Chris Akins's Comments

Al Gore's Global Warming Alarmism Continues to Melt and Wither by Chris Akins

Jul 1, 2007 | rating: 5.5 | comments: 57

Chris Akins Jul 9, 2007, 12:03pm EDT

To achieve the unrealistic goals set by Al Gore of 90% reduction of greenhouse gases (I believe the 90% is the figure used by most climate scientists) and using government-mandated schemes, such as cap-and-trade, forced ethanol, etc, as opposed to free-market solutions to achieve arbitrarily mandated solutions we would have to ground every flight, stop every car, shut down virtually all energy grids.

No A/C, no travel, no electricity, save that generated by dams, windmills, and nuclear power.

This is something no rational person would stand for.

The only viable solution is one that is clean and costs less than what is produced today while satisfying the increasing demand.

Once that is created, then, yes, I'm all for it.

Al Gore's Global Warming Alarmism Continues to Melt and Wither by Chris Akins

Jul 1, 2007 | rating: 5.5 | comments: 57

Chris Akins Jul 4, 2007, 4:09pm EDT

The sources you give don't say global warming isn't occuring on Mars. It simply says it's too early to tell.

These of course are the same wingnuts who say man is warming the planet to the point of extinction. But without man to blame for warming on other planets they take a wait and see approach.

Wish they'd do the same here.

I hope this issue is alive and well for the next election because it's going to fall on the global alarmists to explain what the impact of government mandates and taxes will have the economy.

The polls you mention are old news.

It's also funny to look at the contradictory views - government mandates to curb emissions while giving tax breaks to unproven methods (wind, solar) while no breaks to proven electricity generators (nuclear). They also oppose higher taxes on gas and electricity.

Someone's going to have to pay for the mandates and tax breaks. Who would that be? Or would it be more more income redistribution schemes?

The BBC poll - and I imagine other polls do as well - show there's more concern with terrorism and crime.

The poll essentially adheres to the theory that individuals being polled will give the answer they feel is socially acceptable even if it's not the true opinion they hold.

The poll also exists in a vacuum in that negative socio-economic impacts are not mentioned in relation to the question, e.g., "would you pay higher taxes to discourage greenhouse emissions? How much job loss is acceptable to prevent industry from emitting greenhouse gases? Are you willing to allow massive windmills and solar collection panels in your neighborhood?"

That last question is important. You love to cite as proof various polls that adhere to your pre-conceived notions.

Are you willing to embrace polls that show the NIMBY and BANANA traits held by the American public, as these polls show?

Bottom line: climate realists - the true rationalist approach - is winning the debate and the public is seeing the alarmists for what they are: scientists who simply exaggerate the problem for increased funding with a complicit radical left wing who wants to force massive government regulation and taxes on a populace.

You know, the same argument leftists use on the Republicans for war on terror and the need for increased government surveillance.

My $5,000 bet is still on the table.

Al Gore's Global Warming Alarmism Continues to Melt and Wither by Chris Akins

Jul 1, 2007 | rating: 5.5 | comments: 57

Chris Akins Jul 3, 2007, 12:48pm EDT

Let me understand this - Mars is getting warmer, but it's not the same reason Earth is getting warmer.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAAH!!! That's like saying the reason my neighbor has the flu isn't the same reason I have the flu.

You're so desperate to push a radical leftist ideology of higher taxes and regulation that you'll say "ignore the man behind the curtain."

Actually, I see the opposite. As more and more info is put out there, more and more people are coming to the climate realist side.

BBC actually was publishing about a poll today that found 56% of people believe climate scientists are still questioning climate change (which they are) and that the problem is "exaggerated to make money" (which it is).

Just say it, Clark, it won't hurt you. Just say, "We want to raise taxes to the point that it discourages exploring new energy resources, to the point that people won't accumulate wealth, that people won't have children. We want to regulate industry and development out of existence."

All I can say is go drink some more kool aid.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6263690.stm

Al Gore's Global Warming Alarmism Continues to Melt and Wither by Chris Akins

Jul 1, 2007 | rating: 5.5 | comments: 57

Chris Akins Jul 3, 2007, 12:12pm EDT

That's why I also believe that - as history shows - the future will be better and more prosperous than the world of today.

And it'll be my world until I leave it.

Just as this generation has done better than the previous one, the next one will also do better.

Al Gore's Global Warming Alarmism Continues to Melt and Wither by Chris Akins

Jul 1, 2007 | rating: 5.5 | comments: 57

Chris Akins Jul 3, 2007, 11:36am EDT

I've got history on my side.

Ideological gibberish=the world will end in 10 years=we need more money to explore.

Climate and historical realism=no doomsday prediction has ever come true, nor is it likely it will.

