Bill Clinton blasts GOP climate change skeptics

Full story: CBS News 577
Former president Bill Clinton on Tuesday lambasted the field of Republican presidential contenders for their resistance to climate change science - and argued that their skepticism on the topic was making America look like "a joke." The former president, speaking at an event kicking off the Clinton Global Initiative's seventh annual conference in ... (more) Full Story
First Prev
of 29
Next Last

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#1 Sep 20, 2011
Okay, so what is it?

Global Warming?

Or Climate Change?

Calling a natural shift in our planet's climate (which has been proven scientifically to be a natural phenomenon found in geologic records)'Global Warming' and calling it man made making Al Gore a bigger 'butt' of jokes than he already was must have become too embarassing to the 'Greenies'- so they change the name, thinking that would be more respectable.

Well. It is. It's closer to the truth. It is climate change. And it is a natural phenomenon found in geologic records.

Now all they have to do is admit that it's not as man-made as they've been saying and we can start to make progress on preparing for what nature's been doing since before the dawn of mankind.

Instead of watching as Al Gore buys and outfits a mansion on the beach in Marin County - one of the prime areas to be flooded when the ocean levels rise.

If rising sea levels were as real and as imminent as Gore claims it to be; why did he buy that property? Insurance Scam?

Or is that he thinks nobody would question it.

Does he think the rest of us are as stupid as he is?

I mean, really!

Clinton's smarter than that. Why is he defending the junk science that spawned 'An Inconvenient Truth'? Not even the British - who have more at stake being an island nation - can scientifically support Gore's claims.

Is all that weight loss and the new veggie diet causing Clinton's brain cells to die off?

Or is it all those years married to Hitlery?
Concerned monkey

Hurleyville, NY

#2 Sep 20, 2011
i just farted and emitted green house gases.. plz...

“Purple girl in a purple world”

Since: Apr 08

Plum, Purplonia

#3 Sep 20, 2011
As for CO2 emissions, while we make an impact, it isn't as great as things like volcanic eruption.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#4 Sep 20, 2011
If Clinton was so concerned about 'Greenhouse Gas' Emissions; why did he let the Kyoto Treaty sit on his desk for the final 2 1/2 years of his Presidency?

It's not like he had a war or two distracting him - all he had was the impeachment trial and that was over (in his favor) well before he left office.

So why did it sit there? So that the next guy - who ever it was; regardless of party affiliation - could sign it and look the fool or not sign it and look the fool. And at that time; Bush had not stepped up for the GOP nomination; Gore on the other hand had already made clear his intention of running.

Six of one; half a dozen of the other. But if he was serious; if GORE was serious; why didn't CLINTON sign it when he received it.

This question has never been answered; satisfactorily or otherwise.

Since: Oct 09

Salt Lake City, UT

#5 Sep 20, 2011
I think ole slick willey is getting on board whith our buddy algore because he has promised the clintons some of his investments to help. The gas bag gore has invested a majority of his money in the congame that is the green energy ecomony. He has also purchased many of the "carbon credits" so he could sell them to manufacturing and energy companies at a healthy profit, of course, but the USA has enough common sense not to fall for the climate warming zealots bullshit. Gore is in for a huge loss. Karma is a bitch and I love her!

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#6 Sep 20, 2011
Melman68 wrote:
I think ole slick willey is getting on board whith our buddy algore because he has promised the clintons some of his investments to help. The gas bag gore has invested a majority of his money in the congame that is the green energy ecomony. He has also purchased many of the "carbon credits" so he could sell them to manufacturing and energy companies at a healthy profit, of course, but the USA has enough common sense not to fall for the climate warming zealots bullshit. Gore is in for a huge loss. Karma is a bitch and I love her!
Gore has a majority share in the company from which he purchases his carbon offsets for that Tennessee mansion he owns which has a carbon footprint larger than many L.A. Neighborhoods. Let's not get into what his private jet put out.
Isn't that a conflict of interest? If a private sector company (which Gore should be; but he claims to be a private citizen and gets away with that lie) were to do that they'd be prosecuted and fined for fraud.

Since: Oct 09

Salt Lake City, UT

#7 Sep 20, 2011
Purple Gurl wrote:
As for CO2 emissions, while we make an impact, it isn't as great as things like volcanic eruption.
Great point! I believe one good volcano can emit more types of poisonous gases than all the cars in the world can emit in over 1000 years. There are 39 volcanos erupting on the planet as we speak but I guess that is organic CO2!

