Father" of Global Warming changes his mind, says Doomsday scenario not likely

What "alarmists" please tell me who is making money from alarmism on climate change - whereas your pet author clearly has a money making scam going

Are you going to subsidise the building of these power plants? Are you offering to buy the coal for them? If the population cannot afford to feed itself it cannot afford to build expensive power plants

 

NO. Obama is NOT responsible for creating ISIS.

And, ISIS entered Syria because of the chaos there. The locals had too many problems trying to live und Assad to sacrifice their lives against ISIS - which was also opposed to Assad.

Your conspiracy theory thing is total BS in the first place.

But, suggesting that a conspiracy of just Europe and the US would be sufficient is totally ridiculous. In fact, pitching Europe as limited to ONE idea on ANYTHING is rather crazy.

Besides, you seem to have missed Africa, Asia, Australia - just for some of the "A" list.

There is no way this conspiracy could even be sustained within the US - even if no ideas from the outside leaked in.

If you want to make Bangladesh and Syria wealthy, hey, I'm not going to stand in your way of making a proposal!!

But, I'll point out that nations that can't feed themselves have an absolutely horrible record of maintaining a government.

 

All those being paid by the gov to do only AGW work. More smears to avoid doing some homework. Typical - it's the go to tactic of the alarmists with closed minds.

I'm suggesting that the international community can do that for Bangladesh if they were really concernced about the welfare of it's people. Provide them inexpensive electrical power and their economy will grow. Spending money on global warming policies which do nothing kills people.

 

Of course he is. He pulled all troops, state dept, and intelligence personnel out of Iraq in 2011 claiming the new democracy in Iraq was one of the greatest achievements of his presidency. AQI had been decimated by the surge and was down to less than 100. They fled to Syria. Today they are over 30,000. And all due to the feckless foreign policy blunder of Barrack Obama.

All you need to do to understand the gov funding of global warming science policy is to read the charter of the IPCC. The developed western countries are all in. But the developing countries will not reduce their economic growth to reduce CO2 emissions. The third world countries expect redistribution from the developed countries.

 

So every government in the world whether they be communist, fascist, socialist, democratic or royalist has paid scientists to make up stuff about global warming? All those governments including several republican ones in America all paid for scientists to falsify data?

Mate conspiracy theories usually manage better than that

Now as for Bangladesh - who pays? Are we going to subsidise every third world country in the world? Who will be paying the billions to develop this infrastructure. And you do realise don't you that it is no good having a power plant without an electrical grid to go with it and that is what actually costs all the money?

 

It has been asked but never answered

 

They aren't making stuff up. They are paid to produce science only on AGW using assumptions conducive to the narrative that humans are causing catastrophic global warming. The Mann hockey stick is a prime example. Science was used to produce a desired result but the as McIntyre and McKitrick showed the science was flawed. The hockey stick was peer reviewed and no one noticed anything amiss.

Take some of the money going to "green energy" and save human lives. Seems like a noble thing to do.

 

AGW deniers have also been paid to produce narratives that suggest AGW is not real. This has been shown quite clearly

 

Bush signed the SOFA that stated the time time table and order of departure of combat troops, which also ended the immunity from prosecution we require for carrying out combat missions in a sovereign nation. That was the end of it. Maliki had no interest in the US staying in a capacity of carrying out combat missions, and not even that mattered, as he would have had to get a new SOFA past is parliament, which was absolutely against that idea.

I don't know why this idea persists that Bush would sign a SOFA in December and then one month later the new president would try to replace that SOFA - it's as if you don't think these agreements have ANY value or impact. And, you're just wrong about that.

Beyond that, we made progress against AQI ONLY when we had the full support of Sunnis. Before we had that, we failed against AQI. Once Bush selected Maliki, there was no chance of maintaining that support. We had nothing to offer them anymore. Maliki's direction was to disenfranchise Sunnis and to carry out lethal attacks against Sunni civilians all across Iraq using his state forces as well as militias. Like in Syria, Sunnis could no longer afford to defend themselves against their national government while also opposing the help they were getting from AQI.

AND, those associated with AQI went wherever they went whenever they wanted to. We had no control of the borders of Iraq. And, there is no chance that we had an accurate count of those in AQI down to the level you claim. As you point out, they had a strong ability to recruit from the local populations of those in desperate need of support against their own lethal governments.