Faith-based nonsense is taking these government funded scientists at face value when they say we're all going to drown, starve, and roast in 10 to 100 years.

Faith-based is quoting Al Gore's power point presentation.

Faith-based is saying the ocean's will rise 20 feet in the next 100 years.

Faith-based is ignoring history and placing unfounded faith in those whose livelihoods depend on government largesse.

Ideological gibberish is discounting adaptability and opportunity with changes while wanting higher taxes, limits on development, limits on the number of children a family can have.

At least be honest enough to come out and say that the "we care" mantra is political cover for a push by radical leftists to push an extreme agenda of taxation and regulation.

I'll lay $5,000 on the table right now that in 50 years none of the predictions will come true.

Al Gore's Global Warming Alarmism Continues to Melt and Wither by Chris Akins

Jul 1, 2007 | rating: 5.5 | comments: 57

Chris Akins Jul 3, 2007, 10:17am EDT

Actually, it was a highlight of an article.

I still don't see where the sources are invalid.

Nor have the points been debunked.

Alarmists can't stand it when realists point out the future ain't as bad as predicted.

I still find it odd that the alarmists actually seem to want the earth to flood and it's populace to starve.

It seems borne of some perverted hatred of mankind and reverence toward Gaia.

Al Gore's Global Warming Alarmism Continues to Melt and Wither by Chris Akins

Jul 1, 2007 | rating: 5.5 | comments: 57

Chris Akins Jul 3, 2007, 7:43am EDT

:::sigh::: there you go again, Clark - always foaming at the mouth with you conspiracy theories.

Glad you emerged from your cave, dragging your knuckles the whole way.

Here's the rundown...again....no one denies the earth is getting warmer, just as Mars is getting warmer (must be the Mars Rover).

But it's highly doubtful any of your predictions will come true, as the past doom and gloom theories have never come true. We haven't frozen to death (a al 1970), we haven't starved to death (a la 1960s and 1970s), we haven't over-populated ourselves to death (a la 1960s and 1970s), and our oceans are still thriving (a la 1980s and early 1990s).

Your alarmist movement is nothing more than political cover to force social change on a populace that would otherwise be horrified at what you propose (a la Former Soviet Union, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba).

So, since you want this social change so bad, tell us what it is.

Tell us what the ideal temperature is.

Tell us what tax rates you would force on the producers of society and how you would re-distribute that wealth.

Tell us what regulations you would impost on captains of industry.

Tell us with 100% certainty what will happen in the next 50 to 100 years.

Al Gore's Global Warming Alarmism Continues to Melt and Wither by Chris Akins

Jul 1, 2007 | rating: 5.5 | comments: 57

Chris Akins Jul 2, 2007, 7:41pm EDT

I wish most of my opponents would walk around and mumble about sources rather than defend against the charge.

Make my life a whole lot easier.

As it is, nothing has been answered.

Al Gore's Global Warming Alarmism Continues to Melt and Wither by Chris Akins

Jul 1, 2007 | rating: 5.5 | comments: 57

Chris Akins Jul 2, 2007, 2:53pm EDT

Two things:

1. I'm not on the defense,
2. When you're explaining, you're losing.

4.6 billions vs 5.6 billion....does it really matter after a few billion?

Bottom line: we'll be here in 200 years in better shape than were are now; just as we are in better shape than our ancestors 200 years ago.

I don't fall for the gloom and doom and I'm not bent on screaming that we're going to drown, dehydrate, starve, or whatever in the next ten years.

Science isn't settled, nor is settled on what the consequences will be.

Al Gore's Global Warming Alarmism Continues to Melt and Wither by Chris Akins

Jul 1, 2007 | rating: 5.5 | comments: 57

Chris Akins Jul 2, 2007, 9:27am EDT

I've never seen people so eager to show the world is ending, despite evidence to the contrary.

The Earth is a monstrous sized planet that has been around for 5.6 BILLION years, surviving God knows how many ice ages, warming trends, bombardment by meteors and comets, even having most of it's like wiped out at one point or another.

And still, here we are.

It's a little presumptious (and I think arrogant) to think man could destroy it it a couple of hundred years.

Al Gore's Global Warming Alarmism Continues to Melt and Wither by Chris Akins

Jul 1, 2007 | rating: 5.5 | comments: 57

Chris Akins Jul 1, 2007, 6:04pm EDT

Thanks for the Newbuster link - I can't say I'm surprise Al Gore won't debate anyone on global warming. After watching Kerry take a beating from Gingrich, Gore definitely doesn't want to go to bat against real scientists.

Al Gore's Global Warming Alarmism Continues to Melt and Wither by Chris Akins

Jul 1, 2007 | rating: 5.5 | comments: 57

Chris Akins Jul 1, 2007, 5:52pm EDT

I see a bright, prosperous future for those brave enough to use their imagination and drag the world forward.

Is anyone surprised that Emily's List supports on pro-choice candidates, or that the Chamber of Commerce supports business-friendly candidates, or surprise that the Sierra Club or 1,000 Friends support environmentalism candidates.

Expressing "surprise" at supporters is simply political posturing and red herring; at worst it shows pure political naivety and foolishness.

Let's see if Greenpeace lays out their donors or if Al Gore lays out who his sponsors are.

Speaking of Greenpeace, here's an article on Greenpeace's financial transgressions.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10936

A Victory for Freedom of Political Speech by Chris Akins

Jun 26, 2007 | rating: 10 | comments: 3

Chris Akins Jun 27, 2007, 7:55pm EDT

I'm fine with the first aspect. Unfortunately, the second happens all too often and there's no legal remedy.

Claim That Sea Level Rising Is a Total Fraud by Rob Port

Jun 25, 2007 | rating: 6.4 | comments: 8

Chris Akins Jun 26, 2007, 12:03pm EDT

Clark couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag. Him and his ilk would negotiate our surrender to bin Laden so we could have peace in our time.

He's never answered an argument, just likes to call names and spread doom and gloom theories that have never materialized and likely never will.

Scientist: Get Ready for Global Cooling by Chris Akins

Jun 21, 2007 | rating: 8 | comments: 22

Chris Akins Jun 23, 2007, 5:30pm EDT

Hey, I'm all for nuclear power plants.

Has the IPCC turned into skeptics? by Chris Akins

Jun 21, 2007 | rating: 1 | comments: 11

Chris Akins Jun 23, 2007, 12:28pm EDT

To say that climate change will cause devastation is to say a cooler temperature will not cause devastation.

To that end it falls on the proponents of higher temp climate change to define what the ideal temperature is and what steps it will take to achieve that ideal temperature.

It also falls on the leftist-radicals to explain the impact those steps will have on the economies of the world.

Let me spell it out:

The building of power plants that provide most of the power for the US will have to cease. This means demand increases, supply is stagnant, we're faced with higher prices and rolling blackouts, a la California.

The alternatives that are proposed by leftist-radicals will not at this point supply the necessary demand.

Factories that provide jobs and production to satisfy consumer demand would have to be shut down with nothing else to replace them.

Development is developing countries would have to cease because there greenhouse emissions grow exponentially to bring themselves up to developed-country status.

Again, no solution to this is proposed.

Jobs destroyed, development halted by BANANAs and NIMBYs, taxes raised - this is the legacy of government-mandated efforts to halt global warming.

Has the IPCC turned into skeptics? by Chris Akins

Jun 21, 2007 | rating: 1 | comments: 11

Chris Akins Jun 23, 2007, 9:44am EDT

I too hope this is an issue in the next election.

You all will be forced to lay out your solutions. Talking about the problem and saying "cut greenhouse emissions" won't be enough for the electorate. They will demand solutions.

And your solutions are more damaging than anything climate change can cause.

What's the ideal temperature again?

No one has bothered to answer.

Has the IPCC turned into skeptics? by Chris Akins

Jun 21, 2007 | rating: 1 | comments: 11

Chris Akins Jun 22, 2007, 10:31pm EDT

Hey, Clark, come out with an original thought without mindlessly parroting what your left wing masters tell you to say.

You're probably one of these poor people who are jealous of the success others have and feel the only way to make up for it is to tear down those you perceive as above you.

Kinda like your buds in China for whom you serve as an apologist on climate change.

Or for whom you serve as an apologist who have open disdain for mankind, America, and capitalism.

Has the IPCC turned into skeptics? by Chris Akins

Jun 21, 2007 | rating: 1 | comments: 11

Chris Akins Jun 22, 2007, 11:10am EDT

In other words the science isn't settled and the only thing they can surmise is the earth is warming but don't know why, but CO2 sounds like a good culprit.

And they have to scare the bejesus out of governments and people to keep funding coming there way to support there grotesque lifestyle while silencing those who dissent.

Scientist: Get Ready for Global Cooling by Chris Akins

Jun 21, 2007 | rating: 8 | comments: 22

Chris Akins Jun 21, 2007, 9:45pm EDT

Kevin Trenberth of NCAR and one of the lead authors of the IPCC and who has also been described as an alarmist has this to say:

1. "[S]ince the last [IPCC] report it is also often stated that the science is settled or done and now is the time for action."

2. "In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been."

3. "None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate."

4. "Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized."

5. "The current projection method works to the extent it does because it utilizes differences from one time to another and the main model bias and systematic errors are thereby subtracted out. This assumes linearity. It works for global forced variations, but it can not work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle."

6. "However, the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate."

Wow.