I guess we better start building the Arks now
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, March 17, 2006 1:14 p.m. EST

Sen. John Kerry: N.Y.C., Boston Gone by 2036
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Failed presidential candidate John Kerry offered a startling prediction Friday morning: If the U.S. doesn't change its global warming ways, New York City and Boston will be destroyed due to flooding by 2036.

"I can say to an absolute certainty," Kerry told radio host Don Imus, "that if things stay exactly as they are today absent some unpredictable change in what's going on, within the next 30 years the Arctic ice sheet is gone.

"Not maybe, not if - the Arctic ice sheet is gone," the Massachusetts Democrat insisted, before offering his hair-raising prediction.

"Already you have the Greenland ice sheet beginning to melt ... If that melts, you have a level of sea level increase that wipes out Boston Harbor, New York Harbor - I mean, it's just stunning what we're looking at."


Kerry blamed the Bush administration's environmental policies for the coming destruction of New York and Boston.

"Europe and the other countries are responding," he told Imus. "The United States remains oblivious - at least the administration remains oblivious."

Despite the dire warning, Kerry hasn't done much to change his own global warming ways.

At last report, he and his wife still owned several SUVs, a gas guzzling yacht, five BTU gobbling homes and a private jet.

Like fellow environmentalist RFK, Jr., Kerry continues to withold his support for the proposed construction of a wind farm in the waters off Nantucket, where he and his wife own a mansion.

um rory- global warming is true....and what kerry said is probably true too so what is the wacko part? that they dont want a wind farm by their mansions? do you have any info on that? ive heard that a couple times but havent found any facts on it yet.......

rory- who cares about some anti-kerry blog article with no real info in it, what are your thoughts on global warming? what do you think about the updated models that suggest that global warming is happening way faster than scientist thought even two years ago?

Yoohoo! Rorrryy! Any thinking going on in there? Didn't think so.

Too bad I'm not going to be around then,
because I would love to be able to watch
the big toilet being flushed.
And those giant scrubbing bubbles.

WOOHOOO Mr Tidey bowl man here we come.

You know if the Artic North stays at 48 degrees
in jan,feb an mar,we wont have 30 years like Kerry says,we will have less than 10 years.
And that is'nt funny,because there is nothing we can do to stop it.
So next time you start your car,burn your garbage,
use anything made of plastic,turn your lights on
or take a breath,go flush your toilet an take
a good long look an then remember the last time
it over flowed.
This has been comming for a long time.
An if your are any kind of an outdoorsman,you, like myself, have seen it happening all around you
for a long time.
Mom Nature will have her way.

Lupo,

Do you believe NYC and Boston are going to be under water by 2036 too?

Here's some info on Kerry and other psuedo-environmentalists concerning the proposed wind mills that would have cut green house emissions if they were really interested in doing so.

There's plenty of other info about Kerry's hypocricy available if you google: Kerry Wind Mills

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060302-124537-9804r.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Kerry: Tilting at Windmills

February 02, 2004

Democratic front-runner Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts has struck political gold -- by talking about oil.

Mr. Kerry's biggest applause follows this part of his campaign speech:

"Never again will young Americans in uniform, ever, be held hostage to America's dependence on oil from the Middle East."

He then thunders:

"We are going to declare our independence and break free from the oil cartel."

The Kerry Plan
Here's his plan:

* Increase government-mandated fuel economy standards for cars
* Require utilities to get 20% of their power from renewable fuels
* Emphasize wind and biomass power, and
* Fund conservation using royalties that oil and gas companies use to drill on federal property.

Let's examine just one of these ideas (wind power) to gauge his commitment.

Tale of the Cape
Two years ago, a private company wanted to take Kerry's environmental advice. Cape Wind Associates offered to plant 170 windmill towers in Nantucket Sound (Cape Cod, Massachusetts). Each tower would stand 40-stories tall. The whirly-birds could generate three-quarters of the power needed for all the Cape Island residents.

Over 20 years, the windmills would save ratepayers $800 million. They'd also offset a million tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually by producing energy that's cleaner than existing coal or oil-burning power plants. And they would certainly help to break that grip OPEC has on America.

Certainly, East Coast liberals could support a super-environmental solution such as this? Windmill farms are just the type of renewable energy source Senator Kerry has been talking about in his campaign speeches and ads.

Not in My Backyard
Sure ... if they were built somewhere else.

Surprise ... Massachusetts Liberals are environmental hypocrites. The L.L. Bean-wearing, Volvo-driving, bunny-hugging East Coast environmentalists are in a snit.

After decades of dictating to western states about their land use and pollution, East Coasters now want local control.

But, but, but ...
One Cape Cod group thinks wind farms in the Sound would spoil the view and harm tourism.

A yacht club complains that offshore windmills threaten navigation for the annual Hyannis-to-Nantucket Regatta.

Bird watchers contend that endangered species following migratory flyways will serve as cuisinart fodder for the swirling blades.