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#8 Sep 20, 2011
Melman68 wrote:
<quoted text>
Great point! I believe one good volcano can emit more types of poisonous gases than all the cars in the world can emit in over 1000 years. There are 39 volcanos erupting on the planet as we speak but I guess that is organic CO2!
CO2 gas is organic; both the carbon and the oxygen components. And Volitile Organic Compounds are what industry needs to report to the Air Quality Management Board in the various regions.
However; as has been said - one volcano will undo the gains made by the auto industry over the past several decades in removing toxins from our air.
And I'd be far more concerned with what comes out of those volcanos than the CO2 which plant life needs to grow (and which in turn supplies part of our oxygen.
Sulpher. Vaporized metals; including Lead and Mercury. Soot particulates which can include coal; which is carbon. Vaporized Rocks.
While much of this settles to earth fairly quickly; much more drifts through the jet stream and circles the planet. It damages the Ozone layer. It helps create Acid Rain.
And it's 100% natural. Man had nothing to do with volcanic activity.
Of course, this is an 'Inconvenient Truth' which the Greenies leave out of their scientific equasions when they proclaim that the planet needs saving. Since there's nothing they can do about it; they completely ignore it.
Yet it is the major contributor to climate change - and always has been.
lead paint

Tupelo, MS

#9 Sep 20, 2011
what about unleaded gasoline? when scientists discovered high amounts of lead in rain and groundwater they banned leaded gasoline and the rate of lead in the water dropped off sharply. so if lead from our gasoline was making it all the way to the atmosphere and then back down in the rain then why is it so hard for you hard heads to believe that we do have an impact on the environment? your logic is not unlike the smokers of the last century who believed, even after seeing scientific evidence and proof of the danger of tobacco still refused to believe cigarettes did any harm. what is it gonna take for you to get it through your thick heads that decades of mass production and a wasteful culture have made huge dents in our environment. i know it's like talking to a brick with you people but jeez
brad

Manchester, CT

#10 Sep 20, 2011
lastoutlaw wrote:
If Clinton was so concerned about 'Greenhouse Gas' Emissions; why did he let the Kyoto Treaty sit on his desk for the final 2 1/2 years of his Presidency?
It's not like he had a war or two distracting him - all he had was the impeachment trial and that was over (in his favor) well before he left office.
So why did it sit there? So that the next guy - who ever it was; regardless of party affiliation - could sign it and look the fool or not sign it and look the fool. And at that time; Bush had not stepped up for the GOP nomination; Gore on the other hand had already made clear his intention of running.
Six of one; half a dozen of the other. But if he was serious; if GORE was serious; why didn't CLINTON sign it when he received it.
This question has never been answered; satisfactorily or otherwise.
Because like every other piece of green legislation it unfairly targeted America and gives the worst offenders a free pass.
Clinton was right to ignore it.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#11 Sep 20, 2011
lead paint wrote:
what about unleaded gasoline? when scientists discovered high amounts of lead in rain and groundwater they banned leaded gasoline and the rate of lead in the water dropped off sharply. so if lead from our gasoline was making it all the way to the atmosphere and then back down in the rain then why is it so hard for you hard heads to believe that we do have an impact on the environment? your logic is not unlike the smokers of the last century who believed, even after seeing scientific evidence and proof of the danger of tobacco still refused to believe cigarettes did any harm. what is it gonna take for you to get it through your thick heads that decades of mass production and a wasteful culture have made huge dents in our environment. i know it's like talking to a brick with you people but jeez
Like I said - gains made by the auto industry in the last few decades.
Nobody said man was NOT responsible for bad air quality. But man is not the primary culprit and has recognized when he's done and what he needs to do to turn that around.
But mankind is not the sole responsible party. Nature adds far more than man. And nature cannot be regulated. The greenies refuse to acknowledge ALL of the information; they conveniently leave that out which they have no control over.
Even if our emissions were to return to the levels of the 10th Century (yes, I said 10th) we will not have air that is pure and clean. It would be better than now; of course. But as civilization advances; so to the negative byproducts. It cannot be avoided. It can be minimized.
But nature's contribution MUST be slotted into the equasion. Because nature is a significant contributor to pollution in our environment; from birds overflying reserviors (and we're planning to put covers over them to stop that? There goes potential nesting and food supplies for migratory birds PLUS an increase in algae - which thrives in the darkness) to leaves and other vegetable matter decaying in the waterways.
Leaving forests in their natural state rather than allowing spot fires (nature's way of pruning excessive growth through lightning strikes) did wonders for Yosemite back in the 90's - burned for days, destroyed sensitive wildlife habitat - all because the undergrowth was allowed to grow unchecked and NO fire was allowed to burn.
You cannot change nature because nature will not be changed. Climate change is a natural phenomenon, as I've stated. Volcanic activity is part of it. Sunspots. Polar reversal. All part of the scientific geologic record which too many people ignore.
Climate change is not man entirely. Man is a small part of it. It does not mean we should not do everything we can to minimize our impact. It DOES mean we cannon blame mankind solely when there are so many other factors involved that have nothing to do with us.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#12 Sep 20, 2011
brad wrote:
<quoted text>
Because like every other piece of green legislation it unfairly targeted America and gives the worst offenders a free pass.
Clinton was right to ignore it.
By extension, so was Bush. He took a lot of heat for that.
Mainly from Gore and Clinton.

