farting.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply
#12
The ass-kissing BBC even has a calculator to check the impact on the environment of the food produced,
but the way it's displayed is disingenuous. (The article and calculator can be found here.)

True, the article does have a lengthy explanation of how the calculator is displayed, but in my opinion, by
having a viewer use the mechanism, implies that the onus of solving this supposed dilemma is on the person
who uses it.

The overall hit-piece is to advise the public to eat smaller portions and to lean towards chipmunk food like
nuts and tofu, yer' know... the stuff weak people eat. My cavemen ancestors will be feeling pretty shameful
right now for eating that poor furry-wurry mastodon from a Disney movie!

There are graphs that show which countries are the main contributors to so-called 'greenhouse gases', but the
emphasis seems to be that any cattle produce like milk, cheese and beef, is bad for the environment.
However, they miss their mark and indicate that those with browner skins than President Trump would suffer,
so better tactics are used in word-smithing.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=6195]
[Image: attachment.php?aid=6196]

What is intriguing to me is that considering one of the main suggestions of the trendy 'Green New Deal'
that AOC's activist group is:
'...Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible."...'

Which shows me that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's ex-Chief of Staff -Saikat Chakrabarti, has really knuckled-down
at his new job at New Consensus! It also shows the conduits that readily available for him in the mainstream media
and how this is really just another stitch-up job against Trump.

Chakrabarti said the deal had nothing to do with climate and yet, only days after he left the crazy bartender,
the BBC have graphs and information that cast a negative light on the meat industry by attempting the shame the
customer.
Fancy that as a coincidence!

But the European-loving-BBC haven't pulled their pants down fully for Chakrabarti, no-no, their masters want a piece
of the action too. As this confusing paragraph from the article says:

Quote:'...Meat and dairy are not the only foods where the choices you make can make a big difference.
Chocolate and coffee originating from deforested rainforest produce relatively high greenhouse gases.

For climate-friendly tomatoes, choose those grown outdoors or in high-tech greenhouses, instead of in greenhouses
heated by gas or oil. Environmentally-minded beer-drinkers may be interested to know that draught beer is responsible
for fewer emissions than recyclable cans, or worse, glass bottles.

Even the most climate-friendly meat options still produce more greenhouse gases than vegetarian protein sources,
like beans or nuts...'


The larger European countries... well, actually the only real countries in the EU, France and Germany have recently increased
their food productions via more 'environmentally-friendly' methods. Or should I say, advertised it more through certain media
conduits.

So, there's a push by the MSM to attempt to paint killing animals in general in a bad light.
Is it a coincidence that The Guardian also released this article on the same day as their inbred-cousins at the BBC did their's?


Quote:Trump administration authorizes 'cyanide bombs' to kill wild animals.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=6197]


'The Trump administration has reauthorized government officials to use controversial poison devices
–dubbed “cyanide bombs” by critics –to kill coyotes, foxes and other animals across the US.

The spring-loaded traps, called M-44s, are filled with sodium cyanide and are most frequently deployed by
Wildlife Services, a federal agency in the US Department of Agriculture that kills vast numbers of wild animals
each year, primarily for the benefit of private farmers and ranchers.

In 2018, Wildlife Services reported that its agents had dispatched more than 1.5 million native animals, from
beavers to black bears, wolves, ducks and owls. Roughly 6,500 of them were killed by M-44s.

On Tuesday, after completing the first phase of a routine review, the US Environmental Protection Agency
announced that it would allow sodium cyanide’s continued use in M-44s across the country on an interim basis...'
Shitty Journalism:

The announcement  was made on Tuesday, today is Friday... strange?

The environmentalists are using shaming tactics for their goals. Lickle smiling animals are cwying as the big-bad
white man is poisoning them for fun and eating their still-twitching flesh. Jeez, Disney's digital animation teams
have a lot to answer for!

But it shows you the range of media access that these activists have and how willing sections -if not all, of these
news-outlets will go to garner ratings and assist their Eloi-friends.
.....................

And of course, there's these usual ones from the EU, taking another swipe at the UK's wish to leave its ponzi-scheme...

No-deal Brexit risks cattle cull in Northern Ireland, industry insiders warn.
LINK:


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
           
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)