Ban Moon: Climate Change Defining Challenge Of Our Age

I seriously love these pompous, sanctimonious blowhards who bloviate about global warming

VALENCIA, Spain, Nov. 17 — Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, describing climate change as “the defining challenge of our age,” released the final report of a United Nations panel on climate change here on Saturday and called on the United States and China to play “a more constructive role.”

His challenge to the world’s two greatest greenhouse gas emitters came just two weeks before the world’s energy ministers meet in Bali, Indonesia, to begin talks on creating a global climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Wait, wait, back up a second. Bali? Despite the Islamic extremist terrorism occurring in Indonesia, Bali remains a vacation spot. Strange that all these Believers are going to be going there to discuss climate change. Not to mention the massive amounts of CO2 they will put in the air as they fly (how many will fly on private planes?) over, and surely take limo’s.

If only he would challenge the Muslim countries to stop the proliferation of their jihadi wackjobs. But that would take some cajones. Something not present in liberals.

The United States and China are signatories to Kyoto, but Washington has not ratified the treaty, and China, along with other developing countries, is not bound by its mandatory emissions caps.

Yet again, we are not signatories. Clinton never signed it. Gore symbolically signing it has no power of law.

“Today the world’s scientists have spoken, clearly and in one voice,” Mr. Ban said of the report, the Synthesis Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “In Bali, I expect the world’s policymakers to do the same.”

Did they? Were those who have different views allowed input into the latest IPCC report? Will they be given a forum in Bali? Or will they be called names? They sure were not given a forum in the New York Times article, in order to provide a different and balanced point of view.

Over at Blogs For Victo(r)y, Mark Noonan catches this tidbit

Global warming is “unequivocal.” Temperatures have risen 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years. Eleven of the last 12 years are among the warmest since 1850. Sea levels have gone up by an average seven-hundredths of an inch per year since 1961. 

As Mark points out, we’re in a tizzy over that? Well, some are. And some are pushing that tizzy. We all know that liberals, who are the primary believers in global warming as caused by Man, are lemmings, and they are following right along with the approved position. Said position tends to be

  1. go buy carbon credits and tickets to lectures by people like the Goracle
  2. Capitalism is evil, and prosperous countries should give all their money away,
  3. government should tell us how to act, and
  4. living the carbon neutral lifestyle is for someone else.

In fact, very few of the Climahysterics actually live the life they espouse we all should be living. There is aaaaaalways an excuse to not live it themselves. I could list dozens I have heard over the years. Humorously, said excuses never seem to include “well, all the leaders in the Climahystericy movement don’t live the life.”

One final word: what bothers me most about the climate change hysteria, which will disappear in a decade or so, is that true environmental issues become secondary and/or relegated to the back seat of the climate change limo. Issues like preserving the Everglades or keeping the oceans clean, among others, deserve to stand on their own merits, not pushed to the background or incorporated into an idiotic “theory.”

Crossposted at Right Wing News, decidedly not carbon neutral

More: Insty writes: “IT’S CHILLY IN CHILE: (<Gateway Pundit) Yeah, I know, it’s weather, not climate. Just remind the newswriters of that when it’s unseasonably warm.” But, the question is, is it really weather, or is that the way it is supposed to be, otherwise known as climate? When the climahysterics start saying it is “abnormal,” how do they know, and how do they know what is happening with the warmer temps in other areas is not abnormal?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “Ban Moon: Climate Change Defining Challenge Of Our Age”

  1. Ban Moon: Climate Change The Defining Challenge Of Our Age…

    I seriously love these pompous, sanctimonious blowhards who bloviate about global warming VALENCIA, Spain, Nov. 17 — Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, describing climate change as “the defining challenge of our age,” released the final report of a U…

  2. Silke says:

    Teach said: Were those who have different views allowed input into the latest IPCC report?

    Yes, in fact you can see all the review comments and responses to the IPCC’s report right here:

    Eleven of the last 12 years are among the warmest since 1850

    Teach said: we’re in a tizzy over that?

    That seems a good reason to be concerned. I know what your position regarding CO2 is but your information on climate change is frequently wrong and you never provide any scientific evidence (not one study) for what the natural reason is. There must be something causing the current warming trend. Opinions and unsupported assertions just aren’t good enough. Please provide your evidence.