“Purple girl in a purple world”

Since: Apr 08

Plum, Purplonia

#13 Sep 20, 2011
lead paint wrote:
what about unleaded gasoline? when scientists discovered high amounts of lead in rain and groundwater they banned leaded gasoline and the rate of lead in the water dropped off sharply. so if lead from our gasoline was making it all the way to the atmosphere and then back down in the rain then why is it so hard for you hard heads to believe that we do have an impact on the environment? your logic is not unlike the smokers of the last century who believed, even after seeing scientific evidence and proof of the danger of tobacco still refused to believe cigarettes did any harm. what is it gonna take for you to get it through your thick heads that decades of mass production and a wasteful culture have made huge dents in our environment. i know it's like talking to a brick with you people but jeez
However, lead molecules are heavier and probably weren't getting into the ozone. Of course if everyone is coating the ground with lead, it will end up in the ground water. That is a no-brainer. We have to be specific as to which pollutants we are discussing. The volcano discussion is about CO2 and other natural things besides lead. There might be lead in them, but leaded gasoline certainly did their share.

“Purple girl in a purple world”

Since: Apr 08

Plum, Purplonia

#14 Sep 20, 2011
Also, there is a difference in the scope. I mean, when you see smog and acid raid, that tends to be a local phenomenon. Many vehicles and factories together create smog above and area, and if it rains, it comes back down mostly in that area. Surrounding communities may be affected, but that is the scope. Volcanoes spew things right up into the air and so far up that it can spread further.

Since: Oct 09

Salt Lake City, UT

#16 Sep 20, 2011
lead paint wrote:
what about unleaded gasoline? when scientists discovered high amounts of lead in rain and groundwater they banned leaded gasoline and the rate of lead in the water dropped off sharply. so if lead from our gasoline was making it all the way to the atmosphere and then back down in the rain then why is it so hard for you hard heads to believe that we do have an impact on the environment? your logic is not unlike the smokers of the last century who believed, even after seeing scientific evidence and proof of the danger of tobacco still refused to believe cigarettes did any harm. what is it gonna take for you to get it through your thick heads that decades of mass production and a wasteful culture have made huge dents in our environment. i know it's like talking to a brick with you people but jeez
There is no man-made global warming or climate change. Did you not see the memo's, emails, fraudulant climate data and lies that were exposed only last year? It is cyclical, the weather patterns we are seeing now, happened 50, 100 or even 1000 years ago. This is nothing new and it will change again. You are a climate change zealot! You believe even though you have no documentation other than some consensus of a bunch of "scientists" who have their hands out to get some of the money they think they can get by supporting it. Since your prophet's bullshit movie, how high have the seas risen? Not one damn inch, even though we were supposed to see a 20 foot rise by 2100. Hell gore even bought beach front property in California! I guess he is not too worried about it, is he?
brad

Manchester, CT

#17 Sep 20, 2011
lastoutlaw wrote:
<quoted text>By extension, so was Bush. He took a lot of heat for that.
Mainly from Gore and Clinton.
It was definatly a hot potato Gore & Clinton didn't want to be stuck holding.
Obama,on the other hand,I think it's exactly the type of thing he would embrace.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#18 Sep 20, 2011
brad wrote:
<quoted text>
It was definatly a hot potato Gore & Clinton didn't want to be stuck holding.
Obama,on the other hand,I think it's exactly the type of thing he would embrace.
And get burnt.
Of course; it's a moot point. The United States still hasn't signed.
It's interesting that the mechanism for Emission and Carbon Trading is formally named ETS, or 'Emission Trading Scheme'.
That's got negative connotations; like somebody's 'schemeing against' something.
Uh huh. Pretty apt, considering how Gore has got his set up.
Stop The DREAM Act

Compton, CA

#19 Sep 20, 2011
Bill Clinton should be ashamed of himself for attacking Ron Paul!:
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#20 Sep 21, 2011
lastoutlaw wrote:
Okay, so what is it?
Global Warming?
Or Climate Change?
Which one do you want to talk about? Oh, and technically it is 'Climate Change Response to AGW' to differentiate it from any natural climate shifts.
lastoutlaw wrote:
Calling a natural shift in our planet's climate ..
AGW is NOT a natural shift. They have proven that. So the climate response to AGW will ALSO not be 'natural'.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#21 Sep 21, 2011
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Which one do you want to talk about? Oh, and technically it is 'Climate Change Response to AGW' to differentiate it from any natural climate shifts.
<quoted text>
AGW is NOT a natural shift. They have proven that. So the climate response to AGW will ALSO not be 'natural'.
'They have proven that.'

They have? Here's a quote from the article I'm linking below.

"A key component of the scientific argument for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has been disproven. The results are hiding in plain sight in peer-reviewed journals."

And here's the link:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_ag...

Next?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 29
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

History in the News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Stilhaus Kitchens Reviews 47 min makankonate 1
Hillary Clinton says Merkel is Europe's 'greate... 56 min scirocco 37
#1 PERSON for today according to Baltimore Bob 1 hr RighteousRobert 25
Hillary Clinton Struggled to Find '92 Role, Con... 1 hr Le Jimbo 15
Executive orders a courageous way to protect pe... 9 hr Bama Yankee 1
Rumsfeld Reaches Out to Democrats (Sep '06) 19 hr Swedenforever 8
Can Obama's presidency be saved? Wed Here Is One 857

History in the News People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE