I won’t even try to comment on this. I just want you to savor it with me. ManBearPig stuck himself while speaking out in Copenhagen (which I thought he had skipped, but apparently could not avoid the large sums of money he gets for speaking or a chance to influence the BILLIONS he will be getting because of Climate-scam Leftist-lation)
There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.
The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.
Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.
In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”
However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.
“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”
Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.
Imagine that. Al Gore spinning lies to get folks to believe in the idiocy he is spewing.
The revolution is at hand. Will you be a leader or a follower?
Vets On The Watch 
The carbon’s reflectivity level in the soot is really damaging to the ice.
Not to mention they have found soot from all over the world at in the Arctic ice .The CO2 is also damaging to the atmosphere for the same reason, don’t expect to replace the levels of more reflective atoms of oxygen or nitrogen with higher levels of less reflective carbon atoms and not have a temperature rise. Why worry about a temperature rise, well sea level for the general population and industrialized nations have to worry about the atmospheric effects which effect farmers crops, cities drinking water supplies and forests ecology. While plant life loves the CO2, it can only take in so much and then the excess amount ruins the water supplies to these forest. So a management of these gases and emissions should be a given.
We need to find solutions to this problem not argue over which side of the isle the pantsuit is.
Black and White: Soot on Ice
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20050323/
http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/05/14/greenhouse-effect-co2-doesnt-reflect/
http://www.webelements.com/periodicity/reflectivity/
I agree.. plants can only take so much CO2. Sort of like if you take in too much O2.
But how much is too much? Green houses jack up their CO2 on purpose. 100’s of times the current levels. We will take eons to get there, if ever, at the current rate of increase.
What about water? Is it not the BIGGEST greenhouse gas? So all of those hybrids that emit ‘harmless’ water. Are they to be regulated as well?
Bottom line is, for all that we ‘dump’ into the atmosphere, the level of CO2 is minuscule in comparison to the overall contents.
I think we need to regulate the sun more closely. It is THE culprit for warming.
I WILL agree that man needs to get control of our pollution. CO2 is not a pollutant. It occurs naturally.
The world is not using has much oil and gas as it did 5 years ago…where is pollution