Saturday, November 27, 2021
Home Left Column Global Sea Ice Breaks Record High For The Day - Antarctic Sea...

Global Sea Ice Breaks Record High For The Day – Antarctic Sea Ice Also Breaks Record High For the Day


Global Sea Ice Extent for Day 363 From 1978 (infilled)


    • The pope is a socialist and believes global warming is the political equivalent of the Christian Compact. In other words, it is up to the wealthy Christian nations in the world to give freely to the needy in order to follow the path that Christ set forth as the way to god. I believe in the Christian compact as well, but within the framework of free market capitalism guided by the rule of law and a democratic form of government. Remember the Pope is from Argentina. Argentina and the US were similar in almost all respects socially and economically in 1900. Unfortunately, Argentina took a different turn politically which resulted in a lost century of liberty for the Argentinian people. The pope is comfortable with the path the Argentinians took.

          • Man, we’re off topic.

            But, hey, good times.

            Liberals love to claim that socialism isn’t bad, because certain socialist dictators were vaguely “right wing” in the most ambiguous definitions possible of the term. It’s like liberals insisting Hitler was “right wing” despite the modern usage of “right wing” to mean believing in limited government, and the power of the individual in contrast, not despite, the power of the state — a school of thought that failed to reach Hitler during his campaign, promises lavish social benefits, through his tenure as ruler as he created government-run companies that produced automobiles and so much more, clear through to his death after government intrusion into the private economy, to fund expansionism and socialist utopian promises, utterly destroyed German prosperity and security.

            “Those right-wing guys growing the government massively are evil. But man, we need more socialism.”

            Speaking of Hitler, socialism can be summed up in one simple statement: “[…] because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in
            the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or

          • Yes. There are no such things as right-wing fascism or socialism. Both are left-wing. The differences are in the implementation and type of force used. Fascism is more barrel-of-the-gun. Socialism is more peer-pressure-choice-limitation-censorship-information-witholding style withOUT the gun.

            • Actually, Socialism (Fabian is one facet) has the ideology of waiting until you get enough of the support and policies in place. Once that is done, you kill and jail all dissenters. Kind of throws in the face of what Hillary said about dissent being unAmerican. Democrats only espouse freedom of speech and dissent as long as it serves their purpose. Ever tried to argue with a Democrat? You’ll find a very closed minded and/or uneducated person.

            • Both socialism and facism use force or ‘barrel-of-the-gun’ interchangeably. Don’t believe me? Try not paying your US income taxes or selling loose cigarettes to avoid tax revenues in NY.
              The term ‘facism’ has to do with coopting or binding private interests to government interest. I am not an Italian historian, but Mussolini first used the term which comes form the Latin term ‘fasces’ or bundle of sticks.

              • Yep, “fasces” as a symbol indicates power; the synchronized, coincidental, parallel application of the stick as opposed to the carrot. It symbolizes the power of those who assert it under legitimate, i.e. legal, authority. In the simplest explanation it symbolizes the power of the unity of purpose to impose the axiom “might makes right”.
                That symbol is pervasive throughout all authoritarian organizations. Do a google search on the image of “fasces” and the concept is pretty clear, but here’s a preview.

            • Depends how you define ‘left wing’ and ‘right wing’. Very ambiguous terms. They really don’t do political discourse any good at all.

              Particularly since there are plenty of things that could be considered cite-able references that insist big-government dictators like Hitler are ‘right-wing’, the conversation gets muddied.

              I define ‘right-wing’ political ideology to mean placing the power (responsibility and liberty) on the individual, and left-wing to place it in the hands of bureaucrats. Makes it simple.

              Side note: An individual standing up against hatred is good. A government using alleged hatred to grab power is a disaster.

              • “Left-wing” and “right-wing” are not really useful terms, and mask the complicity and similarities between Nazis, Fascists, Socialists and Communists. What they all have in common is big, strong government. A more useful distinction is a “statist” axis. At or near one extreme are all four philosophies, above. At the other end, is individualism and liberty (aka our Founding Fathers).
                Too bad that “Statist” does not sound as scary as Nazi, Fascist, Socialist or Communist. In truth, it is the scariest thing of all.

        • Socialism is directly against Jesus’ teachings.

          Telling people to help the poor is totally different than telling people to subjugate themselves to another person’s presumed authority under the pretext of helping the poor.

          If socialists didn’t believe flagrant lies, they wouldn’t believe anything.

          • “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels a very well known Socialist in Germany. Yes the Nazis were socialist

            • The Catholic Church isn’t worried about charity, look at the top brass with their multi-million dollar estates. It’s a fraud.

              OTH, sea ice doesn’t account for as much as total ice pack. Earth is losing ice – PERIOD. It’s cyclical, just check out wiki for “ice age” and see this cycle has about a 125K year reboot. We are spiking around the top soon to be followed by an EXTREME drop into cold.

              And, no, there are no SUV fossils.

            • No doubt… but believing in global warming doesnt mean you must believe in a socialist fix. I infact believe in letting the earth do whatever it intends to do. It will either wipe away our existance or it will turn out to be much to do about nothing.

              • “I infact believe in letting the earth do whatever it intends to do”

                Uh huh, and why would you pretend humans have nothing to do with that?

                We have increased CO₂ from 290PPM before the industrial revolution to 400PPM today. If it’s so likely that polar ice caps will be able to withstand CO₂ so high, why isn’t there a single example of them doing so in Earth’s history?

                • Nice try – taking this article’s snapshot of 36 years in an approximately 4.5 billion year history (shrinking it to your own 8 year snapshot), then trying to magnify the significance of your own numbers, and making your premise of cause the only available one….
                  Hot is global warming. Cold is global warming. Rain is global warming. Snow is global warming. Clouds and the lack of clouds are global warming…

                    • There you go: Reverting to your Confederate mythology of the helots slaving on plantations. At least you are honest about wanting to go against humanity in wishing to enslave your brothers.

                  • Hurricane? Global warming. Warmer winter? Global warming. Colder winter? Global warming.

                    Oh wait……it’s called “climate change” now. It is all-encompassing, and everything that occurs under the sun is the fault of greedy mankind.

                    • “Global warming” was proving to be a real embarrassment. With “climate change” you can have your cake and eat it too.

                    • According to my personal Guru, Chicken Little, the glaciers are coming and we’re all going to freeze to death.

                      We’re doomed unless you fork over tons of money to Mr. Little, via me.

                    • Listen oilcanp – I got no problem with oil if it’s a healthy olive or canola oil dressing a dish of salad. You are obviously fixated on extracting and profiting from every last ounce of petroleum, right? Liquid gold. Well, sad to say, a big societal change is underway.. less driving, less car ownership. Why are gasoline prices falling? Because of decreased demand. What will the result be? Less driving = less air pollution, less driving = more physical activity. Score two big pluses for the environment and peoples’ health. Score two big minus for the oil industry, which has to retrench/retool/re-imagine itself which will also involve R&D costs and accept less for the product it pumps.

                    • You know, they just banned wood fires in fireplaces in NYC. I think that was the right thing to do – considering the pollution caused by wood fires.

                    • Just read an article that said the polar ice caps are the largest every recorded. The global warming folks have got to be getting nervous. Nothing is playing out as they predicted.

                    • Oh, maybe you want to go back to a world of dirty air and water? I guess you favor birth defects, emphysema, lung cancer, and mutations, and so forth. Most people don’t.

                    • When you are cornered and can’t rationally reply, you spout socialist claptrap. Your assertions that “…you favor birth defects, emphysema, lung cancer, and mutations, and so forth…” are not borne out by anything in this thread. They are racist insults.

                    • Racist insults? I’m telling you: Birth defects, emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease and on and on – these are your legacies. You and people like you who do not wish to have a clean environment, you brought these scourges down on us. All of us.

                    • Yeah, yeah, hold on to your dream of expensive oil, and endless profits for big oil and all the business that flows from it. You should see what cities in Europe are doing – always in the vanguard of progress: Banning private cars in city centers including swaths of Paris, encouraging bicycling/walking, and installing solar/wind like there’s no tomorrow.

                      Well, it’s about time we moved on from sickening ourselves and our descendants by allowing coal and heavy oil fired plants to pour out tons of emissions, as well as car exhaust, don’t you think?

                    • It’s still used to power residential oil burners. Diesel is still used for electrical generation. Coal is certainly the biggest culprit – isn’t it still widely used?

                    • You are correct about coal – it accounts for approximately 40% of our nation’s electric generation. Just curious: What would you like to replace that 40% with – natural gas or nukes? Other than coal, those are the only choices. Don’t say wind and solar because they are intermittent resources and can’t substitute for base load generation.
                      BTW – There is very little utility scale diesel gen in the US, Most in Hawaii and other island Territories. Plenty of small emergency diesel gensets, though!

                    • Kitty… News flash! You and eco buddies wouldn’t be around, be fed, clothed, have transportation or a roof over your heads without oil. Anthropomorphic global warming is the biggest hoax perpetrated in history to control every part of human being’s lives. (e.g. “banning” what allows independence, force dependence/control). Windmills in the U.S. alone kill 1.5 million birds and bats per yr. Not very “Green” are they!

                    • Laugh it up now, while oil is still ascendant. I guess you GW deniers are the ultimate carpe diem folks – the ultimate fatalists. What do you care about the future as long as you can make money today – untrammeled by government regulation or the adverse health consequences of dirty air/water/soil.

                    • No, typically conservatives are far more responsible with our use of energy, and how trash is handled. Liberals leave trash everywhere, don’t recycle as much, and like AlGore, have massive electric bills. Just because you buy falsified data, does not make you a better, more concerned person. There simply is no alternative to oil & coal, thanks in part to you liberals that won’t allow nuclear energy. But The US is far cleaner than China. In fact it is your disregard of China’s massive pollution that makes you the ultimate fraud.

                    • Gimme a break. Take a look at Germany – which is putting in solar at the speed of light. They are the progressive ones in the Green battle. This isn’t even a Liberal/Conservative problem. It’s a nearsighted-farsighted one: The ones that plan and think will survive, the ones that don’t – eh, sorry, maybe a flood will wash away your “sins.”

                    • Current solar technology is not efficient enough to be economically feasible. It’s also not scalable. Replacement for 1 Nuclear powered power plant producing 1000 MegaWatts would take solar “farm” approx. 1/4 the size of Rhode Island 292
                      sq mi.

                    • Kitty it seem you’re a Reality Denier. Gov’t regulation cost individuals and companies hundred of billions of $ every yr. $ that could in most cases be used for bettering peoples individuals’ lives, used for research to cure disease, provide for better education, used for R&D to make better use of resources, etc. etc.

                    • No – it’ll be climate clean-up, once the price of oil really collapses due to people driving less and biking more (for example) or China finally cracks down on electrical power generating stations burning coal/heavy oil (which it is about to do). I do not think you can call the Chinese “dumb” for cracking down on air pollution.. not “dumb” at all..

                    • Really? Since when do emissions/air pollution not lead to GW? China is currently one of the biggest culprits (if not the biggest) but it has recently promulgated legislation to end coal-fired power stations in three key provinces (so so many of its citizens are dying due to the effects of pollution).

                    • Example: dump a bunch of old cares, batteries ans light bulbs full of mercury into a lake and you have *pollution*. None of these things contribute to “global warming”.

                      They are separate things.

                    • I am saying emissions from polluting industry/cars lead to GW. That is accepted world-wide by now. The array of pollution from polluting industry can certainly include illegal dumping in lakes, rivers, soil. The same polluting industry probably also dumps tons of particulate matter into the air. All these forms of pollution need to be addressed – and they are being addressed.

                    • Kitty the only thing that Communist Chinese gov’t is “cracking down on” are the heads of 100s of thousands of people would dare to speak out or think for themselves. Their air is dirtier than ever. Though I do think you and thousands who talk like you would feel at home there… at least until reality set in.

                    • No, China just signed on to a climate agreement with Obama – to ban coal fired electrical generating stations in 3 key provinces. I agree that there is not much freedom of speech – but there is a tradition of almost daily demonstrations/frequent riots throughout the country, and occasionally the message of people fed up with pollution does get through to the central authorities.

                    • It doesn’t matter what you call it. Those who lived through Sandy – including quite a large portion of the US population – and maybe one of the most influential sections of the country (East Coast) believe in its reality. You want to keep shelling out billions to repair superstorm damage? Then go right ahead and keep on burning coal or heavy oil to generate electricity – go right ahead and do not force industry to clean up its act. There are millions of people though who think otherwise – especially those who saw their property inundated/destroyed or swept out to sea

                    • Well, cactus, it’s easy for you to say that.. Try dealing with your house washed away by Sandy.. or expensive art collections of the uber-rich inundated in Tribeca, or Chelsea, or the West Village. Sandy hit some of the wealthiest zip codes in the US. These people donate – to both parties. They will make sure measures are put in place to curb emissions.. clean up dirty industry, etc.

                    • Sandy was mild. The fact that anything was left at all is a sign that the storm lacked the strength of past storms.

                    • So you Sandy had washed away the E. Coast. I bet you wish that. Nice – it would have washed away the cradle of our United States: Boston, NY, Phila, and on down to the Virginia and the Carolinas. How unpatriotic.

                    • Yep. Have also visited many. Your point is? The barrier islands will “protect” the cities? Umm.. it didn’t quite work out that way with Sandy unfortunately. Water washed into Lower Manhattan – filling the construction pit at the WTC site for example, the Bklyn-Battery tunnell, the trans E. River and trans Hudson transit tunnels, and so forth.

                    • No. Barrier Islands are a natural feature created in a large storm. They are the last “sand bar” before the mainland, where the waves break. In the storm that creates such a feature, the “barrier island” is nothing more than a submerged sand bar. They don’t protect anything.

                    • Gimme a break. This is typical oil-based-economy-justification-talk – you know it and I know it – all of a sudden you are going to “scientifically” prove that Sandy was umm… just “par for the course” and has nothing to do with “the environmental depredations caused by decades of air pollution.” You can’t admit the environment is all screwed up even though 2014 was a record warm year. So you’ll try to say Sandy wasn’t so bad and even worse storms are possible – even when nobody was driving. Right. Maybe from your perspective (doubt if you’re on the E. Coast of the US) it was a walk in the park. Guess what – it was a nightmare, xdream.

                    • Actually I think it has been re-branded yet again…it is now climate disruption. Now any variation or anomaly that any Stalinist enviro-idiot perceives to be real is caused by man disrupting the climate.

                    • I think you are the ignorant one if you doubt the reality of what rampant un-regulated development leads to: Air pollution off the chart, thousands if not millions unable to breath, prematurely dying, sky-rocketing health care costs,and so forth Why do you think China has instituted strict controls on coal fired plants (also possibly heavy-oil powered electrical generating plant)? It doesn’t want millions of its people dying of basically smoke inhalation… and having to pay the cost in hospital/disability expenses.

                    • You sure do. Otherwise, we’d still be living in smog-choked cities world-wide. Look at the increase in life expectancy since the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were introduced here, and anti-air pollution measures were enacted in England. China is now going through the same process – the backlash to the harmful effects of breakneck development, without the least thought for the environment.

                    • No – at the core of the madness is greed and the rush for development, be it under capitalism or communism. Also, the fear of being taken over by other countries, and the rush to be armed to the teeth and economically “strong.” Things today are exactly as they were on the eve of WWI: Alliances tested by crazy nationalist outbreaks, such as Ukraine. The difference is that the superpowers today fight limited wars rather than all-out self-destructive conflicts.

                    • Interesting take! Greed is an interesting concept. One man’s greed is another’s ambition. I supposed every collector, and hoarder, can be considered greedy, along with everyone who desires upward mobility. And greed is not limited to material wealth. I suppose it’s a question of degree, which, at the far end of the spectrum, bleeds into obsessions.

                      As I see it, greed is a common, almost universal human characteristic. We see it on the Green Left, with partisans hustling after public subsidies, not to mention the Big Players (i.e., the greediest, so to speak) who seek to establish entire markets (e.g., cap and trade), and far-reaching global regulations, from which they derive considerable profit. And, of course, every ambitious capitalist (from businessmen, such as myself, to artists) can be considered greedy.

                      The problem with the advocates of Slow Growth (or, more extremely, No Growth) is that they are typically members of highly advanced capitalistic economies — places where they can routinely visit grocery stores and shopping malls that offer a mind-boggling variety of consumer goods — 6 varieties of apples, 25 flavors of yogurt, dozens of automobiles, every book you would ever want to read, dozens of movies — all within a short radius, all at competitive prices (driven by the efficient market). Along with high technology. And indulgent luxury goods. And a crushing volume of information.

                      People in this culture have no right to demand growth limits on 2nd- and 3rd-world economies — as if to say, I’ve got mine, and you can just live with your primitive economy. That’s not going to happen. The 2nd world is catching up, as well they should, and the even the lost causes in the third world (e.g., Haiti) are making some progress. This is, after all, the Age of Global Capitalism.
                      “Armed to the teeth”? Easy to say if you live under the nuclear umbrella of the United States. Again, can we tell the developing world to just live as primitives, and hope for the best, while America can assure it’s actual and would-be enemies that death and destruction are only minutes away if they cross the line (as we define it)?
                      I think Americans (actually, the entire ‘1st world’, as we define it) has forfeit its right to place limits on the economic and military development of the developing world. The hypocrisy is beyond the pale.

                    • Whoa – the old Soviet Union was the biggest enviro-criminal state – much worse that the “capitalist” states of the “West.” In the “East” development led to actual ecocide. Even though things got pretty bad in the US – remember the smog of LA? – I’m not sure we actually ever completely poisoned the Earth as thoroughly/mindlessly as they did in E. Europe and Russia. Of course – forget about ecocide in China today – a carnival of untrammeled capitalist-communist development that has surely led to thorough poisoning of that land.

                    • Continue to live in your Pollyana world of denial. Maybe you would want to take a dip in Newtown Creek – which partially forms the border of the boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn, NY – a nice refreshing dip in some of most polluted water on Earth, the direct result of untrammeled development/dumping of industrial waste since Colonial times! If you think capitalism (or communism for that matter – since the communists have been equally oblivious to the effects of untrammeled development) is so great, be my guest – take a nice refreshing dip in those polluted waters!

                    • I never said that we should stop trying to clean up our water. I am against dumping arsenic in our rivers. Who isn’t?

                      But *clean water* is not *global warming*.

                      I find it amazing that so many people use pollution in order to justify “global warming” regulations. It is a DIFFERENT ISSUE!

                    • Really? You explain how the issues are different. The ideal is the cessation of the use of coal to fire energy stations, as well as the cessation of heavy oil. After that, we go after gasoline-powered cars. Any dirty/polluting industry must also be cleaned up. Have I missed anything?

                    • Yes, you missed the basic premise: *pollution* (like dumping toxic waste into the water) is not *global warming* (which is supposedly caused by carbon dioxide…even though the earth has only warmed 0.8 degrees in a century).

                      If you are against *pollution* then lobby for trade restrictions on China; they produce the majority of the *pollution* on the planet.

                    • Air pollution leads to global warming. As far as China is concerned, there is only so much any country other than China can do. How much leverage do you really think the US has over China at this point?

                    • 1. Pollution does not necessarily lead to “global warming”. They are two different things. Arsenic in a river is not “global warming”.

                      2. If China is causing the majority of the pollution then we have a *duty* to try to get them to clean up. Just looking the other way and saying “we can’t really get them to do anything” is a cop out. Do you *really* care about the environment? If so, do not cop out.

                    • Pollution does not necessarily lead to “global warming”. If you are referring to air pollution (AP) that is a matter of opinion. I suppose you would advocate for no regulations whatsoever on any polluting business, right? Do you also feel AP does not lead to any adverse health effects?

                    • Absolutely not! Of course we should have regulations restricting pollution. I am just making it clear that “global warming” is not “pollution”.

                      The reason I insist on correct terminology is that bad decisions get made when the two issues are confused. Reasonable regulations controlling pollution are a good thing, but many people carry that argument into the “global warming” debate, which is a different subject entirely.

                      Many people will see smog around a city and then conclude that we need “global warming” regulations. Two different things.

                      It is important because a bad regulations can hurt the nation’s economy AND hurt the *environment*as well. If you *really* want to help the environment then you have to make sure that the regulations being passed are valid, not just political insider money manipulation.

                    • I am for curbing pollution, so I obviously disagree with the Pope on that. I do not think that “global warming” is a real issue at all, man-made or otherwise

                      From the artcile, note this quote, “The ultimate goal of U.N. climate negotiations is to stabilize greenhouse gases at a level that keeps global warming below 2 degrees C (3.6 F), compared with pre-industrial times.”

                      This is absurd since the earth has only warmed 0.8F in the last 110 years, and the temperature has not risen signifiacntly in the last 17 years. If we can only raise is by 0.8F how could we possibly reduce it by 3.6F?

                      If you believe in man-made global warming this means that if we stopped ALL human activity we would only lower the earth’s temperature by 0.8F. Lowering it by 3.6F would be *impossible*.

                      Back to the Pope, his statment that “Man has slapped nature in the face” is actually blasphemous if you are Catholic. “Nature” is not a living entity, it is simply the way the universe works. To imply that nature has some sort of concience, that its feelings can be hurt is akin to saying that it is another God. Catholism is supposed to believe in one God.

                      This would not be the first time a Pope has committed blasphemy. I am not religious so the Catholics can figure this out for themselves.

                    • You love pollution caused by rampant capitalism/communism (take your pick) – go live in Beijing, China! There, you can’t see your nose in front of your face for all the smog. Oh wait! China is alright, because without China churning out the world’s cheap goods, we wouldn’t have capitalist penetration/subjugation of the world’s economies on a global scale! Thus, you should be perfectly happy choking on the foul air of China!

                    • Last time I checked, we don’t live in China. You are comparing a country with absolutely no regulations to one that is so over-burdened by regulations we have no JOBS!

                    • You can blame NAFTA for the lack of jobs in the US. It was an intentional plan by the powers that be on both sides of the aisle to ship US jobs overseas, the idea being that our amigos south of the border would then buy more US goods, leading to more US jobs. Well, it didn’t exactly work out that way – either for Central America or the US.

                    • You sound like a stupid c#nt trying to use big words to make yourself seem smart. Shut the hell up before I cock-slap you. Can you even define communism or subjugation you fat cow??

                    • If only Darwin was a god they would. Wishful thinking. Must think harder. Maybe if we all pray like an Atheist: Kumbiology, me lord Darwin, kumbiology!

                    • You wish. If that was the case, the entire structure of science would come crashing down. And then you’d have no more “progress.” I guess you would like to see the world petrified – like your precious fossil fuels – in the 50s era, wouldn’t you, with gas-guzzling autos, and no thought at all for the future. Unfortunately, your thinking is a fossil too: Out-dated, brittle, and broken.

                    • Keep clutching your Bible – as GW-caused flood-waters rise. I doubt if it’ll “save” you, unfortunately; but science will. And 99% of scientists accept the truth of GW.

                    • Lying? You really think Sandy wasn’t caused by GW? You are the one who defies common sense in disbelieving data that describes the deleterious effects on the environment/human health of air/water pollution.

                    • hahaha ROFLMAO It’s funny you say this, you little puss, as you type this on your Chinese-made computer, made of oil-based plastic, shipped by communist billionaires burning fossil-based fuels to your local Best Buy so you can buy it on your Arab-owned credit card (again, plastic) and plug it into your wall outlet (Chinese plastic) so you can power it up (burning oil-based fuel) so you can waste your time (and ours) spouting your hatred toward Christians and those with different belief that have not drank Gore’s koolaid-laced pee and begged

                      “Can I have some more, sir?”

                      You’re kind of a liar and a hypocrite that makes things up to look smart but you fool only yourself.
                      I truly doubt you know many scientists yet you come up with a startling “99%” statistic. How very scientific of you. Actual scientists roll their eyes at you at parties when you start smacking your ‘brilliance’. Soooo cute when you try acting smart!!!!! You must have gotten this 99% from a government-funded scientist. Do share your source! Please. In your response, cite the 99% source or STFU. Such a puppet: Sit up. Beg. Memorize. Regurgitate. Repeat.

                      Is this as reliable as the 100% of Koreans that voted FOR their ‘Dear Leader’?! I don’t have stats (so I dont make them up like you) but my parents go to a Church in a VERY progressive Ivy League community blocks from campus. No liberal arts profs amongst them, mind you. Only hard sciences. Several are Rockefeller and Rhodes Scholars and all patent-holders. Their advanced education and research behind the microscope has only strengthened their belief in God, Two dozen professors in a single Church among dozens in this community that also have professors that believe in God and that science is simply God’s programming language. One professor, a volcanologist, states that the planet ‘breathes’, expanding and contracting, consuming and exhaling. Our body temperature rises when we are more active and declines as we slumber. Ditto with Earth. People that fail to understand this are the ones that are the troglodytes with false gods. It takes a real self-centered simpleton to believe that a God did not create a massive planet but that little men, like you, can actually have an irreversible impact on it.
                      News Flash: You’re not the Sun. Get over yourself, little man.

                      BTW, I hope you live at Sea Level…….and while you do keep in mind that fossils have been found high in the mountains and that land bridges once existed connecting to what we now call islands. All of this occurred long before Detroit ever made cars. The Earth is constantly changing. Glaciers once towered over where I am now typing at 1200’ASL

                    • Excellent Unopinionated. Like Al Gore who’s carbon footprint is many times the norm she makes use of every convenience fossil fuels prrovide. Like our prez who preaches green living but burns 5 gallons of jet fuel per mile on his frequent 9,500 mile round trip Hawaiian vacations along with a giant support an security detail. Gotta love the ironic hypocrisy.

                    • Is engorging yourself on the products of our petrochemical based culture something to brag about? Did you or me have a choice in the matter? We were born into the culture – which once was a car worshiping culture in the days of cheap gasoline. We also were once a tobacco worshiping culture – before the axe fell on that particular poison. Or do you doubt the science on tobacco as well?

                    • Let’s stick to the topic. If we are going to veer off onto religion, there’s no end to discussing why it’s so vital to maintaining the social status quo – especially the patriarchy – worldwide. But hey, the Pope is religious, and he has bought into global warming, which means that even religious folks can “see the light” and accept GW as a fact.

                    • So…….let’s get this straight……Religious people are nuts and completely wrong (according to you) but then you bring up that the pope has bought into global warming so all the Christian sheeple should, too. You seem to endorse patriarchies when it comes to supporting your causes but otherwise they are evil white men billionaires and colonial overlords. Frankly, the pope is about as whacko as the POTus. The Chinese communist dictators, on the other hand, are admirable ‘rag-tags’ who ‘kept it together’ despite killing millions through pogroms, intimidation, genocide and starvation. REALLY?!?!?

                      Look, China is made up of as many different peoples and nations as Europe. It isn’t mutual brotherly love that keeps them together: It’s the tip of the bayonet and threat of execution. Spout your liberal philosophy there and see how long you survive! You clearly do not know what you are talking about. China has invaded and absorbed other sovereign countries and parts and has forced other countries to pay ‘protection money’ to them. Right now, China is practicing colonial power over large swaths of Africa. China has invaded Japan, Vietnam, Korea, Tibet, Nepal, India, Mongolia, Russia, Silla, Hami, Formosa, Kotte, the Tocharians, Myanmar/Burma and others. Hami is now a prefecture of China. Tibet was a HUGE country swallowed up by China. Today, the US pays ‘protection money’ in the form of trade to China. If the US went cold turkey and banned Chinese imports to the US then China would invade us tomorrow.
                      It’s ironic how you frame Westerners as evil colonizers since the Chinese committed a genocide against the Dzungars of Xinjiang, conqueredd it and then brought in Han Chinese settlers to colonize and secure it as their new Western Frontier from 1760-1820. Please note that this was well BEFORE the British gained Hong Kong Island through a treaty that did not involve genocide.

                      You are like swiss cheese, man. You deplore the West for GW but then you praise China despite the fact they are the most flagrant generator of it and have to spraypaint their mountains green.
                      BTW, Mao did not defeat Japan in China. Mao and KMT had a United Front during WWII and the US continued their support of KMT throughout war. When Japan surrendered to US Mao then continued the Civil War against US-allie KMT. Get your facts straight.

                    • Yes, it’s a NEW religion and DOGMA they so HATE in religion so they passed their own brand of dogma to the Pope so it looks like legit dogma.

                    • Everyone knows Jesus was a proto-socialist – at the very least an anti-establishment agitator/rebel. If Jesus were alive today, I’m sure he’d be very comfortable in the pro-GW camp, lined up in opposition to big/polluting business and pro-the little guy.

                    • The Pope is nominally the religious leader of the West – of all Christendom, East and West, Catholic and Protestant. If he says we must respect the Earth and rein in capitalist/communist untrammeled development/pollution – then we should listen to him.

                      A POLLUTANT .

                      BOTH YOU & THE POPE SHOULD KNOW BETTER

                    • Let’s not talk about CO2. That’s not the only thing that is contributing to GW. Also – typing in caps is not helping your arguments.


                      OK , LET’s TALK ABOUT THE BIG ENCHALATA .
                      FOLLOWS SOLAR ACTIVITY .

                      BUT MISGUIDED .


                    • I guess you feel science is religion? Or maybe we should all just accept Scripture as the “truth” which explains “everything?” How would you like it if all the “progress” since the Renaissance, Enlightenment up to the modern era, were dialed back, and we ended up back in the Faith-obsessed Dark Ages?

                    • Science is not religion. Science questions all, and is constantly evolving. Also – the empirical evidence of measurable increases in dirt/smog/ozone and so forth – don’t lie. The effects of GW? Take a look at what happened on the E. Coast a couple of years ago (October 2012) with Sandy.

                    • Then embrace this science or hold firm in your faith.
                      Sandy was a hurricane. It may be hard to believe but they’ve happened before.
                      Climate has never been static. It’s constantly changing but in such small increments that our perception is skewed such that 20 year warm periods make people believe that things are going out of control (weather things have never been in control) and then people commit to a dogma that gives them the illusion of control and this prevents them seeing the clearly contradictory empirical evidence that violates their closely held beliefs. Or maybe you have a good explanation for the 18 year pause? Go consult your book of revelations (Earth In The Balance) written by your prophet (Al Gore) and supported by your priests (government funded scientists) and get back to me.

                    • As in almost all human created things, follow the money. Know also that at least one US agency as well as the UN are preaching that mankind must be removed from the earth to almost completely lower carbon (dioxide) emissions. And we would give these people governance over a free people?

                    • ATTENTION Eco-scammers……..for the right amount of “research funding” (eg:cash) I will endorse your fake science too. I need a new Lexus BAD

                    • Your claim is that every scientist is paid by billionaires to lie?

                      “Whatever” is an amazingly appropriate name for you, clown.

                      Whatever, indeed.

                    • A denier is one who denies truth when faced with a fact. The fact is there has been global cooling and temperatures today are lower than the peak of 1998. That is fact, not opinion. When faced with this fact, WHO IS THE DENIER? Anyone who still clings to outdated and false science when faced with the fact of global cooling is a denier.

                    • The magazine cover you posted is a fake.

                      You don’t care in the slightest about facts, and you obviously don’t care about looking like a fool.

                      Why would I continue to talk to you, clown?

                    • Consensus? You talk about a ‘consensus’ among “scientists”?
                      Several hundred years ago there was also a consensus among scientists. It involved the sun revolving around the Earth.
                      They put people to death for believing otherwise.

                    • Actually it was conservative religious nuts that put people to death. Scientists only care about evidence.

                      But thanks for playing!

                      Shake it off and do a little research, and next time you won’t come off as such a lightweight.

                    • BTW I was making a point about ‘consensus”. Just because a lot of people believe something does not make it true.
                      You know, like people who believe that you can tax yourself into prosperity?

                    • Simple absolutes.

                      The cornerstone of the mislabeled “liberal” mindset.

                      For calling themselves “progressives” they are profoundly incapable of progressing an argument, virtually categorically.

                      It takes a very empty soul to see the world through such simple, naive eyes.

                    • Yeah, I’ve been meaning to see a doctor about my empty soul.

                      Do you think by becoming a right-wing shill loon clown I could fill the void?

                      Did it work for you?

                    • No, no clown.

                      You’re a “libs” ranting fool, nothing more.

                      Your capacity for thought ranges from “LIBTARDS!!!!” to “GAAAAAA! OBOZO!!!!” and that’s about it!

                    • Pot meet kettle. Basically your post is typical for your kind of low-info warmist. When you run out of anything credible to say, you put on your Saul Alinsky panties and fall back on Alinsky #5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon”

                    • Warmist!

                      That’s rich!

                      I also eat food, so am I a foodist?

                      I am affected by gravity so am I a gravityist?

                      I don’t mean to ridicule you clowns, in fact you do it perfectly fine yourselves, but I have to admit it’s a blast to step into your little echo chamber and set off a few firecrackers.

                      Look how you scramble and buzz!

                      Like a hornet’s nest with some mud sprayed on it, except instead of hornets you’re a bunch or regressive clowns.

                      It’s adorable.

                    • What is the ideal temperature of the earth? If we are going to spend money to try and change the earth’s climate, how do we measure when we are done?

                    • Ummmm, you do know that isn’t me, right? I just wanna keep you grounded back here in reality where, when your intellect comes up short, you resort to the stupidity infesting every one of your posts on this page.

                    • Yeah, since you’re too cowardly to comment under your own name you stole the name of the captain from Firefly.

                      So to goof on you I posted a picture of Captain Reynolds from the show Firefly, naked.

                      You then demonstrated that you don’t even know who it is.

                      Ridicule is a very, very potent weapon.

                      Too bad it’s wasted on the dipwads that need it the most.

                    • Omg, you’re dumber than a bag of hammers. OF COURSE I know who the picture is. How the hell do you ridicule ME by putting up a picture from a scene in firefly? When you can answer that, then reply please, otherwise, STFU moron.

                    • Your blind ignorance is amazing! Scientists are just like everyone else — plenty of them will say almost anything if it will fatten their wallets. Read history again. People were put to death by arrogant, power lusting people in charge of government as always. Whether they were corrupt, self-worshiping Catholics or corrupt, self-worshiping Hedonists is irrelevant. The most dangerous people that have ever existed are those that demand we let them control the economy because they are smarter, wiser than millions of people making individual decisions. Granting them control has always led to more power, more wealth and more debauchery at the top, and more poverty and suffering for the average family.

                    • Actually over 126 million people were put to death in the 20th century by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. All of them were radical leftists.

                    • To equate modern-day Conservatives with religious leaders of centuries past on another continent is absurd, especially from someone who can’t see the connection between the modern Leftist movement in this country, and the totalitarian Socialist/Communist regimes of the 20th century and today. You have, once again, opened your mouth and removed all doubt.

                    • Yawn. Whatever.

                      History reveals you to be a bunch of anti-science, torturing, loon scumbags and it’s borne out today in the efforts of the Cheney regime and clowns like Michelle Bachman, Ted Cruz etc.

                      You’re on the wrong side of history and you always, always will be.

                      Every advance society has ever made, from fair pay to the 40 hour work week to women’s suffrage has been a PROGRESSIVE movement, and you right wing clowns fought tooth and nail against it.

                      You’re a stain on history.

                    • Yes oh how true that great leader SC Pomeroy from Kansas introduced woman’s suffrage to the senate floor, oh wait he was a republican. No wait is was Theodore Roosevelt that great democrat who adopted is as a national party plank, oh wait he was a conservative too. No wait civil rights were championed by those great democrat leaders, Robert Byrd, and Al Gore Sr. Oh wait, shoot the opposed it and it was the republicans that drove civil rights legislation. Oh well, guess the progressives aren’t so progressive after all. Better luck next time!!! Thanks for playing though.

                    • Lol, you leftist really crack me up. You make stuff up and then expect us to us accept them without checking any facts. I offer you facts and you call me dumb. Wow, have you looked in a mirror lately. Does that style of discourse really work, LMAO!!!!

                    • So you’re saying Teddy Roosevelt WASN’T a leader and founder of the Progressive movement.

                      You should totally go edit wikipedia and fix that then.


                    • He was still a republican, and having a progressive tendencies doesn’t make you a hard core progressive of today. See it all in such simple terms, it must be a wonderful carefree life LOL. Can you even keep a job, I suspect not.

                    • Ohhh, I see.

                      You’re one of those people that holds labels in higher esteem than actions.


                      And as far as holding a job goes, you’ll be derped to derp that I own my own business.


                    • I doubt both your sincerity and truthfulness considering your disregard for anyone. Furthermore, you websites are very left leaning, so you are the pot calling the kettle black. A progressive today is more a communist, or socialist at best, Teddy was neither. You can’t accept that truth, good luck to you.

                    • You’re a goalpost-moving disingenuous partisan jerkoff, and it’s been a waste of time goofing on you. This year I’m turning over a new leaf, and I’m gonna stop goofing on the right wing deranged only makes things worse.

                      So go on back to your swine posts on your swine site everyone, and keep patting each other on the back for out-derping one another.

                      I’m on to better and more challenging things…if NASA and NOAA can’t convince you clowns then what hope does a raghead libtard marxist fartbama blower like me have?

                      You all are a disgrace on your families and this great nation, and you should hang your heads in shame for your willful stupidity, and support of oil baron billionaires and their agendas.

                    • Yes and their manipulating data is noble, and you calling everyone an idiot is so honorable. You are the problem with politics today, you can have a civil discussion with you degrading everyone around. You are paid troll and you act like a petulant brat. Good luck in life with that style of discussion.

                    • Oh!

                      A link to the Heritage foundation.

                      Surely that’s a neutral site with no bia-…….oh wait.

                      “The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. ”

                      Ah, right. I knew I’d heard the name.

                      Yeah, great source, “Doc”.

                      You really know how to derp a good derp.

                    • Lots of people believed him then, as did so many people today believe Obama. Liars tell lies. They are believed by the gullible. Dictators will use lies to consolidate power. Do you believe every word Hitler spoke was undeniable truth? Do you believe the ACA saved every American more than $1000 per household? Do you believe Obama wants to disarm law-abiding citizens for their own safety (you know, like Chicago and Detroit)? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you may need a cradle-to-grave nanny state controlling your whole life. That would explain a lot.

                    • “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. …Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. … ”

                      – Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922

                    • Yes, just like those scientists who said the world was flat. You do understand those people are the same folks who now make up your wonderful left wing buddies in Europe. So much for defining them as conservatives. Maybe you should go back to school and read up on what a modern day conservative is, you may find that they want much of what you do, freedom, a clean planet to live on, etc. They just don’t think you need to round up the world and kill off 3 quarters of the population to do it, like your buddies Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. FYI, being a Christian doesn’t mean you can’t be a whack job lefty. Hitler was a socialist, not a conservative. Nazi, National Socialist Party.

                    • Wow! Your link to sodahead with a slideshow by “Oreillyfan” is pretty much a grand slam!!

                      Who could ever argue with that?

                      Oh wait, I know. Let’s look at Hitler’s actual words.

                      “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. …Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.”

                      – Adolf Hitler

                    • Yes, who could ever argue with the left wing professor who wrote the article you cited. LOL, you argument is ridiculous. Being Christian or Jewish doesn’t make you a conservative. But if it does, then I guess Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter would be conservative as well as FDR and LBJ by your logic. So much for logic from you, oh well, again nice try. 🙂 Have a great day!!

                    • The last bastion of great political debate, call people names when you can’t win an argument, ROFL!!!! Maybe you should try the “liar, liar pants on fire” method next. LOL, you are so funny.

                    • hahahahahhaha no but seriously you have to admit conservatives are retarded.

                      Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Ted Cruz…these are your heroes.

                      Rick Santorum. hahahahahahah

                      George Bush. hahahahahahahahahahah

                      Real intellectuals there.

                    • I will raise you a Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Jimmy Carter and a Barack Obama. There are idiots on both sides dude.

                    • If you think the people you listed there are as pants-on-head retarded as the people I listed there’s something deeply wrong with you.

                    • And your Doctorate is in what that qualifies you to say those people are all idiots, of that’s right you don’t have one. People say stupid things, here is a few quotes for you ” you have to pass it before you know what is in it” “I haven’t been to all 57 states before” and I raise you a Joe Biden. You are completely clueless if you think everyone is an idiot who says something stupid at some point. That is my point man, wake up, people aren’t perfect and say dumb things on both sides of the isle. You really need to look in the mirror and stop being such a partisan. Good luck to you.

                      Now call me a bunch of names and jump up and down like you normally do.

                    • There was no difference at the time between “scientists” and “religionists” – which is true of far too many in academia, politics, & scientific circles today. The correct term is “climate cycles” because there is no global change but merely shifting patterns & rebalancing. That’s true science.

                    • I was alive in the 70’s when my school and all the papers were preaching global cooling not to mention there is sane person can deny it My point is what are you trying to say. That they were never preaching global cooling?

                    • Me too Independent. 1974, the first Earth day. They told us that there was a coming ice age, the world would be overpopulated leading to mass die offs, and we’d be out of oil, all by the year 2000. Look magazine told me in 1968 that we’d all be driving flying cars by then too.

                    • bgulick, you really shouldn’t. If you can’t have a thoughtful discussion — and you obviously can’t — you may as well just give up. You’re certainly not going to convince anyone of anything. All you’re doing is acting childish and patting yourself on the back while belittling and demeaning others.

                      Of course, for certain types of people, that can feel rewarding, so maybe you’re actually getting something out of this. If that’s the case, why are you asking him why you would continue to pretend to respond to what’s being said?

                    • So “crushing right wing clowns” means “acting like an ignorant child to people your masters tell you to hate”? After you performance today, they might decide you are not such a useful tool after all.

                    • You know, my masters tell me that all the time.

                      I call in to the main Libtard office and check in with the Liar in Chief Presidum B HUSSEIN FARTBINGO III to see what my marching orders are for the day, and they tell me “Bruce, you’re not so useful after all!”

                      When I ask what they mean they tell me that right wingers already do so much to discredit themselves, that I’m just gilding the lily.

                      And you know what? I have to agree. Nothing I type here could make you clowns look any worse than you already do, so it’s a moot point.

                      So why do I continue?

                      The sheer SPORT of it, I suppose.

                      It’s just a BLAST to mock shills and clowns, and it’s cheap entertainment.

                      So I’ll keep doing it gratis, even though my libtard masters tell me my effort is wasted.

                    • Oh, side note, in that very article the author states directly that there was plenty of ‘scientific’ assertion that we -were- entering into an ice age. So the date of the image on the cover is more important to you than the reality of the discussion. I’ll borrow one from your playbook and call names for a moment: Congratulations, you’re a weak-minded parrot. 🙂

                    • So why do you think someone found it necessary to fake the cover?

                      Why did you find it necessary to continue the lie by reposting it?

                      See, things like this reveal clearly that you don’t look into things, and instead happily parrot whatever right-wing clown sites tell you to.

                      You’re a disgrace.

                    • Notice that the cover he posted may be a fake, but the fact remains that “scientists” thought it was globull cooling then.
                      Remember, you’re the denier here.

                    • Ummm, it’s intentional. As in, you’re so dumb you believe in BULL crap. You’re a special little snowflake, yes you are.

                    • OOOOOOOH!

                      It was intentional.

                      Kind of like when you call President Obama “Fartbummer” or “Obozo” and then Michelle becomes “Moochelle”.

                      I get that, I see it a lot with you right wing clowns.

                      And yes, now that I look back at your comments, I can see you do it every single time, so it’s definitely because you’re a partisan hack shill, and not that you’re actually ignorant of how to spell the word “global”.

                      I stand corrected, shill.

                    • No, more like when I call him Obamao, cuz (<— oh ohhhh) he's a freaking Marxist like…you know…. Mao. I don't call him Obozo and I don't call Michelle Moochelle. I call her 'the wookie' or just Chewbacca outright because…you know…ugly critter.
                      Good grief dude, you really are a simpleton.

                    • Mmm, I’ll run home and tell my wife who is not of the same race as I am then. HEY HONEY, I’m a racist. You’re an idiot. I think we’re done.

                    • “U.S. corporations’ after-tax profits have grown by 171 percent under Obama, more than under any president since World War II”
                      – Bloomberg

                      “The deficit is now only 4% of the GDP, down from over 10% at the end of Bush’s administration – and projections are for it to be only 2% by 2015 (before Obama leaves office.) America’s “debt problem” seems largely solved, and almost all due to growth rather than austerity.”
                      – Forbes

                      “The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index has more than doubled since Barack Obama took office”
                      – New York Times

                      “The Dow Jones industrial average hit 16,000 for the first time this morning, and the Nasdaq began within 15 points of 4,000 (last seen in 2000). The S&P 500, which passed $16 trillion in market value for the first time, is up 26.1%.

                      “Obama has now stolen national security and the economy from Republicans. The media tells us Obama is finished as a President because of the website glitches, but my money is on what other issue he can steal from the GOP before 2016.”
                      – Politicususa dot com

                      Barack Hussein Obama: Worst Marxist ever.

                    • Now talk about the CPI, QE, record low labor participation and more debt than ALL other presidents combined. Otherwise you’re telling yourself lies to make yourself feel better. MORON.

                      Back in reality, being a Marxists doesn’t automatically mean he gets everything he wants. But then you knew that didn’t you, idiot.

                    • The only denier here seems to be you. You foolish posts make the rest of us feel sorry for you. The entire climate change religion has been proven to be a total lie. The results are in and all the major predictions have been wrong! No one can predict the future climate, not even close. Have you not read how the rain forests are growing faster due to the increase in CO2?


                      NO SUCH THING AS SETTLED SCIENCE .


                    • No arguing with fake facts LOL. Just ask those guys at EAU. LMAO, man you kill me, thanks for the wonderful laugh today. You should hide behind trees and jump out and say boo too !!! 🙂

                    • That nice, more sophomoric behavior instead of a real discussion. Yup, is that a picture of you, what are you like 12? Dude grow up.

                    • Yes 200 of 11,000 plus equal 97% in you world of math. You do realize that the 200 are those support it and funded for such research. Posting a cite that is not a neutral scientific site, but a shill group for global warming is meaningless. Not that you opinion of 200 verse 11,000 holds water LOL!!!

                    • Yeah, dipsh*t, I’m super jealous of a dead guy.

                      ANYHOO, please keep frantically scrambling to figure out a way to explain why the only “news” sources that pump out this denier nonsense are owned by rich right-wing oil barons like this jerkoff and the Koch brothers.


                      Anyone here honest enough to give it a shot?

                      Not gonna hold my breath, facts and right-wingers are oil and’re all a disgrace to your families and whores for billionaires.

                      Slurp, slurp that big ol’ billionaire dong..

                    • Hmmm? How about you stop being a foolish worshiper? The most important fact is that no one, absolutely no one, is even close to being able to predict the future climate. All of the significant predictions of the last 20 years have been wrong! There have been less major storms, not more. There is more polar ice, not less. There has been no warming as predicted. How can anyone be so stupid as to sell their soul to people whose words have been proven wrong much, much, much more often than they are correct? Al Gore and friends are the most wickedly rich charlatans in history. The climate change religion is all about centralizing power into the hands of the elite. Wake up before it is too late.

                    • Silly left wing wacko facts are for people who can think by looking at all the (FACTUAL) data no matter where it comes from not just from your liberal rags. See not everyone believes everything they read in the NYtimes. DIPSH#t.

                    • Right! Why listen to a bunch of scientists who spent their entire lives in the field? We have Breitbart! LOL. God the stupidity is amazing.

                    • I guess you missed the memo stating that those scientists were on the take, being paid by leftists… by the way, more scientists believe that global warming is a bullshit conspiracy…

                    • You’re right!

                      I should totally ignore those leftard clowns at NASA and NOAA, and instead I’ll come here, where guys like “Independent” and “bigpinch” can tell me what’s REALLY happening.

                      Scoot off, you silly git.








                    • Just because they don’t regurgitate the same garbage peddled by your your Leftist master’s mouthpieces doesn’t mean it’s an evil attempt to burn the planet down.
                      Here are some things for you to consider:
                      -You don’t live in a comic book.
                      -You don’t understand what political Right and Left means.
                      -Someone who has built a fortune with his bare hands has a much better understanding of the real world than a bunch of egg-headded scholars and bureaucrats living off money taken forcibly from people they are unaccountable to, and God bless them for spending large amounts of that fortune fighting the those bureaucrats and egg-heads who are bent on world-wide tyranny.
                      -Think about the logic of claiming a particular news story is somehow part of the master plan of a dead guy to destroy the planet.
                      -What has Socialism built? Communism? Fascism? Those are the force of destruction. People build, create, and innovate. Governments restrict the actions of people in the name of an ordered society. The brilliance of our Founding Fathers forged a compromise between personal freedoms and a government that was limited to protecting those freedoms. Jerkoffs like you have supported tyrants who have whittled away at our freedoms because you are afraid of having to be responsible for yourself.
                      Insults, mischaracterizations, and lies don’t work outside your cadre of losers.

                    • This in a nutshell is why we shouldn’t listen to the FrightWing radicals on this. So you’d rather listen to a billionaire than a scientist who’s PHD is in the field he’s talking about. In other words Donald Trump knows more than any climatologist. This was an IQ test. You failed.

                    • That’s all you’ve got? One measly typo? Pathetic, but the Tools of Tyranny can’t win debates with substance or rational discourse, so I’m not too surprised.

                    • See East Anglia University where emails between “climate scientists” were exposed and prove that they changed statistics to support their theory. They were proven to be liars who willingly schemed and distorted data in order to maintain the money flow. AGW is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.

                    • If there’s one thing that guaranteed besides death and taxes, it’s that every time there’s a news story that goes against globull warmist dogma, there’s a cretin that will comment

                      “news sources that pump out this denier nonsense are owned by rich right-wing oil barons like this jerkoff and the Koch brothers”

                      Thank you for being today’s ‘Cretin of the day’. Here’s your cookie.

                    • Oh! Are you claiming Climate Depot isn’t funded by a right-wing billionaire oil baron?

                      Is the Heartland Institute not funded by the Koch brothers and the Walton family?

                      Are you really making these claims with a straight face?

                      Well bless your heart!

                      Here’s a gold star for effort, a pat on your dear little head, AND a big cookie!

                      Clown on, clown.

                      Clown on.

                      Oh, and by the way, I know Malcom Reynolds is a fictional character, but you’re still not man enough to carry his jock strap.

                      Ya hear?

                      You’re more of a….let’s see….a Mr. Furley.


                    • Oh, you still haven’t figured out that’s intentional? I guess you’re determined to earn every last drop of that cretin award.

                    • Is it billionaires you dislike or is it just Republican billionaires….Bloomberg, W. Buffett, Tom Steyer, G. Soros all leftist/progs. Biggest PACs were the Senate Majority PAC and the House Majority PAC both Dem PACs. Your boy/prez BHO is the first pol in history to raise over 1 bil in campaign funding…none of the top 10 donors were to the Repubs… you can now resume breathing, little thronelicker.

                    • How much money are the Clinton’s worth these days? How many hundreds of millions of dollars has Al Gore made peddling Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change since he left the Vice Presidency? Obama isn’t terribly wealthy now but is there little doubt he will worth well in excess of one billion dollars within five years of leaving the Presidency? How much money is Nancy Pelosi worth compared to when she went to Congress? The Democrats do not really represent the regular people either.

                    • No, clown..but when one of you shills links to a site owned directly by an oil billionaire as if it’s “science”, I feel it is my duty to mock you and shame you.

                      Just as I’ve done here to you.

                      Now go back to being a shill for your republican scumbag overlords.

                    • Wish I could upvote this a million times. If you want to find bought out scientists and tons of money pumped into science denial look at AGW denialists. Over 500 million in the past 9 years by FrightWing groups operating under Donor Financial. The largest contributors are Exxon and the Koch brothers. LOL at the easily manipulated dunces dancing to the tune of their corporate masters.

                    • Modern day climate kahunas exactly modeled after pagan priests of yore who demanded sacrifices from villagers to control drought, floods, volcanoes. When the natural events occurred anyway, shamans shouted: Sacrifices too meager! Give us more or else!

                      Same as climate hustlers of today.

                    • OK, where’s your equivalent list? After all, it’s just a big hoax. Tell us where exactly each climatologist got his funding. Also look at who gave them the money so we can look precisely at what strings are attached. For example, Donor financial has pumped over 500 million solely going to anti-global warming denier groups. Show me the equivalent on the left with facts and figures.

                    • The determination of the reality of nature (ie. Science) is not discerned by who9 funds what. It is discerned by the evidence.
                      Anyone who endlessly argues about who funds, or “believes” what is completely irrelevant.
                      I’m sure that Hitler and the Nazis believed that water fell from the sky but because according to your apparent main argument because they were evil Nazis then their belief in water falling from the sky should be ridiculed and ignored simply because people that you don’t like believe in it.
                      That said, there is FAR FAR more money supporting the AGW theory than anything supporting those that refute it entirely for the fraud that it is.
                      But that is completely irrelevant.
                      Those of us who have studied this issue for years (which includes reading EVERY SINGLE email involved in the released IPCC’s internal University of East Anglia fiasco) know for a fact that the AGW theory is based on blatant fraud.
                      Those of us that practice critical thinking skills examine ALL the evidence, from all sources before we even consider having an opinion either way.
                      Apparently this is a completely foreign concept to those few people here who have apparently immediately chose what their belief system will be and then spend all their energy in attacking those who don’t choose to believe as they do.
                      Either that or they’re simply one of the endless thousands of employees that are paid handsomely to sit at home and fill comments sections on all sorts of sites with trolling attacks that support the fascist elite’s agenda.

                    • A denier is one who denies truth when faced with a fact. The fact is there has been global cooling and temperatures today are lower than the peak of 1998. That is fact, not opinion. When faced with this fact, WHO IS THE DENIER? Anyone who still clings to outdated and false science when faced with the fact of global cooling is a denier.

                    • BGulick misspelled BJquick cause Grubered pigressives gobble obamunist dicta and spew it out on public keyboards at libraries between trix.

                    • Some people have managed to convince themselves of astonishingly irrational conspiracies. Yours has a decidedly homoerotic flavor. Interesting mix — right-wing oil barons, ‘jerkoff’, disgrace, whores, and your favorite flavor of Slurpee! That’s a fascinating case study in self-loathing. I think psychologists refer to this as ‘projection’ — projection to achieve repression, as it were.

                    • Nothing wrong with making something of yourself and making money – just try to do it in a less polluting/harmful way. That’s all we are saying.

                    • So what. That just means he is smart. Then aren’t you just as concerned that the majority of rich people donate to liberal causes and to Democrats or progressives?

                      When money is taken from people in the form of taxes then given to scientists by politicians to support causes that will enrich them, that raises much more concern than rich industrialists spending his own money to support a cause they believe in. They put their own money where their mouth is. The corrupt politicians don’t give a hoot about any of us. And none are as corrupt as Democrats.

                    • You know, I read your comment below, btw first, thank you for your service. Second, your attacks on me and complete disregard for my service by calling me a “retard” and “dumb” etc… Your sense of service and decorum is about as pale as your skin.

                    • Expanding the definition of Racism now, are you? Well, since you are raising the bar for idiocy, you might as well fill out your resume.

                    • Sorry, I’ll say it louder. YOU ARE A RAG HEAD, rag head! Pull your rag heqd out of your raggedy a$$ and you might hear better.

                    • Oh, that’s lovely. It’s much less racist when you scream like a child.

                      Also, a quick spell check will make you appear 90% less retarded.

                    • See everyone, this is how right-wingers treat veterans.

                      Four years serving my country, and “bigpinch” comes along and calls me a “raghead”.

                    • I think I may have stumbled across a five year old.

                      Are you up late, son? You should check with your mommy and see if she says it’s okay to keep derping.

                    • The child screaming “raghead” calls me “intellectually vacant”.


                      Please continue, little boy..did your mommy teach you any other slurs than “raghead” or is this as far as you got?

                    • Well, it’s been great conversing with you then “bigpinch”!

                      It was awesome when you said raghead but then when you said raghead it really made me think…then you were like “RAGHEAD” and that was an excellent point and then to wrap it all up with that grand slam “raghead”! That was MAGNIFICENT!!

                      As usual it’s an honor to debate a member of the right-wing, I’ve learned a lot, and I’ll bid you a good night!

                    • AND HE TOPS IT ALL WITH ANOTHER “RAGHEAD”!!

                      Man, I never saw THAT coming!

                      You’re just full of surprises, aren’t you!!

                      You right wingers should be proud of “bigpinch” here..he’s a true master of the English language, and a rapier with the likes of which I’ve seldom seen.

                      I bow to your obvious brilliance.

                    • Well I do believe it is just as good to be despised by the despicable as admired by the admirable. (Thomas Sowell), and leftists are despicable.

                    • Yeah and you have called me dumb and multiple other things, and I have served during the first Gulf War and was in Afghanistan. I didn’t call you anything, but you went right ahead a insulted me without me attacking you at all. So stuff your fake sanctimony and indignation.

                    • Also, you really are dumb.

                      Now, call me a “raghead” like your pal “bigpinch” there and we can all confirm it.

                    • I never called you a “raghead” no matter how much you wish it were true. Still calling me names. Wow, bet your buddies in the service really respected you and your ways, NOT!!!. Anyway, thank you for service, but you are about as gracious to your fellow veterans as an IED. Don’t bother replying to me, you have worn out your welcome with your complete lack of civility and respect. Good day to you.

                    • Any word deemed offensive by the Left is either racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic. Only they and they alone have the moral authority to decide what may be uttered in public.

                    • “Rag-head” is a racist slur.

                      Or are you one of those racists that’s so deeply racist he says things like “rag-head” in casual conversation?

                      You don’t have to reply, I’m just toying with you, fool.

                      Now scurry off and find someone who has an iota of respect for you or what you say!


                    • hahahaha, I think I struck a nerve!

                      Who signs your checks, little shills?


                      You climate change denier clowns are an absolute delight.

                      Now please go back to sucking that big old billionaire dong.


                    • A denier is one who denies truth when faced with a fact. The fact is there has been global cooling and temperatures today are lower than the peak of 1998. That is fact, not opinion. When faced with this fact, WHO IS THE DENIER? Anyone who still clings to outdated and false science when faced with the fact of global cooling is a denier.

                    • I’ll just save us both the trouble.


                      Isn’t that handy?

                      Just look up whatever right-wing talking point you believe, and this page should cover it.

                      That way I don’t drive myself crazy trying to reason with every clown on the internet, and you don’t have to be humiliated any further in public.

                      Win/win, wouldn’t you agree?

                    • Ope! Another link to the right-wing billionaire oil baron-owned “Climate Depot”.

                      Hey, how about you link me to “” or the Heartland Institute while you’re at it.

                    • The same thing can be said for Al Gore and his company which sells carbon credits…whatever the hell those things are. Get real.

                    • Al Gore is a billionaire oil baron industrialist right-wing sugar daddy?


                      Never let ’em tell you a regressive internet clown can’t teach you something new!

                    • An heir to the Mellon banking, oil and aluminum fortunes, the Pittsburgh-based Mr. Scaife spent hundreds of millions of dollars of his estimated net worth of $1.4 billion to counteract what he called “the liberal slant to American society.”

                      On the other hand, Al Gore has about $200 million. Not bad for a former vice president!

                      But you’re wrong by about oh, a factor of five.

                      Nice attempt at false equivalency though!

                      Keep practicing and you may come up with something a five year old couldn’t debunk.

                    • So Scaife made his money by running a business which provides a commodity that people want and/or need. Gore made his money by lobbying Congress to pass laws and Gov’t agencies to implement regulations which will directly benefit him. So Al is like a pimp and politicians are his whores? I get it. That guy Scaife who ran a company that employed people and allowed them to provide for their families is really a big, bad guy. The nerve of him!!!! I know…the Gov’t should run the oil and gas industry like in Venezuala. Yeah, yeah, that’s the answer.

                    • Clown:

                      The question isn’t whether or not Scaife was a good businessman. He obviously was.

                      The question is whether a right-wing oil billionaire’s climate site that’s run by Rush Limbaugh’s protege can be taken seriously.

                      Actually, it’s not a question at all.

                      It can’t.

                    • Asshat:

                      The question is whether data knowingly faslified by climate hysterists at East Anglies University can be taken seriously. It can’t.

                    • Dude, this story is on the wire service. Even MSNBC, Yahoo, Google, Centrists and liberal rags have covered it.

                      Follow the money my ass! So, now, people with different faiths or ideologies than you are no longer allowed to own businesses or express opinions?!?!?! Quite the Democrat you are!!!!
                      Liberal rags cover originate and promote primarily topics that promote their liberal agenda……yet I dont see you up in arms over that. You know what you are? You are like Al Sharpton: Any time a black person dies….BOOM…..there you are, like a bad penny. Any time a cop or white dies…..*crickets*

                      Unless, you are going to be fair and balanced dont bother trolling here because you arent doing anything to add anything meaningful to the discussion. You are just argumentative……and that will never win hearts and minds.

                    • Well, well, well! Whey doesn’t this surprise me? Anyway, it’s fun pricking the thought balloons of the big oil-oriented balloonatics commenting on this thread! Bring ’em on!

                    • No, I think the reasoning is quite the opposite: In order to save the people, we must rein in polluting business/industry. If that means removing the coal-fired electrical generating stations in favor of sustainable, so be it. Even switching to natural gas for fuel to fire power plants is a big step forward. How does cleaning up industry equate to removing people off the face of the Earth?

                    • Though I disagree with his premise when applied to Christianity, at least in this case Marx’s observation appears to be correct: religion, global warming, is the opiate of the masses.

                    • I think maybe your brains have been cooked if you equate science (GW) with religion (superstition). Also – GW/effects of rampant pollution/untrammeled development – are actually things you can see, such as the gigantic disaster of Sandy. Other than its ethical precepts, religion is based on “blind faith” alone.

                    • Well, you should know, as you sit there and thumb through your profits – profits at the expense of clean air, water, and soil. No pie for folks like you – Santa won’t allow it!

                    • You’re really strange. I would wager your electric bills, gas purchases, etc are right in line with everyone else. Which would make you a hypocrite.

                    • A) I’m not a driver – never have been. B) NYC has made great strides in cleaning up its air since ConEd switched to natural gas. Oil is only used if there’s a shortfall of gas shipments. C) So everyone who tries to curb the pollution caused by big oil is a hypocrite according to you; that would mean most people who want to survive and not be inundated by floods are hypocrites. You should try to sell that line to the millions who lost homes and property in Sandy.

                    • You’re so freaking weird. Floods?! You are a joke. Sandy was a hurricane. Guess what? Hurricanes happen, not because oil, you nincumpoop.

                    • Too bad the Pope-endorsed Santa doesn’t think so: No pie for GW deniers! You get a coal in your stocking instead – a worthy symbol of your enduring “marriage” to dirty coal fired power plants/industry/gasoline-based economic model..

                    • Maybe Santa ate it – since everyone knows all GW deniers are very bad boys who don’t deserve Mamma’s pie..

                  • Excellent! Unfortunately that’s what constitutes scientific proof to a politically indoctrinated warming alarmist. I laugh watching them shove groceries into their green reusable bacteria farming bags at check out.

                    • Hey, I think this climate change stuff is natural and the earth is going to heat and cool differently as it wobbles on it’s axis. I do use the reusable grocery totes because they are stronger, bigger and I wash mine regularly . Plus, do we really need more plastic that is very slow to break down on this earth, piling up in landfills and in the ocean and driving the price of oil up?

                    • Get a new muffler, you gross polluter. All your brownie points are cancelled and you have a big black mark against you. Get a Prius and beg forgiveness.

                    • Progress in combating pollution is always difficult for big business to accept – since it means millions will have to be spent in cleaning up dirty industry. Look at the landmark anti-fracking decision in NYS – and XL. Do we really need to keep polluting the Earth – especially when more and more people are turning away from cars?

                    • LOL. Best to park it and go ride a bike instead… pretend like you never bought it… anyway, the heyday of motor vehicles powered by gasoline/diesel is probably drawing to a close (finally).

                    • California is often in the vanguard of progress. Just wait until California’s emission standards are adopted by the other States.. then who will have the last laugh? The Prius owner!

                    • No – but it’s probably a solar-powered glow of health – as opposed to the smog/soot that must accompany you everywhere you go…

                    • The reusable totes need to be washed as often as you wash your clothes. But, I guess the GW deniers don’t wash their clothes too often, so they wouldn’t understand that. Maybe they are the biggest “spawners of bacteria i.e. toxic ideas?”

                    • Yuck it up – your views are unfashionably yucky. Respect for the environment, along with evolution, are taught nationwide in schools today.

                    • Respect for the environment has been taught since the days of Teddy Roosevelt. It used to be called conservation of natural resources. It just wasn’t taken to the ridiculous end of the world / human beings are a pestilence extremes of today. BTW, no arguement that Evolution was part of God’s plan. Happy New Year and yuck yuck yuckety yuck yuck!

                    • Well, because in TR’s day the environment had not yet been thoroughly trashed. If TR was a conservationist then, no doubt he’d be an environmentalist today.

                  • Astute observation KM. The socialists tried to pivot to “climate change” which seemed to play well to the uninformed majority. However, common sense (the principled application of logic) tells us that the earth has been changing climate for millions of years.

                  • No – Sandy is global warming. You should have been on the E. Coast when Sandy occurred and you would have been convinced in a flash of the reality of global warming. Sandy disaster and its continuing after-effects don’t lie.

                • That is quite simply a bald faced lie, and I’m sorry there are people like you that buy into it.. When these faux scientists create a model that allows them to adjust the data and the results from it, well, how in the world can that go wrong? Fact is, the earth has warmed in the past and that caused the CO2 levels to rise.. When it cooled they decreased.. I can make my models too sweety..

                  • Well, if you have all the answers, then let’s talk about the mass extinction of millions of wooly mammoths and about 30 other mammals that went extinct just after the last ice age of 15 to 20 thousand years ago. Climate changers incessantly hang on to increases of CO2 which even if doubled is still a trace gas. Please don’t let yourself be Grubered.

                    • I’m not sure I understand your response. But this is what I’ve posted before;

                      // Anybody that thinks this global warming scam is about anything other
                      than a massive redistribution of wealth is playing into their hands..
                      That is all this is about period…It is the attempt at global
                      government with global laws which loosely translates into ransacking the
                      US and giving that wealth to a global oligarchy.. Simple.. Thats why
                      they will never let it go. Never..//

                      Yes the climate changes.. Always has and no one needs a “model,” to know that.. I am simply pointing out that the whole premise of man made CO2 pollution is a myth just like the rest of it.. The, “scientists.” that came up with this crap got it backwards.. CO2 doesn’t drive the climate.. The climate drives CO2..

                • There is no example of their doing so in Earth’s history for the obvious reason that the ability to measure it was not yet available. I imagine though that the polar ice cap was shrunken during the Medieval Warming Period, a time of great cultural and economic flourishing when average temperatures are estimated to have been 3-5 degrees Celsius higher than the scare scenarios of the warmists for the end of this century. And by the way, humans had NO effect on that development. That period was followed by the so called Little Ice Age.

                • Think about what you just stated. CO2 has increased from 290 – to 400 ppm, and temperatures have dropped over the past 2 decades. That is only 2 decades, you might say. But, if there is a causation of warming by CO2, then the temperatures should have increased. Unless this is a religion to you, that is the only conclusion that can be logically reached.

                • If it weren’t for global warming, this exchange of opinions wouldn’t be taking place, as a large portion of the northern hemisphere of this planet was under a very large ice sheet 10-15k years ago. I am all for global warming.

                • Actually, the core data shows that the changes in atmospheric CO2 lagged behind the changes in global temperature, and that by an average of about 200 years. That data therefore says exactly the opposite of what the AGW people say. It says that changes in atmospheric CO2 were caused by changes in average global temperature, rather than changes in average global temperature were caused by changes in atmospheric CO2.

                • Keep looking for that missing heat CB, it’s got to be around here somewhere.
                  In the meantime, I’m going to buy two or three pounds of dry ice just to watch it sublimate. Then I’m going to fire up the grill and release some more carbon dioxide (plants love that stuff, ya know), and cook some steaks from Brazilian cattle that were raised on a pasture that was once rain forest.

                • Did you bother to consider the data included in this article? Man-made global warming is propaganda, pure and simple. Goebbels would be proud. The doctrine of man-made global warming is as essential to plans for global governance and wealth redistribution as the doctrine of evolution is to providing cover for immoral lifestyles. Both doctrines are propagated by the state and its so-called “public education system”.

                • I apparently did not grasp the meaning of the above article or you did not even take the time to read it. Also your graphs have 9 years of history as opposed to the millions of years that the earth has been here.

                • So how do we decide what is “normal” for Co2 and ice mass?
                  This is the exact opposite of what this article says and a new study has come out saying that increased co2 is good for the rain forests growth. Don’t you like rain forests?

                  • We don’t decide. They decide. We, the uneducated masses could never muster the complex thought patterns to decide “normal”. Much like paying your “fair” share. They will decide what is fair for us to pay.

                • hey dumbass. Have you done any ice core samples recently…heck, ever? I can name lots of scientific articles the liberal media doesn’t talk about since it doesn’t increase any hype.

                  How about looking at oh, any ice core sample that goes back a thousand years or so to way back 100,000 years ago and you will start seeing a pattern, fluctuations, that show higher and lower CO2 levels. While we’re talking about ice core samples you can research how in the past 20 plus years ice has been melting at one pole and being redistributed at the other pole. But all you dumbass liberals like to show are pictures of one spot in Greenland or one spot in Antarctica that is losing ice. Sheesh. What kind of an idiot are you? Do you ONLY read what some dumbass liberal on tv talks about or do you actually read the studies regardless of bias? Maybe if you did that you’d get the whole picture and not just the picture you want to portray.

                  Oh…and tell NOAA that many of us Geologists were laughing at their hocus-pocus waaay before it was reported as fraudulent. It just doesn’t make sense when you look at other planets and AMAZING….those planets temperatures are fluctuating too. Makes me think its solar…not human….in basic cause. Yeah…the SUN. Try proving the Sun is our fault too.

                • If CO2 is high as the result of burning “fossil fuels”, how is such burning not just putting back into the atmosphere that which was previously there and sequestered by those long dead plants (fossils). The idea that the earth can not sustain much higher levels of CO2 is demonstrably absurd.

                    • On the other hand, if the CO2 was in the atmosphere to begin with to be “sequestered” by trees and grass and unicorns frolicking in the meadow then how can putting it back even in a “very short” period of time destroy the planet (as global alarmists clearly believe).

                      Focus your energy on deforestation and pollution of the seas (Fukushima?) where it belongs so the rate of re sequestering can keep up if your only issue is one of rate, rather than CO2 being a pollutant as the EPA tells us it is.

                • CO2 levels have been much higher than 400ppm in the past. The fact is, we have already seen the most of the warming that 400ppm will produce. Additional increases in CO2 will have much smaller impacts on global warming. An increase to 640ppm will have about 10% of the impact that the initial 120ppm increase had. Most people are ignorant of this fact.


                • Cherry pick much?. You have to use all relevant data associated with the subject. If you want to be believed on a specific subject at least use all available information. Doing otherwise, you sound as though we need to add bleach to the shallow end of the gene-pool. I’m only spitballing here, but, it seems as if you missed class the day they taught earth science.

                • CB, I’m trying to understand your chart. If it is a chart that shows how much the ice mass changed per year, it would indicate that in most years the ice mass went up from the year before. If that is the case, even if the mass went up by less in one year than the year before, the mass is still going up even if the chart shows a downward trend. Correct? If so, even in the short trend that you posted, it appears that there would be an overall increase in mass. It also would make little sense for the mass to endlessly rise every year or we would at some point be in another ice age. If you look at your chart, it increased most years from 2002-2007, then decreased in years 2007-2009 when the chart ends. Without looking at current charts, I believe it did lose mass for a couple years after but has made a huge gain in the last couple years, as the article claims. Nobody wants to kill the planet but they have good reason for skepticism now that science and politics have become completely intertwined on this subject. Keep an open mind. look carefully at this issue before you allow the blowhard politicians to steal your personal and economic freedom.

                • here’s and inconvenient truth for ya:

                  plants grow MUCH better with 1200-1500ppm CO2 — this is why grow-houses increase CO2 inside… and guess what, there is no need for air-conditioning as a result.

                  Also, 290ppm is dangerously low. Increasing to 400ppm is a good thing, even though humans had nothing to do with it. The amount of CO2 we output is extremely minuscule in the grand scale of the atmosphere. The sun and water vapor are the primary drivers of climate.


                  More CO2 = more food = less hunger
                  Less CO2 = less food = more hunger = less us

                  And so the real goal of AGW is exposed –> population reduction, a high goal of the elites.

                  congrats, you are tool and useful idiot on behalf of the elites.

                • In the age of dinosaurs when no humans existed, the CO2 level of the atmosphere for 100s of million of years were between 500 ppm and 1400 ppm. Lush Vegetation EVERYWHERE. Animals growing to huge sizes. The bountiful earth giving forth life everywhere. Stop believing CO2 is something “bad” for you.

                • Take another look at algores giant graph of ice cores (CO2 vs. Temp), you will see that the rising global temps PRECEED the rise in CO2 (and SUVs were not even around back then), so when the earth warms (from SOLAR radiation), the oceans give off more CO2 into the atmosphere (and hence the ice core samples).


                • So let’s declare Carbon Dioxide a pollutant and stop buring all fossil fuels. Then when 7.1 of the 7.2 Billion humans die (because without fossil fuels, nobody eats, has a place to escape the weather elements, no medicine, no transportation, no Internet, no iPhones, no Tweeting, you get my point), the Earth will finally be “in the balance”. What a crock!

                • The earth has been hotter with more co2 in the past. To support dinosaurs, specifically the plant eaters, vegetation should need to be prolific and the temperature of the planet much warmer to support cold blooded animals of that size. Simple observation to anyone who’s ever kept reptiles really.

                • “If it’s so likely that polar ice caps will be able to withstand CO₂ so high, why isn’t there a single example of them doing so in Earth’s history?”

                  IF the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is as high as you claim it is currently then we have the proof you seek right now. The polar Ice caps are still there aren’t they?

                • It’s absolutely laughable that you post graphs with no data later than 2008. Over the past six years, nature has demonstrated that there is no basis for your projections of unceasing ice loss, and therefore no clear link between higher CO2 levels and temperatures.

                • And I suppose solar storms and volcanoes had absolutely nothing to do with your charts, its all man-made, right? By the way could you give me a chart that shows what the ice mass change was for 640,000 years ago when the Yellowstone Supervolcano, the Lava Creek eruption, put about 240 cubic miles of particles into our atmosphere? (Even though I don’t believe the guesstimated age of this eruption since the earth is only about 6,000 years old.)

                • Sure there are examples from prehistory. Old atmospheres are examined using bubbles trapped in miles of ice cores, drilled from the ice pack. Way back when, CO2 was many times todays concentration. What does that tell us? – that permanent ice was being laid down at vastly higher CO2 concentrations than we have…. Relax, get a life…..

                • Well, I can tell those charts didn’t come from the NSIDC. The Antarctic sea ice coverage has set all time record high levels the last 3 years, and is even showing that in the charts used for this article. Making up charts from your behind and posting them here does not make it ay more science than when Al Gore did it.

                • OK, good, now do some thinking on your own. Calculate the weighted, specific heat capacity of the atmosphere before and after the CO2 changes. CO2 contributes such an insignificant role in the atmosphere’s ability to hold energy, it doesn’t make a damn difference if you quadrupled CO2. CO2’s specific heat capacity value is amazingly unimpressive. CO2 is also .035% of the atmosphere. Hell increase it 1000%. Did all of you global warming scammers skip chemistry 101?

                • “We have increased CO₂ from 290PPM before the industrial revolution to 400PPM today.”

                  and the *temperature* has gone up a whopping 0.8 degrees as a result. That’s right, not even *one* degree.

                  Why is this alarming?

                • Don’t you believe in doing research of your own ? First of all there has been no significant warming in almost 2 decades. . Second, I hear people saying that this is the warmest decade ever! Try the 1930s, they blow this decade away! . Arctic sea ice shrinking ? It shrinks, grows, shrinks, in a cycle. If you can read a map, you can see the cycle . Here’s something for you. Some people are happy about the sea levels shrinking: Finally, only because I have better things to do than teach warmers about reality, 11 . I hope all these links work automatically. If not just copy and paste.

                • Riddle me this….What is the SINGLE largest source of CO2 emissions?
                  And, as a bonus, What percentage of the Total Global CO2 is NOT man-made?
                  Look these two facts up and get back to us about how Man is causing Global warming via CO2 emissions.
                  Hint: I know the answer and will cite the source if you are afraid to…..

                • Natural sources:

                  Ocean-atmosphere exchange = Annually this process creates
                  about 330 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.

                  Plant and animal respiration = Annually this process creates
                  about 220 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.

                  Soil respiration and decomposition = Annually this process
                  creates about 220 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.

                  Volcanic eruptions = Annually this process creates about
                  0.15 to 0.26 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.

                  Added together – 770.15 to 770.26 Billion tonnes

                  Man made sources:

                  Fossil fuel combustion/use = 33.2 billion tonnes of carbon
                  dioxide emissions worldwide.

                  Note: This is 87% of ALL
                  Man made CO2.

                  The site remains vague about the total “Man-made” CO2 and
                  includes such things as land use.

                  “From 1850 to 2000, land use and land use change released an
                  estimated 396-690 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.” In 150 years man crated the equivalent of 1.5 years of the amount occurring NATURALLY in the Oceans alone.

                  A little math and we can deduct that the other Man Made CO2
                  created by ALL other sources after fossil fuels equals 4.3 billion tonnes.

                  That makes 37.5 billion tonnes per year.

                  Or, as a percentage of the total: 770.15 Billion (natural) /
                  37.5 Billion Man Made = 4.84 % of the total CO2.

                  This from the Global Warming fear monger site http(colon)//whatsyourimpact(dot)org/greenhouse-gases/carbon-dioxide-sources.

                • The climates change. Greenland was a lush “green land” when it was named. I guess there were too many cars and heavy industry 900 or 1100 years ago. England used to be known for their fine wines (before the climate change). The Mayan calender predicted today’s climate change 5000 years ago based on repeating cycles of climate, not cars and industry.

                • Polar ice caps have melted and grown many times across millennia. Even in the past 500-600 yrs. Greenland was called that because it was actually green…. well before the Industrial Age. Arctic and Antarctic ice caps are growing, not decreasing. The global as a whole has not warmed for over 18 yrs.

                  • Absolutely. Orwell should be Man of the Century (20th)(ironic that he was a socialist – God works in strange ways). Add mozilms to your mix of people with FITH Syndrome.

                    Problem is: what to DO about it is always left hanging, even by brilliant and courageous commentators like Daniel Greenfield. We are not yet at the precipice; the tiger is not yet fully awake.

                    • I suspect that it will take a major event such as an EMP or some other act of terrorism 10+ times worse than 9-11-2001, or perhaps a partial or complete collapse of the U.S. economy before enough people wake up. I Guarantee that the first day after the welfare checks and other batches of other people’s money don’t get tranferred to the takers, riots will erupt across the nation and that will result in falling into the precipice. It will be quite a show for those prepared for it and a nightmare for the rest.

                    • But that’s the plan, don’t you know. Cause the whole house of cards to come tumbling down, the masses demand that the government DO something and presto-change-o: Socialist Utopia. It’s the Cloward & Piven plan.

                    • The presto chango is technically known as the Hegellian Dialectic Thereom. This is the lever that social engineers use to affect change over and over and over again.

                    • Unfortunately, some folks, far too many, will never wake up until they are no longer capable of doing so.

                      Far too few people realize how little separates us from barbarism and a new “dark ages”.

                      If an EMP event hit America, official estimates are 90 casualties within one year primarily due to starvation when the food distribution network breaks down, and later due to unsanitary conditions because of little things like no more indoor toilets.

                    • I used to watch Star Trek, those huge, graceful starships, and think, that’s the dream of the West. Then the announcement that warp drive is theoretically possible got me excited. Then ISIS came. And I began looking into history, how classical civilization continued in the Eastern Empire even though Rome fell in the West. But then Islam came, and attacked it in the 7th century and destroyed it in the 15th with the fall of Constantinople. And I realized that the dream of the West isn’t going to happen, because Islam is going to kill it. And maybe us, as well.

                    • Ahhhhhem, the Arabs had paper and other technologies first, which the West did not acquire until the Crusades where they invaded the region. That right there helped break Europe out of the Dark Ages.

                    • I have been reading diar predictions from right wing economic snake oil salesmen for the past 7 years. None of Obama’s policies have caused our collapse, infact 6 years on, our economy is stronger than ever, gas prices have dropped to decade lows, and yet you continue to scream doom and socialism. Hell, we could probably use more of what you dolts consider socialism. What’s funny is that some Scandinavian countries have started litterally handing out money as a minimum living stipend. Their economies are doing great and they have a higher quality of liVing than the US.

                    • 1) “Dire.”

                      2) “Literally.”

                      3) The price of gasoline is a) the result of Saudi trying to undercut both us and Russia and b) is STILL higher than it was the day he took office.

                      4) Socialism is a pyramid scheme, and eventually you run out of other people’s money. Or else you start printing it and giving THAT away. Germany and Rhodesia can tell you a lot about that method.

                      5) Scandinavia also does not have a permanent underclass which has become rooted and bonded to government handouts and criminal/gang culture. Although they are starting to catch up, with their growing population of Middle Easterners*. Read up on Scandinavian crime statistics. Read up especially on rape in Norway.

                      6) “None of Obama’s policies have caused our collapse.” Huh? I thought the “obstructionist Congress” has kept him from getting ANYTHING done. Make up your mind, you can’t have it both ways.

                      7) How’s that whole business of race relations coming along?

                      *Yes, that’s dog-whistle code-word for Moslems.

                    • 1, 2. Who cares about spelling these days?

                      3. The reason it was so far down was because the economy and demand collapsed. Before that it was at record highs. Presidents don’t have much impact on prices.

                      4. You meant to say Ponzi scheme, which it isn’t.

                      5. Way to blame the poor and minorities for our problems.

                      6. He is referring to all the Obama doomsday sayers, and those prophecies are false.

                      7. Race relations are fine. The media blows it out of proportion, both left and right.

                    • You can thank fracking technology and oil company ingenuity in navigating the EPA barricades erected by obama’s administration the past 6 years. In addition to obama’s misguided opposition to the Keystone pipeline. New technologies and low oil prices have spurred the economy and job growth. Nothing obama has done has built this economy. Nothing.

                    • Sure he didnt. I gus it’s true what they say about you repub tools; you Blame the black guy when he’s cleaning up your conservative pig mess, but demand credit when things are finally working thanks to 6 years of democratic governance.

                    • And you apparently think you can burn billions of gallons of oil and release all that into the atmosphere with no consequence.

                    • Oh, and I am wise and I do have infinite knowledge, but if you want to pretend I’m an idiot, Google “petrodollar” and see what you find.

                    • Socialist Utopia Venezuela suffers (they’re in a depression now because of it)– and they can no longer keep Cuba afloat with aid. Thus– Obama bails out Cuba (loosening restrictions so people in the US can subsidize the Communist regime).

                    • Obama has had little to do with it. The Saudis are deliberately flooding the market with excess oil to tackle the issue with Russia (yes, a nice side benefit), but also to knock the legs out from under our natural gas industry which will not survive if the price/barrel stays below $60 for much longer. Our “recovery” is shouldered by the natural gas boon. When it collapses, so does the dollar. But I’m sure you knew that, right? Love the arrogance of you lefties. But makes it all that much more fun to watch your mental gymnastics when the wheels come off the bad policy.

                    • Such an easy, no-thought, inaccurate assessment. Dispute what I said with tangible fact. Stop name calling. Otherwise, you have no credibility whatsoever.

                    • First, as usual, your rightwing analysis of the situation is wrong. Fuck natural gas, it’s environmentally damaging and I see no reason to support it since it only benefits degenerate red states. Electric is the future. Gas is just a stop gap.

                    • Maybe. But a necessary stop gap to get to the future. And electricity has to come from somewhere. And, with no money, who do you assume will get you through that stop gap? But glad to see your civility is well in tact.

                    • Unless you have a lot of hydro, electricity is either generated from dirty coal, nuclear, or natural gas. Clean burning natural gas is the future for electricity.

                    • USMC2010, I’m not going to be mean to you because i genuinely think you may have a learning disability. Solar power generates electricity. It’s the same thing.

                    • Every other power source I mentioned can also be converted to “electric” so by your logic all of the actual sources I stated are the same thing. You are a moron.

                    • My God you are a moron. “Electric” is not a power source. Coal, oil, NG, nuclear, wind and solar are power sources. “Electric” is one of the products for consumption. Here’s electric for you…you are a 5-watt light bulb. Not so bright.

                    • USMC2010, I’m not going to be mean to you because i genuinely think you may have a learning disability. Solar power generates electricity.

                    • Gee…solar generates electricity…really? I guess they built the Hoover Dam to generate moonbeams. Wonder what diesel generators produce…perhaps butterflies. Idiot.

                    • You really are weak. A man could admit an error. Solar is a source…electricity is a product from EVERY SINGLE POWER SOURCE WE UTILIZE. Those following the thread know how dumb you sound trying to justify such a dumb initial assertion that, “electric is the future.” But, then again, liberals are known to be weak, illogical and just plain stupid.

                    • Ignorant and off topic. Stay up…we were talking about his assertion that the best future power SOURCE was “electric.”

                    • His first political orientation was Anarchist. He later became a Socialist writing a book called, “The Road to Wigon Pier”. He went to Spain where he ended up fighting communists in Barcelona. He returned to England as a Conservative and wrote, “Coming Up For Air”. He went through a period where he was a sort of a Libertarian while turning once again to Socialism. He became the editor of a left-wing socialist newspaper, but his experience in Barcelona fighting communists left him with a lifelong dread of Communism. Only after that, he wrote Animal Farm and 1984.

                  • That’s why I can’t really oppose abortion or gay marriage. Good conservative people don’t engage in that. We should be having as many kids as we can. The bed wetting moonbats can abort and swallow themselves out of existence.

                    • Opposition to abortion should be based on the fact that a human life is being taken (murder) If you support abortion, you’re in favor of wanton murder. Just my opinion


                    • Isn’t the Social Security system we have in this country the ultimate Ponzi Scheme?
                      The US should get out of the disability and health insurance business.

                    • Except that other industrialized nations often do a better job than what we or the private industry could do.

                    • Billy Ray sees the IRS, USPS and public housing as shining examples of how a big, overreaching government can do a better job of managing our environment.
                      What a fool.

                    • SS do not count on it, Best to put away money through the underground economy that is now about 20 % of total GDP.
                      With the internet it is quite easy to sell and save 10 to 20 k a yr. buy and sell what you have a passion for.

                    • He owns a magnificent beachfront hacienda in Santa Barbara and is probably bravely battling gnarly surf dudes who want to surf on his beach. He really hates peasants.

                    • Pleb? Language dictates thought goofy, and you are someone who believes that your basic lefist moral superiority equals mental superiority. Nice try.

                    • 2014 was hottest only to those who will not actually look into the facts. Taking your facts from the media will make you think how the people that own the media want. Doing your own research will always lead an honest informed citizen to see human caused warming as the FRAUD that it is.

                    • WRONG.

                      Last year was only the 6th warmest of the new century — sixth, out of 14 years.

                      Now the alarmist crowd has resorted to outright lying, since they don’t have credible facts.

                    • Actually, 1934 was. In addition, global warming trend is now broken. Climate is more closely correlated to solar activity than any crackpot Liberal theories. There’s a reason that your progressive masters have retreated and are now calling it “Climate Change.” That way, no matter what happens, they’re right :-). I passed by Al gore’s oceanfront house in Montecito, CA, right on the ocean :-). Wonder why he bought it if it’s gonna be inundated soon. Sounds like you’re the “plebe” geek :-).

                    • 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded.

                      As if.

                      It wasn’t, but even if it was:

                      I am the tallest I have ever been. I am 6’2″ tall, and by your silly logic, that means:

                      a) I was always this tall, and

                      b) I will surely get taller [globaloney warming will only get ‘worse’]

                      Really, the alarmist cult is now using pathetic arguments. And they are simply lying because they don’t have credible facts.

                    • Yeah like yours is any better?
                      Is this an elementary school playground?
                      This is a serious issue whichever side you are on and deserves far more maturity than you are showing.

                    • Actually yes. The grown-ups have been showing the hyper-greens some facts hey’re not hearing in their echo chamber. I’ve heard it all after many years in Sierra Club. When I started seeing the other side, I started doing some checking and found ouit GW was being vastly overhyped. Then ClimateGate got exposed.

                    • Um no, you are not reading that right. Obviously the sun plays an important role in our climate. What kind of doofus derives that from what I said?

                    • BloodAxe does not have an argument.

                      People who yammer dementedly about Al Gore prove they know nothing about climate science and furthermore, are not interested in what’s true!

                      Nothing Al Gore could possibly do would change the effect of CO₂ on planetary temperature.

                    • Here’s a little common sense for those who worship at Al Gore’s altar: If the seas are rising from global warming why isn’t he selling his beach house? I will tell you why…because he wants YOU to sell YOURS so he can buy up the property. For a guy whose home uses enough electricity to power a small town you actually believe him? You are EXACTLY the type of person Jonathon Gruber talks about.

                    • “Here’s a little common sense for those who worship at Al Gore’s altar”

                      Al Gore didn’t discover CO₂ warms planets. John Tyndall did… over 100 years ago:

                      “In January 1859, Tyndall began studying the radiative properties of various gases… Tyndall’s experiments… showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation”


                      Are you saying he was founding a cult that all scientists on Earth have been a part of for over a century?

                      Is that actually what you believe?

                    • ALL scientists DON’T believe it. THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING! The ones who do are mostly government scientists trying to keep their jobs. You need to do a little more research, fella. Your ‘ hypothesis’ is fuckedup.

                    • Whatever is going on is natural. It has nothing…zero, zippo…with any kind of change. And no..REAL scientists don’t believe Al Gore and his wing nut theorists. Most of their hysterical data comes from computer models. Garbage in; garbage out.

                    • You are correct…scientists do not look to Al Gore to form their conclusions on Climate Change. They look at their data.
                      I think garbage in garbage out applies to your comments.

                    • Green thinker says it all; Which means you DON’T think. And your stupid assumptions are being proved wrong daily. You and your ilk are very, very foolish people.

                    • Simple answer is that it’s a lie. //…but all scientists do believe it.// That is a lie on it’s face!! In fact it is a ridiculous lie, easily exposed by the list of legitimate scientists who have signed documents refuting anthropogenic climate change!! Please at least make an effort at accuracy..

                    • Show you the document?

                      OK. No problem:


                      More than 31,000 American scientists have co-signed that document, saying that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.

                      Since that COMPLETELY debunks your alarmist nonsense, I fully expect you to deflect to something else.

                    • CB says:

                      …but all scientists do believe it.

                      Anyone who makes a baseless assertion like that is either a fool, or completely ignorant. Maybe both…

                      The OISM Petition was co-signed by more than 31,000 American scientists, every one of them named, and every one of them was required to have a degree in one of the hard sciences. They do not agree with your nonsense, so your comment above was insanity. At least you said “believe”, wghich shows where you’re coming from.

                      Next, you emit:

                      …and they believe it, because we can actually see CO₂ warming the planet from space:

                      Preposterous nonsense. If that were true, the debate would have been over long ago. Here are some empirical, testable FACTS:

                      There is NO scientific evidence that measures any warming cause by CO2. None at all. But there is a mountain of scientific evidence showing conclusively that changes in temperature are THE CAUSE of subsequent changes in CO2.

                      Thus, the original alarmist premise — claiming that rising CO2 will cause a measureable rise in global temperature — is flatly debunked.

                      The truth is that rising temperature causes rising CO2. That has been observed on all time scales, from months, to hundreds of millennia.

                      When you begin with a wrong premise, you are sure to arrive at the wrong conclusion. That is waht happened to the alarmist cult. But being their religion, they cannot admit that they were wrong.

                      But everyone else can see it.

                    • Still not one fact from the ‘dano’ a-hoe. Only hot air.

                      Keep that up, and we might really see some global warming.

                    • Thank you for that limp response to your limp defense of the comical OISM – Gono is always good for a laff!



                    • We do have empirical evidence of the world with higher CO2 levels. Almost the entire Mesozoic Era was characterized by CO2 level at least six times what they are today – on a planet wide scale. At 2,400 ppmv the Earth was lush with vegetation and critters. The Mesozoic lasted more than 100 Million years. I call that empirical evidence.

                    • So it’s Back to the Future and the Flux Capacitor? Actually, satellite and balloon data show no global warming at all.
                      You will not get the truth about it from the Washington
                      Post, the New York Times, or the rest of the self-regarded
                      “establishment” media. They are trying to pretend that there is no
                      legitimate scientific debate over whether mankind’s use of low cost, reliable
                      energy from oil, coal and natural gas portends catastrophic global warming that
                      threatens life on the planet as we know it.
                      Recently, the AGW alarmists tried to revive flagging public
                      respect for their fading message of doom. The occasion was massively overhyped
                      and misrepresented reporting of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST)
                      project. But all that was new from that project was the departures from the
                      official catechism. Reporting on the recorded temperature history since 1950
                      from stations on land, which covers less than 30% of the earth’s surface,
                      Berkeley University Earth Surface Temperature project leader Professor Richard
                      Muller reported in a Wall Street Journal commentary on October 21, that after
                      obtaining and reviewing “more than 1.6 billion measurements from 39,000
                      [land based] temperature stations around the world… the result offered no
                      independent assessment of the question of “how much of the warming is due
                      to humans and what will be the likely effects.”


                      But that is the whole issue in the global warming debate.
                      Muller also honestly admits that “The [land based] temperature station
                      quality is largely awful,” noting that “A careful survey of these
                      stations by a team of meteorologists showed that 70% have such poor siting that,
                      by the U.S. government’s own measure, they result in temperature uncertainties
                      of between two and five degrees Celsius or more. We do not know how much worse
                      are the stations in the developing world.” He adds that, “The margin
                      of error for the stations is at least three times larger than the estimated
                      warming, and that one-third of land based temperature stations worldwide show
                      cooling rather than warming.”


                      These concessions are important to recount because weather
                      satellites measuring atmospheric temperatures worldwide, over land and water,
                      which are not subject to the above troubles of land based weather stations,
                      show no warming since their record began in 1979, and before that there was
                      actually global cooling dating back to 1940. The satellite record regarding
                      atmospheric temperatures is independently confirmed by weather balloons.
                      Moreover, the computer based climate models utilized by the UN’s own
                      Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the atmospheric theory
                      they rely upon, all insist that if man’s use of carbon based fuels was warming
                      the planet, the atmosphere must be warming faster than the surface.


                      In addition, the scientifically recognized temperature proxy
                      data from tree rings, ice cores, lake and ocean sediments, and stalagmites also
                      show no warming since 1940. Note that the warming before1940 is attributable to
                      the global recovery of temperatures from the Little Ice Age, and even the land
                      based records show no significant warming over the last 18 years.


                      It is very likely that the reported warming during 1978-97
                      [from land based weather stations] is simply an artifact – the result of the
                      measurement scheme rather than an actual warming. When a letter to the editor
                      by Prof. Julius Singer was sent to the global warming cheerleading Washington
                      Post, pointing out the above anomalies and his conclusion, he reports the
                      peculiar response that “they were willing to publish my letter, but not my
                      credentials as emeritus professor at the University of Virginia and former
                      director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. Apparently, they were concerned
                      that readers might gain the impression that I knew something about


                      But there is more. Even the land based temperature record is
                      not consistent with the theory of man-caused global warming. That record does
                      not show persistent warming following persistent growth of CO2 and other
                      greenhouse gases. Rather, it shows an up and down pattern of temperatures more
                      consistent with natural causes. Those include solar flare and sun spot cycles,
                      and the periodic cycling of warm and cold water in the oceans from top to
                      bottom, particularly the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).


                      The truth is a vigorous global scientific debate persists
                      over whether man’s use of carbon-based fuels threatens to cause catastrophic
                      global warming, and the media not reporting that is not performing journalism.
                      The most authoritative presentation of this debate can be found in the 856 page
                      Climate Change Reconsidered, published by the Heartland Institute in 2009. This
                      careful, thoroughly scientific volume co- authored by dozens of fully
                      credentialed scientists comprehensively addresses every aspect of global
                      warming, and indicates that natural causes are primarily responsible for
                      climate patterns of the last century. Heartland has just published a follow up
                      416 page Interim Report updating the debate.


                      When you run across an AGW alarmist, ask him for his
                      rebuttal to Climate Change Reconsidered. You will find the response is
                      something derogatory about the Heartland Institute, showing that he hasn’t read
                      the report. Liberals don’t need no stinkin’ facts; their minds are made up.
                      They know that the Heartland Institute’s report is wrong because someone told
                      them so.


                      Indeed, the latest and best work actually provides scientific
                      proof that the man-caused global warming catechism is false. Fully documented
                      work by Roy Spencer, U.S. Science Team Leader for the AMSR-E instrument flying
                      on NASA’s Aqua satellite, and Principal Research Scientist for the Earth
                      Systems Science Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, shows using
                      atmospheric temperature data from NASA’s Terra satellite that much more heat
                      escapes back out to space than is assumed captured in the atmosphere by
                      greenhouse effects under the UN’s theoretical climate models. This explains why
                      the warming temperature changes predicted by the UN’s global warming models
                      over the past 20 years have been proved to be false.


                      In August, 2011 came the results of a major experiment by
                      the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), involving 63 scientists
                      from 17 European and U.S. institutes. The results show that the sun’s cosmic
                      rays resulting from sunspots have a much greater effect on Earth’s temperatures
                      through their effect on cloud cover than the UN’s global warming models have
                      been assuming. This helps to explain why the historical pattern of temperature
                      changes seems to follow the rise and fall of sunspots, rather than the
                      concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This further confirms what Heartland’s
                      Climate Change Reconsidered argues – that natural causes have the dominant
                      effect on Earth’s temperatures, not greenhouse gases.


                      Finally, the UN’s own climate models project that if man’s
                      greenhouse gas emissions were causing global warming, there would be a
                      particular pattern of temperature distribution in the atmosphere, which
                      scientists call “the fingerprint.” Temperatures in the troposphere
                      portion of the atmosphere above the tropics would increase with altitude
                      producing a “hotspot” near the top of the troposphere, about 6 miles
                      above the earth’s surface. Above that, in the stratosphere, there would be
                      cooling. But higher quality temperature data from weather balloons and
                      satellites now show just the opposite: no increasing warming with altitude in
                      the tropical troposphere, but rather a slight cooling, with no hotspot, no


                      So the scientific foundation for shutting down our modern,
                      21st century, industrial economy has been obliterated. But that is not stopping
                      religious crusaders, due to the extremist ideology and special interests
                      driving the global warming charade.

                    • You tinfoil hat guys, with your “man-made
                      CO2 increase causes global warming” can’t explain how, during the fastest increase
                      in CO2 ever, from 1940 to the early 1970s (the industrialized world went on an
                      armament-making spree in WWII, then lots of steel production for post-war
                      reconstruction and infrastructure, plus consumer durables like cars and
                      refrigerators in the post-war boom, 95% powered by coal-burning power plants)
                      ………… and global temperatures went down for all 30+ years. Went down
                      enough for the predecessors of today’s AGW nuts to predict, with equal
                      confidence, the coming of a New Ice age, and suggest such remedies as
                      increasing particulate emission to help the greenhouse blanket, and even
                      covering the poles with soot to attract more sun’s heat. Read that again.
                      During the fastest increase in atmospheric CO2, global temperatures went down.
                      In fact, global warming and more atmospheric CO2 would be beneficial to the
                      world’s population. The 2 or 3 degree temperature rise that the AGW alarmist
                      industry keeps babbling about (well, they were babbling about it 18 years ago;
                      not so much now) would open up hundreds of thousands of square miles of
                      currently frozen tundra to agriculture.
                      Speaking of agriculture, the other scare tactic the AGW nuts use; eight years
                      after the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
                      warned of mass starvation from global warming caused by high levels of
                      atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), emissions of the greenhouse gas are at record
                      levels. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, which was edited by chairman Dr.
                      Rajendra Pachauri [see** note at the bottom] and released in 2007, predicted
                      with “virtual certainty” that crop yields would plummet in some areas unless
                      industrialized nations immediately adopted stricter limits on CO2, which the
                      IPCC said was causing “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
                      system. By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be
                      reduced by up to 50%,” the report predicted.
                      But last year, a record level of atmospheric CO2 coincided with farmers reaping
                      record-breaking harvests worldwide. In fact, 2014 signified an all-time record
                      grain production. Oops. According to a report also released by the U.N.’s Food
                      and Agriculture Organization, “world cereal production [wheat, corn, oats,
                      barley, rice, etc.] in 2014 is at a new record of 2,532 million tonnes, 7
                      million tonnes above the previous peak.” That includes a record level of wheat
                      production worldwide, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The
                      study stated that the CO2 “fertilization effect is now a significant land
                      surface process” and has created “a greening of the globe over recent decades.”
                      That greening effect includes a growth spurt among redwoods and giant sequoias
                      in California [don’t tell the AGW featherbrains in Hollywood.]
                      Claims that global warming and more atmospheric carbon dioxide are harming crop
                      production have been proven preposterous by the real-world, objective data. We
                      know that in recent decades, we’ve seen an actual tripling of production of the
                      most important staple crops: corn, wheat, and rice. There’s been a record
                      production of wheat in the past year in much of Asia and Africa, and throughout
                      the world where the wheat harvest is important. Instead of diminishing crop
                      yields, high levels of CO2 actually help to increase them.
                      As we add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, it can be expected that that’s
                      going to benefit crop production because carbon dioxide is not a
                      “pollutant,” as the IPCC and AGW loons say, but aerial plant
                      fertilizer. Horticulturalists pump CO2 into greenhouses to facilitate plant
                      growth. Just as people have demonstrated in greenhouses that plants that are
                      artificially fed more CO2 grow more rapidly and are more productive, the same
                      happens in the natural environment when we’ve had more atmospheric carbon
                      dioxide. The link between high levels of CO2 and record crop yields worldwide
                      was never discussed at the UN’s climate change conference in Lima last month
                      (surprise!) To the extent that crop production is discussed at any United Nation
                      meetings, it continues the claim, despite this evidence, that global warming is
                      wreaking havoc on crops.
                      Understand that the IPCC is a government body with government appointees. Some of
                      them are scientists, but most, including the bureaucrats in control, are not.
                      And even those who are scientists tend to work for environmental activist
                      groups such as The Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace,
                      World Wildlife Fund, etc. (The IPCC has even been exposed as including,
                      verbatim, propaganda handouts from one of these environmental groups in its
                      reports, with bogus claims of snow disappearing from the Himalayas and
                      destruction of rain forests because of global warming – then having to retract
                      them when exposed.) They have an agenda to push. It’s very little objective
                      science. It’s 99 percent politics from an environmental activist agenda. And
                      the Summary for Policy Makers that the IPCC non-scientist bureaucrats issue
                      every few years is often in total contradiction to what their own scientists
                      have reported. Unfortunately, in that environment, the facts simply don’t come
                      out if people aren’t doing their own research. If we’re just listening and
                      reading the UN press releases, we’re going to believe that a world exists that
                      is exactly opposite from what the real world really is. [**Update: IPCC
                      chairman Pachauri has been forced to resign after accusations of sexual

                    • There is not the slightest factual data to prove that rising atmospheric CO2 raises global temperatures. In fact, quite the opposite. The fastest increase in atm. CO2 occurred during the WWII years and reconstruction/durable goods boom after – 1940 to the early 1970s. And global temperatures went down, steadily, for the entire 30+ years. Down to the extent that the predecessors of today’s global warming hoax were warning of a New Ice Age, and suggesting incresing greenhouse gases and even covering the poles with soot to absorb more sun’s heat.
                      Algore’s lying An Inconvenient Truth showed a graph with lines of CO2 concentration and global temperatures superimposed, with the conclusion “more CO2 means warmer planet.” Scientists and statiticians immediately showed that Gore had deliberately faked the data, by altering the time base. What the data actually showed was the reverse, that higher temperatures cause more CO2. Of course they do, they speed up dead plant decay, which produce methane and CO2.
                      You’re just parroting the AGW hoaxters’ propaganda without looking into the facts.

                    • They are simply gasses that are opaque to various wavelengths of long wave infrared. Gasses that absorb heat expand and rise. Adiabatic lapse causes the rising gas to cool without the loss of heat. At some point the gas will reach a temperature for which it is transparent to long wave infrared. At that point the gas gives off the heat it absorbed in all directions – some to space.

                      Whether it is water vapor or CO2, the gas absorbs heat near the surface, rises and releases the heat at altitude. That is all there is to the greenhouse effect.

                      CO2 levels have historically been much higher than they are now with no harm to flora, fauna, and sea life. The Mesozoic Era had stretches of time longer than 100 Million years during which the CO2 level exceeded 2,400 ppmv. Life thrived and the planet was just fine.

                    • Global temperatures have far more correlation to solar activity than anything else. In fact, those temperatures have cooled since 1998.

                    • CB you made no arguement and your assertion is superficial.

                      Quote CB, “Nothing Al Gore could possibly do would change the effect of CO₂ on planetary temperature.”

                      OK, why is that? Because the physical phenomenon affecting global weather are so huge that they dwarf any human action and therefore anthropogenic global warming is unlikely? I don’t think this is where you were going. So Al Gore is just one person so his global warning impact is immeasurable and can therefore be disregarded? Or, Al Gore buys carbon credits and this cancels out his profligate consumption? This is my vote for what you meant. Or, you actually believe in anthropogenic global warming but don’t believe one person makes a difference? So how about two people, two hundred people, when does it start to matter? Or is it that you are enthralled and just believe that some people are so imperial that they reach a state in which there excrement fails to produce odor?

                    • @CB:

                      Where did you find those fabricated charts? They are totally bogus.

                      Please stop emitting misinformation. It is too easy to debunk. For example, global ice cover is at an all-time high. So how could ice be declining like that?

                      If it were not for their lies, the alarmist crowd wouldn’t have anything to say.

                    • This is a perfect example of the phrase “how to lie with statistics.” Your cherry-picked graphs end in 2010. Arctic ice mass ncreased 60% 2012-13, an area equal to half of Europe. Antarctic ice increased similarly. Remember the Ship of Fools, the global warming so-called scientists who set out to prove that the Antarctic ice was shrinking last year, and got stuck in ice so thick that the world’s most powerful ice breakers couldn’t reach them?

                      As for that lying bloated hypocrite Algore, if you want to know how his much-touted “An Inconvenient Truth” slide show, that he has made $millions showingf to gullible people round the world, has been totally discredited – destroyed, in fact – see this. After the show was shown to schools in Britain, parents and Members of Parliament complained to the High Court that children wer having nightmares about polar bears drowning and that they themselves would be either drowned in rising seas or burned by out of control temperatures. The High Court issued an order that children must be shown the contrary evidence, and also issued a total refutation of Gore’s assertions in Inconvenient Truth. Download the link, then click on the pdf format box:


                    • You obviously didn’t understand my earlier reply to your claim about Algore. If you’re having difficulty in comprehending, have someone explain it to you.

                    • It doesn’t take a lot to make a better argument than making a point, and having someone go, “that’s irrelevant.” You don’t clarify why you think those points are unrelated to what you see the core issue as being. You just dismiss everything as categorically irrelevant.

                      So, speaking of the ‘better argument’, you might practice what you preach. Offer something of actual substance.

                    • Because there are many arguments being made here that don’t have anything to do with the problem, or the deniers are resorting to ad hominem attacks rather than attempt intellectual debate. Here’s some reading for you: It could very well be a combination of increases in fresh water due to the melting from the undercurrent, a decrease in the ozone (which acts like a greenhouse gas), and an uptick in weather activity. It makes some sense, but weather activity is very complex and tough to understand so there could be other factors. Much of global warming is counterintuitive to the ill informed, like you have global warming actually being partly responsible for the blizzard in Buffalo this past November (the warming waters of Lake Erie led to increased lake effect snow). It also leads to strange events, like hurricanes washing away the middle of Vermont,a state with no sea or ocean coastline. It also has more devastating but not heard of effects like NYC getting flooded and NJ getting washed away by Sandy, and droughts that have dried up the Mississippi River and the state of California and wildfires that burn up the West (All of which would be almost impossible without Global Warming, Keep in mind too, in regards to the Arctic, I believe it was 2012 where we had shocking records of low ice. Also, events have been shown to be influenced by global warming.

                      Now, instead of someone actually debating me, I get hit with ad hominem insults or excuses that “global warming is a hoax; it’s a socialist government power grab”. I, as a businessman, actually view it not as a political issue but a business risk (see the costs of the droughts and the billions spent cleaning up Hurricane Sandy, or even the businesses in Vermont shut down for good by Hurricane Irene).

                    • You want debate? I doubt it..

                      Globval ice has recovered nicely, which debunks the ‘disappearing ice’ scare.

                      ‘Counterintuitive” = “unscientific”

                      Vermont is a small ocation. Note the debate is about global warming

                      Global warming stopped many years ago

                      Every other example you give is cherry-picked confirmation bias, by showing locations, not global effects

                      Quoting the Guardian alone loses the argument. It shows you are commenting based on politics, not based on science.

                    • Sea ice or land ice? Two different things. The land ice is disappearing. The sea ice is more volatile but is also under threat due to warming waters. Counter-intuitive means that the science behind it seemingly defies what on its surface seems logical, but which isn’t actually so or is much more complicated. Global warming rate hit a bit of a “plateau” but that does not mean it stopped; it is still going up and 2014 is likely to be the hottest year on record. The measurements are based on global results, not geographic. I can pull many other signs of evidence of global warming; there really isn’t much evidence to the contrary, or any evidence at all once you factor out what can be dispelled. Global warming is occurring, which there is no doubt about that it is happening. The only questions are how much if any influence human activity has on it, which the evidence points to greatly, and along with that is how much of a threat it is, which seems to be variable but serious.

                      Lastly, that was just one article that I pulled from the Guardian. I could pull the same type of data from many other sources. There are still plenty of conservatives out there that are concerned and that hate false propaganda. I could care less about the political issue; it’s a major business and environmental concern; just today I heard a story about how susceptible and exposed to risk our area is to brown-outs and loss of power due to global warming issues that have already and will continue to happen.

                    • well, put your tiny little mittens on because you are about to get cold, little Gore groupie. Logic obviously escapes you!


                      “SCIENCE IS SETTLED” .

                      AND UNACCOMMODATING .



                    • Caps=yelling. That’s basic internet etiquette. I’m just trying to help you not look so stupid, but do what you like.

                    • You can start by reading:


                      It has won the internet’s Best Science & Technology Award for the 3rd year running, and it has well over 200 million unique views in only 7 – 8 years. And it has more than one million reader comments. It posts articles all the time, by climatologists, physicists, engineers and scientists. Best of all, it doesn’t censor different points of view.

                      But alas, you probably read low-traffic blogs like realscience, and the climate propaganda blog ‘skeptical’ science [run by a neo-Nazi]. No wonder you emit so much misinformation.

                    • You know what else is settled science; that the earth is round and revolves around the sun. Back when those ideas were new, Conservatives tried to crush those ideas too.



                      OR IF HIGHER TEMPS CAUSE CO2 .



                    • So your argument is because an error occurred 500 years ago (actually it didn’t occur but your history is as good as your physics) a similar error proves your case today. It’s called conflation and is a standard leftist “intellectual” tool.

                    • STOP IT.

                      Last year was the SIXTH warmest year of the new century/millennium. Sixth — out of only 14 years.

                      Thus, your lame argument crashes and burns. All you have left is a lie. Stop it. We know better.

                    • Some of the same people who push global warming were pushing global freezing a few decades ago,. Whatever gets the grant money. Google ClimateGate, geek.

                    • Hey troll: Even more than a simultaneous 2-front war against the Germans and Japanese? Even more than QE? Even more than $18 trillion debt and $120 trillion in unfunded liabilities. propel;led by a runaway govt.? Even more than a lose-lose amateur foreign policy? No.

                      I was not in favor of Iraq war, but are you aware that 65% of the Senate voted for action against Iraq, including your Shrillary?

                    • You would label everyone who disagrees with you a troll, Im sure. Repubs started Iraq. Obama spent the past 6 years cleaning up after your shit storm.

                    • You really are a fool
                      1. I’m not a Republican
                      2. 75% of the Senate voted to take action against Iraq, including Hillary, Chuckie, Harry, etc.
                      3.and yes, since you’re on Climatedepot, you would be a TROLL.

                      It’s really unfair for me to be engaged in a battle of wits with you when you are clearly unarmed. Living in your mother’s basement and being a troll must be depressing. Get some gumption in 2015 and go out and get a job. Wait- you have no skills except AGW trolling? Not a good future, slacker. Learn something productive.

                    • Hardly a “meme” and hardly right wing. It’s a major coup of facts and exposing/discrediting of the lies you so fervently embrace. Happy new year, ciao and may you come to your senses in 2015. You’re off to a poor start 🙂

                    • people who use the term “settled science” are ignorant of what science is. A sure sign of an ill informed fool is using the term settled science, as SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED, it is always open to new facts or proofs!!!!!

                    • Science is never settled. That is simply an alarmist tactic to try and shut down debate.

                      Didn’t work, did it?

                    • So explain to me how the following scientific facts remain unsettled;
                      ● the earth is round.
                      ● the earth revolves around the sun

                      It’s not a tactic. It’s fact. Debate has already been shut down by science.




                    • Yup. Climate data is graphable and others have duplicated the results. But you guys are so retarded that you think it’s liberal black magic. This shouldn’t be a partisan thing. It’s readings on thermometers. 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded.

                      THE HOTTEST YEAR WAS 1934 .
                      THEY HAD LESS POLAR ICE BACK THEN TOO .



                      WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT .

                    • Maybe the geek would like to go argue with Snopes about the hottest year.

                      For me, I’m an engineer, immersed in the technical end of the global warming issue. It is crystal clear to me that man-made global warming is complete nonsense. There may, possibly, be a minuscule amount of AGW. But it is too small to even measure [my specialty; Metrology].

                      The proof? There are NO MEASUREMENTS quantifying AGW. NONE. Thus, when you hear about man-made global warming, it is nothing but a conjecture — an opinion.

                      Basing national Policy on nothing more than an opinion is extremely foolish. Isn’t it?

                    • Where are the deluges you predicted, Geek? Did you know that even if te entire N Pole cap melted, it would make almost no difference in sea levels? Do you know why? Why is it that hardly any AGW fans really understand “the science” and those that do are bought off by Govt. to parrot the line. Why did 30,000+ scientists sign a letter debunking AGW?

                    • I’m an engineer, stupid. You act like you have a degree in ethnic studies, basket-weaving or just hanging around. If you can shut up for a second, ‘;ll teach you something. Will you try it?

                      Get a large glass, add water and ice. Measure the water level. Make a mark at the water level. Go back when the ice melts. It will be the same level.

                      The vast majority of the north pole ice cap is on water . get it now?

                      Please explain why we weren’t already inundated by the 200+ yr warming period which melted most of the cap (at one time).

                      Do you know what the actual sea rise has been? Didn’t think so.

                    • It shows your an engineer: you’re closed minded, lack imagination, and you think you’re way smarter than you actually are. You constantly misread the facts and can’t see what’s directly in front of your face. You may be good at math, but you suck at interpretation.

                    • That’s all you have is imagination and BS- no education, no brains, no worldly knowledge. Please try the experiment idiot … and look at a map- or is that too constraining to you? You DO know how to read a map, right?

                      I’m obviously way smarter than you.

                    • I’m a corporate director and working on my masters at Harvard. I’m not impressed by your engineering degree. Go build a concrete slab you flunky.

                    • You sure don’t act or think like one, so I’m quite dubious. I owned my own company, a fairly “creative one :-))- sold it before I retired. Currently doing a startup for my amusement. I had MBA’s and MS’s working for me, but I wouldn’t be dumb enough to have hired the likes of you. Worked for the company Snowden did early on.

                      Seriously, you don’t show that you even know how to think. Regurgitating discredited pablum does not constitute thinking. Until you can answer some of the challenges put forth to you, your credibility is zero with 90% of the people on this site.

                    • Lol, I couldn’t care less about validation from the dingbats on this site. This is just my sparing practice on a long weekend.

                    • I liked your post. I want you to know that. I wouldn’t want you to miss it or mistake that like as being from someone else. It’s me.

                    • Lol, I couldn’t care less about validation from the dingbats on this site. This is just sparring practice on a long weekend.

                    • IF that is the case, then Harvard has fallen far lower than even I suspected.

                      Really, based on your comments, you don’t know nothin’…

                      …at least about science. And keep in mind that we could have gone to the moon without scientists. But not without engineers.

                    • Ill spell it out for you: it isn’t the water ice, it is glaciers in Greenland, the artic, and Antarctica that sit on land. They melt too.

                    • You really ARE stupid- and terribly uninformed.

                      1 The vast majority of polar ice cap is on water
                      2. Greenland’s not nearly as large as it looks on a Mercator projection. You DO know what that is, right?
                      3. Antarctic ice has been growing for a long time.
                      4. North Pole ice is growing again.
                      5. Lastly, explain why melting hasn’t already inundated the algore’s house in Montecito. All your mendacious models said that would already happen. I’ll ask you again, how much has the sea risen, Mr. Smarty pants?





                      EASY TO PROVE & WORKS EVERY TIME .


                      NOW SO HAVE YOU .


                      DESPITE THE WARMIST’s PREDICTIONS .


                    • He said: IF THE NORTH POLE ICE MELTED…

                      That would, IN FACT, have no impact on sea levels.

                      Fifth graders know that, and they know why, because thet’s when they learn about Archimedes.

                      Go back to the 5th grade, you have some catching up to do, ‘geek’.




                      WRONG IN CLIMATE CHANGE LAND .





                    • Typical leftie reply… Don’t bring anything to the conversation, and start being obnoxious from the moment you enter.

                    • Horse hockey. You may have brought your version of science to the table. The interesting thing about Gruber, the economist, is that he revealed that science with an agenda is not really science. Your science of global warming was founded on a FRAUD. But, since so much money and so much academic effort floats around global warming, the FRAUD was ignored. Global warming is a left wing political movement to create an excuse to increase control on individuals. It is not science.

                    • There aren’t “versions”. There’s the scientific consensus, and the lies Glen beck tells you to believe.


                    • So what you’re saying is there’s no such thing as facts. And when it comes to something observable like climate change, you shouldn’t believe your lying eyes.

                    • 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded. I guess the librals must have faked that too you paranoid doofus.


                    • So Why don’t any scientists support your globbed up ideas. OMG it must be a Left wing conspiracy ya’ll!!!! Call Glen Beck!!!

                    • I switched from an old I-phone to Galaxy S-5 a few months ago. Lots of raw power, great screen, apps, but I HATE the texting software. Overall, I-phone had a better user interface.

                      Re: The Moyers piece- mostly propaganda and full of untruths. I had Monckton speak at one of our events- very entertaining, but does no real research of his own- collects, analyzes papers. He didn’t originate the 1998 warming halt story. It’s based on the discovery that not all station reports are being used and some station are in areas which have gotten much more urbanized (hotter) and skew the data. Bottom line- false data- no longer representative.

                      As far as the Santer stuff- he lost all credibility when he said it IS man-made., He has zero proof, only some correlation (there is FAR better correlation with solar activity.).

                      If you really want to learn I;ll lead you, but I suspect you’re a”true believer.”

                      You still haven’t told me how much you think the sea has risen. Until you can answer- and correctly at that- you have zero credibility.

                      You still haven’t acknowledged that the climate “models,” “projections,” guesses,” whatevah, are all way, way off- wrong, wrong wrong.

                      I stopped after I read the first two whoppers in that link.

                      One more

                      “There have been three studies, using different methodologies, that have shown that almost all working climate scientists — 97 percent — accept the consensus view.”

                      One does not get work as a client scientist unless one buries ones ethics and buys in to an unproven theory 100%. Again, over 30,000 scientists have repudiated it.

                    • geek, whenever more than 30,000 people sign something, there are bound to be a few fakes.

                      But funny thing, I couldn’t find the Spice Girls, or a single Star Wars character in the list.

                      So you are lying again. Aren’t you?

                      If not, show us those names… liar.

                    • Had this been open to the general public, I might agree, but since it was supposed to only be scientists who signed it, the fact that there were so many fakes should be troubling to anyone attempting to use it to prove their point.

                    • Every time you say that 2014 was the hottest year EVAH!! you are lying.

                      You tell lots of lies, don’t you?

                    • You guys love to throw around “you lie!” like some kind of retarded congressman at a state of the union address, but FYI, I don’t make claims I can’t back up.

                    • you do not seem to understand that science is always about challenging the consensus any more than you seem to understand that consensus is a political term and there is NO equivalent term in science. People who say “CONSENSUS” or “THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED” ARE USING POLITICAL RHETORIC AND ARE NOT DISCUSSING SCIENCE. THEY ARE DISCUSSING POLITICS. THEY ARE PROPAGANDISTS. Policygeek must learn the difference if he is ever going to play a meaningful role or be able to engage in fact based discussions. On this thread he reads as an ignorant fool who gets his science from his tv set.

                    • Losing an argument? Strike off in a different direction! Conservatives don’t walk in lockstep with commanding overlords. That’s a Leftist thing. You can only condemn Hannity when you talk about Hannity, and no one else was. He is merely a commentator with Conservative leanings, and not a particularly good one, at that. The beauty of being a free thinker is being able to assimilate facts and come to our own conclusions about what makes sense and what doesn’t. If you believe all te propaganda your masters feed you, how will you know when one of them is lying? Why are questions raised about your ideology met with aggressive hostility? If your cause was just and tenets true, you should welcome the chance to explain you point. Might doesn’t make right, as your union goons and other professional protesters may believe. Physical domination is not a rational debate strategy, but a dishonest bully tactic. Think about why that is such a large part of your movement’s activities.

                    • Logic and reason show the whole anthropogenic climate change scientist pool are a bunch of frauds and liars protecting their grant money.. Adjusted numbers.. Fluid models.. You can get a computer to tell you anything you want it to.. And that is exactly what these corrupt “scientists,” are doing.. You people seem to think that when you use the words,”settled science,” that that means the argument is over.. And you want it over on your terms.. NO!!!

                    • “Yes, you are”

                      You forgot the word “correct”.

                      How might anything Al Gore does change the effect of CO₂ on planetary temperature?

                    • He owns a fleet of SUVs, while lecturing us to use bicycles. He uses 20X more electricity than the average American family, ng us to be conservationists, and flies round the world to give his $100,000 speeches (no questions allowed) in his polluting private jet.

                    • The same hypocrite who forecast some years ago that by now the sea would have risen to engulf coastal areas, like wher he built his hacienda. The same Algore who uses 20X more electricity than the average American family, and flies round the world to give his $100,000 speeches (no questions allowed) in his polluting private jet. The same loon who forecast in 2007 that ALL arctic ice would be melted by 2014 (instead, it grew by 60% 2012-13.)

                    • Shut up fool.
                      Your mind is so far gone you can’t even recognize the truth when it’s right under your nose.
                      Go out in the street and be run over. Wait for a trash truck.

                    • policygeek, you global warming alarmists are the ones trying to silence dissent. And you’re all left wingers. And I base this on your false belief that 98% of the worlds climate scientists all agree that man is the cause of climate change even though the climate has been changing for billions of years before humans even existed.
                      Now that’s plain stupid. But, it’s also hilarious because you actually believe you know more about it than any of us do, when you’ve done no experiments yourself that have proved any of what you claim is true.

                    • Scientists have proven global warming is fact but you don’t believe them so why would you believe me? Now when the scientists say they all agree it’s a fact, why do you doubt them.

                    • Bwahahahahahahahaha!
                      The scientists that make their living by garnering grant money?
                      The ones that know the government is all for the lie because it gives them more control?
                      The ones that are living large on the billions of dollars spent to try to prove what has not been proven?

                      What should the temperature be little troll?
                      They don’t know.
                      They will only say “cooler”.

                      But it is getting cooler, and they say it is due to warming.

                      Anyone with a brain sees that they are lying.
                      Anyone willing to NOT depend on the neo-communist media has seen that real scientists are jumping off the bandwagon in droves.

                    • There has been “Global Warming throughout history- and cooling too.

                      There is zero proof that the current round of GW (in remission since 1998) was man-caused. Zero. There is a stronger correlation to solar activity to warming than anything else.

                      In addition, it has been proven that the “climate models” are all discredited. They don’t work.

                      Actual warming has not taken place since 1998.

                      It is also now clear that data were fudged- cherry-picked temperature recording stations, some in areas which have become more urbanized over the years.

                      Google ClimateGate, Luddite,

                    • I never ask a fool like you a question I don’t already know the answer to. YOU need to figure it out, slacker.

                    • No, you just need to be a realist. Global warming and climate change is merely a scam meant to enrich its proponents while exploiting liberal idealists. The world warms and cools because of sunspot activity and there is no way for taxes to regulate the sun’s cycles. Emissions amount to nothing. In fact, tropical rain forests are benefiting from CO emissions and are growing at a fantastic pace and are producing oxygen for our planet.

                      If these Global Warming evangelists want any credibility, they should start by turning over all their global warming wealth to their countries green initiatives. Like that would ever happen. Al Gore and David Suzuki love their high carbon footprint lifestyles.

                    • Do You know how retarded you sound? This is why librals laugh at you. ” damn what the actual scientists say, i know what im talking about!”

                      And I guarantee you that people in your real life laugh at you behind your back. We really do think you are stupid.

                    • Let’s pretend for a moment that counting votes who believe or don’t beleive is actually a valid sceintific pursuit in anything outside of politics.

                      Let’s talk about your assertion that the 2% (whereever you got that number from) are paid to do so by the oil and gas industries. Let me introduce you to Dr. Roy Spencer who is climatologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. He also is a skeptic of manmade climate change the way it is pushed on us by alarmists.

                      I don’t know if the site will allow me to post a link or not, so just to not take a chance, I have given you his name and his titles. You can see that what I posted about him comes from Wikipedia. On his site, you can also find his credentials.

                      So here is one that blows up your nice, neat little world where people who don’t believe in catastrophic manmade global warming are all anti-science people, or else on the payroll of oil and gas companies.

                      This is just the beginning. Once you see that your scientific law doesn’t hold, it should be on you and your scientific curiosity to find that there are others, and what the science is behind their thinking. Either that, or you can continue to substitute the word “Scientist” for the way that others use “Priest” and continue to use “science” the way others use “Bible” without knowing what either actually mean. It’s up to you. It might lead you to less laughter behind people’s backs if you know more about skeptical scientists, so you have a trade-off, I suppose.

                    • One skeptic does not make a trend. The difference between your religious assertion is that science is observable and not dependent on blind faith.

                    • Gee. That was 75 self-selected government-paid “scientists” from 13,500 who were surveyed, wasn’t it? That is the 97% “climate scientists” was 75 out 77 – out of 3,500 who returned the survey, then the rest were filtered out.

                    • This is what people ALWAYS say when they are unable to account for their own cognitive processes, even. It’s much harder than someone may guess to account for such things. It comes into play when your job security is at stake, or grant money may be at stake, too, and so it is essential to look at what may play into someone’s cognitive processes.

                      You attempted this when you said that the scientists that did not believe in global warming were only 2% (something that doesn’t add up any way I am aware of) and that they are paid to do so by the oil and gas industry.

                      I showed you the first one that was not. This disproves your assertion. If there is one, there are probably others, right? So do you search and see if there is a measurable trend, or do you now go into defense mode for your pre-conceived idea that there are only 2%, and that those are all paid-for by the oil and gas industry.

                      It seems at that point, you lost your curiosity, and reverted to your faith.

                      Look, I know it’s convenient to believe that everybody who is “Scientific” agrees with you. The simple fact is, that is incorrect. So if not all do, then it becomes necessary to know a little bit about the measurements, who makes them, whether or not they are adjusting them, how the measurements are taken over time, how they are analyzed, how the projections are made, etc. I’ve spent a little bit of time on this, and my thought at this point is that there is plenty to question. There are a lot of people using such appeals to authority as “Scientists say … ” then they continue on without really knowing what any scientist says, or how any other scientist counter-claims. That’s easy to do. However; the un-adjusted data is inconclusive, and the sattelite data is both very short term, and not showing the same thing that the land-based measurements are showing. So science deals in something measurable … when it is measured properly.

                      And of course, there is plenty of question about the models that are built. When you can hindcast, but cannot forecast with a model, that is going back to what your algebra teacher in the 7th or 8th grade got onto you about when you didn’t show your work: Getting the right answer for the wrong reason. The climate models have proven unskillful in forecasting, even when made to be able to hindcast. Likely they are programmed into hindcasting to the point of overfit (something data scientists will understand well, but someone who puts blind faith in scientists may not). Whether it is faulty association, overfitting, or something else, models, quite simply, have not proven skillful thus far in forecasting climate conditions, and they take very few conditions and parameters into account in a system as large as earth’s climate.

                      I think there is plenty to question, and there are climate scientists who think the same.

                    • At some point in the neAR future, you guys are going to have to recognize that there is nothing “conservative” about climate change denial.

                    • GASP!

                      Oh wait! By that definition, we may not have any climate scientists we can believe. After all, there may be some that work for non-skeptical political organizations. If we have to disqualify one, then we might need to disqualify those, too, right?

                      My reply was directed to someone that asserted that there were only 2% of scientists that did not “believe” in manmade global warming, and that those were paid for by the oil and gas industry. I found him one that did not fit with his assertion.

                      Now to you: Are you familiar with the “Science” that Roy Spencer does? It seems that NASA respects it. What part of it is wrong? Just the part where he doesn’t support global warming with hisurement and processing of data that you can point to that is incorrect? or that doesn’t support the conclusions he asserts?

                    • Sunspots have been disproven as the main cause of global warming. The government also has no interest in lying about the issue.

                    • Those anonymous and unknown government-paid “scientists” reviewing government-selected papers running government programs inside government bureaucracies using government computers in government labs with government grants issued by government bureaucrats promoted by government policies have 1.3 trillion dollars a year in new taxes and trillions more in “carbon credits” trading issued by government-favored banks and insurance companies that crave government approval?

                    • Your democrat politicians have a n intense psychological hate-filled need to destroy the energy and oil companies they hate, the need to control the population and the population’s energy supply of low-cost fuels and food, and most of all – a need for the 1.3 trillion dollars in new tax revenues to fund their programs. Your CAGW beliefs are all based on the politics of the energy situation, and NONE on the science nor the measurements.

                    • Sunspots have an impact on the earth’s climate. Being the main cause has not been proven or unproven.

                      Obama’s administration lies about everything. Why should global warming be an exception?

                    • And you don,t believe this story Sparkey???Call me..I can make u a deal on buying New York..No money down and I will throw in New Jersey if u call tonight..

                    • I agree. Deniers are willfully ignorant. It is an environmental issue, not a political one. Also, much of the problem is from overpopulation. The Earth simply can’t handle 7.2 billion people very well.

                    • You are more than welcome to round up as many people as you want and follow the lead of Reverend Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple from back in 1978. I understand some concern about overpopulation but saying ridiculous things like that 5 billion people on the planet basically need to disappear (as you wrote below) is insane. You sound like a despotic leader who actually justifies the killing of millions because it benefits the “greater good,” whatever that specifically is in their mind (e.g., rid the world of another tribe, race, religion, etc.). You’re a psychopath in training.

                    • Did you know that the worlds population could all be put in Texas, give everyone a large yard, a car and have room for all to drive on the highways? The world is a pretty big place and sparsely populated in many areas. The argument should not be what should we do about warming or cooling, but about using the energy resources we have in responsible ways until better and more efficient forms of energy are developed. Developing countries that are denied carbon fuels now and in the near future will be harmed greatly by even more poverty. No matter what the U.S. Does in this matter, China, India, South Africa and others will still burn their dirtiest coal with impunity.

                    • The world’s population could fit into Texas but it would have the density of NYC, so no extra space, plus you have to figure in still meeting the food, energy, water, and other resources needed. Managing a world population of1 or 2 billion would be easier.

                    • FACT: “Climate change is constant because the Earth is a dynamic, and has been occurring long before people and will continue to do so long after we’re gone.”

                    • Ice cores prove what? It’s been much hotter and much cooler in the past. The funny thing is that your global warming religion can’t even explain the ice ages with any certainty. Not to mention you can barely predict next weeks weather.

                    • Ice cores are NOT continuous records like tree rings. They record the cold years, but the warm years melt away and are not recorded.



                    • You can’t make one argument that I can’t counter with something more compelling. Your credibility is hurt by your use of all caps


                    • Neither do you. You’re a cut & paste copycat, a stupid little parrot endlessly squawking the latest leftist hogwash.

                      Have a peanut.

                    • Cut the ignorance and the all caps. 2014 was hottest year on record, and statistically speaking all the recent weather events and disasters would not have happened without global warming.


                    • What disasters? Was Florida swept away and I missed it? Floods, tornados, hurricanes, droughts…all have been occurring for some time. Pretty sure they’ll continue.

                    • Where did algore lie? For starters… He said man made globull warming was a fact. Next he said the solution was to pay taxes to solve it. Guess who would make massive income if these taxes got past the congress?

                    • Global warming essentially is fact. Carbon taxes can be effective and the revenues can be used to clean up the mess and invest in better energy technology.

                    • No it’s not a fact, a lot of common beliefs are not facts. Scientist will tell you the planet has experienced periods where the Earth was much warmer than it is now, before, industrialization, and much colder than it is now again before industriazation (I prefer warmer, from what I have read the Ice Age sucked, pardon my vernacular). Imagine an ice sheet that extended as far south as Washington State. Much of the geography in the Northwest was caused by the Missoula Floods, huge ice dams created vast lakes into Canada and during brief periods of warming gigantic floods covered the Northwest. The planet gets warmer and the planet cools and it will continue to do so long after we’re gone.

                    • Gimme a break. Isn’t it time to break out of the polluting model of an oil-based economy? You really don’t think human ingenuity can come up with less polluting alternatives? We should just wait around and see what will happen – and meanwhile the entire planet gets poisoned? I think you’re short-changing man’s ability to change, adapt, invent.

                    • atomic energy for starters. There simply isn’t anything that produces as much energy as a drop of oil. Some day in the long-distant future, there will be efficient solar systems, but not in this century. The physics won’t allow it.

                    • The green energy boondoggle is simply the most effective means liberals like obama and gore have to redistribute money and then launder it back through the economy to their chosen entities – themselves and the democrat party.

                    • She says, posting on a computer made from plastics and heavy metals, using power straight from a coal fired plant, eating food that was delivered by truck, staying warm with that natural gas. It’s so good to be a hypocrite!!!

                    • And I think you don’t know crap about what you are talking about.
                      Currently, all the gushing idiots who think Solar and Wind power are reasonable alternatives to coal, oil, gas, and nuke power are just that, Idiots. You can’t generate enough power for present day society using any of the so called “Green” technologies. They’ve had almost 100years to improve refine, and make them feasible, but they have failed. Why? They can’t do the job period. You want an energy source that doesn’t pollute, fusion is the only technology being evaluated today which has a hope of doing so.
                      So let me get this straight, it is okay to ruin the lives of billions of people because you are afraid of something you don’t even come close to understanding? Right!
                      Also, CO2 isn’t a pollutant! You people make it easy for your masters to take your money, destroy your economy, and ruin billions of human lives.

                    • The technology is available and improving constantly. The impediment is lack of political will. In the US, our elected representative are, for the most part, “owned” by the fossil fuel lobbies and do their bidding. The ensuing climate chaos has already shown how it will &#