The appauling arrogance of the left's global warming assertions

This is how the left talks about climate change. (Pay paticular attention to the condescion of Bob Shrum)

I rarely feel like straggling the person i disagree with. Only when the liberal pulls out the condescending grin do i get the urge bludgeon there arrogant faces to they look like a egg yoke and hamburger helper. Surely, you know the look? It is the classic liberal poise: ya know, the snob skoffing at your "ridiclous", "laughable", suggestion that there could be any debate about climate change. They oscillate between yelling "There is no debate about the facts of global warming!" and "No serious scientists disagree!" and grinning like jackasses on happy gas.

You can see exactly what i mean in the link above.

They laugh at any suggestion that "the debate is over". Then Prince Charles gets up on the rostrum in Coopnhegan and says "We have 7 years until" we lose all hope of averting diaster. And what i presume the "debate is over" about that too? Once you say "the debate is over about climate change", "all serious scientists agree" i guess if you fool people that far then you can just say whatever you want.
I would call these people hucksters because they are using climate change and false claims about it to steal people's money and gain control of the economy but they- Al Gore, Obama-don't even seem to realize that there being fooled by the African delegate hucksters demanding money out of there "deep concern about climate change" (sure Robert Mugabe).

Here's my question for Al Gore and his cru of power hungry liars:

You say the debate is over. Well i assume you've thus long ago answered the following questions, can you let me in on the answers to them and your proof of why your answers are "undebateable":

1. How much will the sea rise in the next 60 years? How much hotter will it be? How bout' in 200 years? How fast will the climate change? What effect will it have on America, etc? Show me how you know this for a fact.

2. How much of this change is caused by man-made activity and/or Co2 and how much of this change is part of the natural climate cycle (since the climate is always changing and always has been well before humans evolved)? How much climate change is the result of changes in sun spots, the ozone layer and other non-man-made factors? Show me how you know this.

3. Can this climate change be stopped? What will it take? How do you know?

4. Are the cutbacks needed to slow or stop climate viable?

5. Will America and a few EU nations making slight cutbacks in Co2 make any difference when China and India are emitting more than we save?


These are the 5 questions which have to be answered in order to act intelligently on climate change (if it is as Gore's prediction claim). Yet none of them have at all been answered. Yet Gore says "the debate is over" about them.
To say the "debate is over" is such a amazingly arrogant statement because these above questions are almost impossibly difficult to answer and his statements like Obama and all the other alarmists statements say that these questions are easy have long ago been answered and there is no debate about what the answer is. Who can say that there is no debate about how hot it will be in a century? no debate about how much cutbacks will have to be made to have a effect?

The fact Al Gore doesn't want people to know is that human activity accounts for 2% percent of Co2 emitted. Animals emit more carbon into the atomsphere than cars by a factor of over 20.