As for the IPCC, it make zero sense to demand that third world nations voluntarily cripple themselves, denying their people a future while the US and others, whose per capita contribution to the problem is and has always been FAR higher, do no more than tweak their economies to favor conservation and new energy technology.

 

Who has been paid to say that AGW is not real and who is paying them ??

 

Obama did not fight to extend the SOFA and declared that Iraq was safe and stable when he pulled everyone out. That would be the same as Truman pulling all troops out of Europe, Japan, and Korea in 1947. Actually he did pull all troops out of Korea - how did that turn out ?? The lessons of history are lost on Barrack.

If we had stayed ISIS would never have been able to invade and occupy northern Iraq and grow as much as they did. Success is the driver of recruitment - not Gitmo as the Obama administration continues to falsely push. We now have 5000 + troops in Iraq in harms way with no SOFA. Why is that - not as important as Obama claimed years ago ??

 

Could Obama extend the SOFA if Iraq did not want it? Should we then have installed an ACTUAL puppet to be in charge if Iraq? LOL

 

Iraq's leadership (Maliki) did want it. Obama insisted on a parliamentary vote which was not necessary. He was looking for an excuse to get out and manufactured one. This is the worst foreign policy decision since Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler (although Chamberlain may have had not choice but had to buy time so that the UK's military could gear up).

 

Good so we agree the government of Iraq voted to end the SOFA. Why do you hate democracy?

 

Iraq is a republic and the President has executive powers similar to Obama who signed the US up to the ludicrous Iran nuclear deal.

 

So we should have violated the will of a democratic republic?

 

which is the way it should be, obviously more variables in this equation, but we need people to follow the evidence, not the politics

we are changing the climate, that is fact, the question is, what will be the impact, for all we know it delays the next ice age... nothing more

"Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.""

.

 

There was ZERO chance of changing the SOFA. Iraq was highly opposed to changing it. Maliki, his parliament, is Iranian connections all wanted us out.

Think about it. He wanted to move against Sunnis - as he demonstrated. Our progress came when we worked WITH Sunnis.

Our presence as an independent combat force was an impediment to the objectives of the Iraqi government. We weren't going to solve that by giving him more pallets of dollars or whatever.

You are making nonsense comparisons to history while ignoring what was going on in IRAQ!!


Our troops in Iraq are a different issue. We do not have the level of troops in Iraq that our military states are required for independent combat operations. And, they are NOT covered by a SOFA that protects them from Iraqi legal charges if they operate as such - a requirement of our military and something Iraq is absolutely unwilling to confer.

They are there in numbers that the sovereign nation of Iraq accepts and limits to training missions - embedded in Iraqi forces if they are in the field. They have also been working on getting Sunnis into the Iraqi military, as the current government is less oriented to slaughtering Sunnis than was the Maliki government we first installed.

 

Anyone with a brain knew what would happen when the U.S. left Iraq.

 

And then you Americans claim science isn't politicised in America. It's sad this issue is so divided along party lines.
It just isn't anywhere else.

 

That's absolutely untrue. Publicly and for political reasons Maliki complained about a occupying force but he wanted a significant US military, diplomatic (not so much), and intelligence presence in Iraq. Obama wanted out so he could claim he ended the war. The irony is that for the entire 8 years of his presidency we have been at war.

The lessons of history are there to learn from or if ignored to repeat mistakes.

 

I didn't know you were in Maliki's inner circle and was privy to his private thoughts and discussions on the matter

 

Maliki refused to have a force that was the size our military sees as the minimum size for independent combat operation and refused to grant us the indemnify our forces - a requirement we have ALWAYS required, unless we're actually operating against the will of the nation, such as in a conquest.

Obama can't really claim he ended the war in Iraq. Bush is the one who put the government in place and fully specified our departure - right down to schedule and distribution of costs.

Our continued war in Afg is certainly not irony! I have NO idea how you got to that. It IS a lesson, though. We can't just knock over a nation and walk away to allow chaos to ensure - nobody believes that is acceptable. And, establishing a government is something that we're terrible at doing when a country isn't ready for it.

You haven't come up with any applicable history that counters anything that Obama has done. And, frankly, that seems surprising.

 

That's what he said publicly. That information is out there. Do some homework.

The lessons of history are there to be learned from or ignored. It's up to the individual to understand history or not.

- - - Updated - - -

That information is out there. Do some homework.

 

Then show your work. This is a test and you are failing