  3. I have no need to prove anything, Silke: climate change is your theory, so the burden of proof is on you.

    You can say you subscribe to it, but, as I have pointed out time and time again, you do not think it is so bad that you actually do anything about it. Nor do your climahysteria leaders. They are making lots of $$$ off this silliness, and flying all over the world, acting in exactly the same manner they say is causing global warming. Why is that? Look deep for the answer.

    And, BTW, 1.3 degrees? Temps were down by 4 degrees during the little ice age. Who is to say what the correct temperature actually is?

  4. Silke says:

    Teach, do you dispute that the Earth is warming? If not, then you must also acknowledge there is a reason for this warming trend (either natural or man-made). You can keep saying you don’t have to offer evidence all you want but that’s not much of an argument in support of your position.

    Climate scientists have a fairly good understanding of what caused past changes in the Earth’s temperature. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report has shown in great detail what factors contribute to changes in Earth’s climate. They have observed and measured those factors and even assigned values to them (radiative forcings). So if you are going to dispute their finding then you need to offer evidence that shows what natural factors are contributing to the current warming trend.

    Regarding my lifestyle, by your own standard I come pretty close to living it. (Please see my comments on this post: ). I can’t speak for others but again, this has nothing to do with the scientific evidence.

    Teach said: And, BTW, 1.3 degrees? Temps were down by 4 degrees during the little ice age. Who is to say what the correct temperature actually is?

    The issue isn’t what the “correct temperature” is or is not. The issue is the rate at which that temperature is changing and how widespread that change is (i.e. global vs. regional). Regarding the Little Ice Age, it is disputed whether that was a global event or just a regional one. But even if it were global, natural causes have been identified as the reason for the cooling: decreased solar activity, increased volcanic activity and deforestation during the Black Death (which may have prolonged it). None of those reasons can account for the current warming trend.

    The ball is in your court. Is the Earth warming and if it is, why?

  5. John Ryan says:

    Many of the whack jobs disputing climate change are the same nut cases that claim that the earth is only 10,000 years old.
    These are the people who support Teach’s view. Really are they any crazier than the worst of the truthers ?

  6. darthcrUSAderworldtour2007 says:

    You can’t use OUR term WACKJOB infidel Ryan… use your OWN terminology fellow yellow coat and mutant infidel turtle! I’m with Blackbeard William Teach on this issue and with Ben Franklin’s Almanac mateys!

  7. […] being a “truly beautiful tropical island paradise,” something I have mentioned a few times, as well. I also wondered how many attendees would be flying on private jets. Well, actually, I […]

  8. Ketan Ahuja says:

    i am very glad to see that teach is a republican, because that means that he stands for racism, sexism, and no doubt thinks that christianity is the only religion that deserves to exist. honestly, tell me something which is *true* that you think republicansstand for, and say how it is a benefit. and dont say some bogus piece-of-crap generalisation which does not mean anthing (which seems to be most of your article) like “republicans have moral values,” because liberals do have moral values, whatever fox news says, they are just different. go to the majority of people who have been through a decent level of higher education, and they will agree, same with global warming. dont beleive me? look at our president, he is the biggest dumbass in the world, (maybe second to your esteemed self) and he even managed to turn the world against the US after all that international sympathy and cooperation after 9/11.
    you say liberals don’t have balls, but may i remind you, JFK was a liberal, andthe cuban missile crisis was probably the toughest thing politically in the history of the US.
    i have been forced to agree not to debate about global warming over the internet, it wastes to much time, and people are such idiots, but i would happil debate over the phone or in person. just to tell you this is not because i would find it difficult tearing your arguments apart, i debated some of the most intelligent people in my country (england, but i am american), it was me alone against five of these sceptics, but i toe them apart, andwon by a landslide.

  9. Ketan Ahuja says:

    oh,and by saying the little ice age was a cooling of 4 degrees, you are wrong, the posted link above (wikipedia) says 1 degree, and it also cites sources, something you fail to do, and th efact that you do not acknowledge you should shows that you do not deserve a say, because you have no iea whatsoever about basic scholarly conduct…

Bad Behavior has blocked 8635 access attempts in the last 7 days.