Kerry Spin
Senator Kerry, the self-proclaimed environmentalist, successfully delayed construction by demanding an environmental impact statement. (Of course, that was before he was running for president. Now, he is reluctant to even talk about Cape Cod windmills.)

Kennedy Spin
Kerry's colleague, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), went one step further. He quietly inserted an amendment into an energy bill that gave the Interior Department the same authority to regulate wind power at sea as it does today with oil and gas drilling on land. That could, inevitably, kill the project.

Reich Spin
Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, also a Massachusetts resident, covered his backside by saying:

"One part of environmentalism that is not talked about often enough, in my view, is scenic beauty."

Oh, come on, Mr. Secretary.

No Spin
Kerry, Kennedy and Reich just don't want this project built in their own backyard. Pontificating about land-use restrictions and environmental schemes is fine when you're forcing Nevadans to accept plutonium for the next 500 years, or when you tell loggers in Oregon they must find new work because the spotted owl needs the old-growth forest.

But when Cape Cod is the destination for one of your schemes, then local control and private property rights are paramount.

Hot Air
Maybe Nantucket Sound isn't the best location for the windmills after all. Just connect the generators to the Boston offices of John, Teddy and Robert. You'll find enough spinning going on there to light up the entire East Coast.

Rory,

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We already know Kerry is a hypocrit, just like we know Bush is an idiot. Got anything new to report?

BTW, add the White House and Republican Senate spinning to your proposed wind generators, and you can light up a lot more than just the entire east coast. Might as well utilize the energy from both sides of the partisan street, right?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Jesus, Rory! You are embarassing!

In your initial post you quoted John Kerry:

"Already you have the Greenland ice sheet beginning to melt ... If that melts, you have a level of sea level increase that wipes out Boston Harbor, New York Harbor - I mean, it's just stunning what we're looking at."

Then in your last post you pose the question:

"Do you believe NYC and Boston are going to be under water by 2036 too?", referring back to Kerry.

Now there are two possibilities, Rory.

One, you don't read your talking points well and don't understand that the quotation from Kerry ( which you posted!) said "harbors" would be wiped out, not cities "under water".

Two, you are deliberately trying to mislead.

Everything is juuuuuust fine where your head is Rory.

Dark, 98.6 degrees and no change in sight

More water equals more fish! I'm gonna do my part and burn whenever I get a chance. I think I will start spraying more cfc's too. The faster the better.

Great... hope you are building a big boat too.

My bad, I should have asked who believes NYC and Boston will destroyed by flooding as Kerry purported.

So with that in mind, how many of you agree with Kerry that NYC and Boston will be destroyed by flooding by 2036 if the US doesn't change it's global warming ways?

Anyone.....Anyone.....Bueller

Rory, you are hopeless. But your distortions in this thread of what Kerry actually said is an excellent example, albeit a little crude, of how wingnuts operate.

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

By Bob Carter
(Filed: 09/04/2006)

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.

There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.

On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.

As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.

Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?

• Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research

rory-what is your agenda???? how does it help you to try and mislead people? why do you hate science when it is the study of gods planet? why do you hate humanity so much that you would try and distract people from trying to save themselves???????????????????????

honestly???? what is your agneda....there is no way, that you dont know that your full of crap, so why not come clean with your agenda so we can undestand why you lie to other americans over subjects that are very important

Lupo,

His agenda is pretty obvious. It is to get a reaction out of thinking individuals. He thinks it's funny to post some OBVIOUSLY stupid, extreme right-wing stuff... then sit back and watch folks get worked up over it. Kinda like TK did, but at a much simpler level.

I think most of it is pretty funny myself. It's like reading a transcript of a conservative "hate" radio talk show segment. I wouldn't let it get to ya.

Bob Carter is a junk scientist.

Classic example of the Texas Sharpshooter everyone discusses in Statistics and Regression class right there.

You don't determine your target when the shots have already been fired, Rory. But, do keep waving the red herring.

Kyoto is pointless, say 60 leading scientists


By Philip Sherwell
(Filed: 09/04/2006)

Canada's new Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been urged by more than 60 leading international climate change experts to review the global warming policies he inherited from his centre-Left predecessor.

In an open letter that includes five British scientists among the signatories, the experts praise his recent commitment to review the controversial Kyoto protocol on reducing emissions harmful to the environment.


Stephen Harper has been urged to review his policies

"Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science," they wrote in the Canadian Financial Post last week.

They emphasised that the study of global climate change is, in Mr Harper's own words, an "emerging science" and added: "If, back in the mid 1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." Despite claims to the contrary, there is no consensus among climate scientists on the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, they wrote.

"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.

"Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise'."

The letter is the latest effort by climate change sceptics to counter claims that there is a consensus that human activity is causing global warming.

60 huh?

And how many disagree?

Wait 'til he gets his shoes off. That'll get him to 24.