Wednesday, November 25, 2020
Home Right Column Weather Channel Founder Slams Bill Nye: Calls him 'a pretend scientist in...

Weather Channel Founder Slams Bill Nye: Calls him ‘a pretend scientist in a bow tie’

-

Weather Channel Founder John Coleman, a meteorologist for over six decades, slammed Bill Nye, ‘the science guy’ for saying that the new skeptical global warming film ‘Climate Hustle’ is “very much not in our national interest and the world’s interest.

Coleman is featured introducing ‘Climate Hustle’ in theatres on May 2 for the one-night only showing.  www.ClimateHustle.com Nye is also featured in the panel discussion that follows the skeptical film in theatres on May 2.

“I have always been amazed that anyone would pay attention to Bill Nye, a pretend scientist in a bow tie,” Coleman said today.

“As a man who has studied the science of meteorology for over 60 years and received the AMS (American Meteorological Society’s) ‘Meteorologist of the Year’ award, I am totally offended that Nye gets the press and media attention he does. And I am rooting for the ‘Climate Hustle’ film to become a huge hit — bigger than ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ by Al Gore,” Coleman explained.

Coleman was the original meteorologist on ABC’s Good Morning America.

Coleman also ripped Nye for suggesting climate skeptics should face jail time for their dissenting views.

“That this the most awful thing since Galileo was jailed for saying the Earth was not the center of the Universe,” Coleman said.

“In 20 or 30 years, when Nye is an old man, he will realize how wrong he was as the Earth continue to be a just a great place to live,” Coleman added.

Related Links: 

Nationwide Theatre Event (Now including Canada!) – One Night Only May 2 – With introduction by Weather Channel Founder John Coleman & Exclusive panel discussion following movie with Gov. Sarah Palin, Brent Bozell, Climatologist Dr. David Legates, Marc Morano & Special Appearance by Bill Nye

Go to www.ClimateHustle.com for theatre near you and to buy tickets. 

Bill Nye, UN Scientist Warn Moviegoers to Shun Skeptical film ‘Climate Hustle’: ‘Not in Our National Interest’ –Bill Nye: ‘Climate Hustle’  is ‘very much not in our national interest and the world’s interest.’ – UN Scientist Michael Oppenheimer condemned the film – without even viewing it: ‘Marc (Morano)  is a propagandist’

‘Nye should not be the face of this movement’ – Warmists continue trashing Nye: Salon Mag. – Bill Nye NBC debate ‘a DISASTER’ – ‘Children’s TV host leading this ‘debate’ only enhances impression entire issue is a JOKE’ – Salon claims Nye looked ‘faint’ like ‘he was going to throw up’ – Nye’s eyes got wide and it looked like he was going to throw up. (Check the video, he really looks faint around 10:44.) ‘The entire exercise was a joke, of course…The fact that a children’s television host is leading this “debate” only enhances the impression that the entire issue is a joke…Nye is a smart guy with great intentions, but he should not be the face of this movement.’

Weather Channel founder John Coleman: “We climate change skeptics have long needed a film to counter An Inconvenient Truth. This may be it. I was honored to be asked to record the introduction of the movie for its May 2nd debut at 400 theaters, so I was provided a preview of the entire film. It is not made for scientists and political activists. It is designed to reach the general public including teenagers. It is my hope that in the years to come it will be shown just before or after Al Gore’s sci-fi epic in every school. I the meantime I will buy tickets and attend the showing at the nearest theater to my new home in Las Vegas. I hope it draws a crowd and holds and pleases the audience.”

1192 COMMENTS

          • In fact, polls of the general population have already seen climate change drop to the bottom of peoples’ worry lists. They know it’s bunk. If they really thought we were all going to die from climate change, it would be near the top.

            • “polls of the general population have already seen climate change drop to the bottom of peoples’ worry lists.”

              Marc Morano lying about how successful his lying has been?

              Hmmmmm…

              “Marc Morano is the executive director and chief correspondent of ClimateDepot.com, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Morano is also the Communications Director at CFACT, a conservative think-tank in Washington D.C. that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife. According to 2011 IRS Forms, Morano was the highest paid staff member with a salary of $150,000 per year. Morano’s blog Climate Depot regularly publishes articles questioning man-made global warming.”

              http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano

              • And of course all the global warming disciples are only concerned about mother earth. No fanaticism there. Same Zero Population Growth devotees from the 70’s. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

                • “the global warming disciples are only concerned about mother earth. No fanaticism there.”

                  lol!

                  Do you spend most of your time on some other planet?

                  If an organised attack on the climate you depend on for survival isn’t grounds for concern, what exactly would be?

                  “2015 was the warmest year since modern record-keeping began in 1880, according to a new analysis by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”

                  http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

                    • And given the known lies told by climate alarmists, if one told me the sun comes up in the east experience would suggest that I get up early and look for myself.

                • I have some leftists friends who have been on the protest wagon since Vietnam. When the Vietnam war ended, they found the nuclear power plant protests, then they found the nuclear freeze movement protests. When Reagan ended the need for that they found the homeless situation protests. When the Democrats gained the White House they ignored the homeless and bought into the global warming nonsense which has morphed into Climate Change. Who knows what’s next when the people continue to catch on to the hoax.

                • Sorry to say but idiocracy (love that movie) began before the 70s. Not going too far back in the history of population planning (Aristotle, Kautilya, Confucius, et al), Malthus was an early idiot (late 1700s) using simplified mathematical models (roughly: geometric population growth versus linear arable farmland growth to predict the end of mankind), the famous ‘based on what we know, bumblebees can’t fly’ (only related by faulty math), Ehrlich, Sanger,eugenics, Limits of Growth, etc.
                  So, did you know the first GW models didn’t include water vapor which is about 800 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2? Etc, again.

                  Does this excuse the fearmongers, the manipulators of data, the supporters of ‘fairness’ and useful idiots? No, it makes them vile human beings.

                  My apologies for late night rambling.

                  PS: (obvious capitalist ploy here) where does this leave a genius friend of mine who has invented a method / process to remove CO2 at operating temperatures and pressures and fix it in a useable compound?

              • I love it when they trot out the canard of how much money the evil oil companies spend on anything that might potentially be labelled as anti-“climate change” (the phenomenon formerly known as global warming until we went 20 years or so without any appreciable warming). The fact is that the billions spent by governments around the world on climate studies (that pretty much universally goes to climate alarmists) dwarfs the relatively minuscule funding of evil oil. And of course all those taking the governments’ money are pure as the driven snow and could never be influenced, right? I hope someone gets to the bottom of how much money Michael Mann has made off of his quackery.

                    • good point.

                      When arguing with them, it’s the usual BS — government is composed only of well-meaning, honorable people who would never write a report supporting government’s view’s on global warming and climate change.

                • Sorry to say but idiocracy (love that movie) began before the 70s. Not going too far back in the history of population planning (Aristotle, Kautilya, Confucius, et al), Malthus was an early idiot (late 1700s) using simplified mathematical models (roughly: geometric population growth versus linear arable farmland growth to predict the end of mankind), the famous ‘based on what we know, bumblebees can’t fly’ (only related by faulty math), Ehrlich, Sanger,eugenics, Limits of Growth, etc.
                  So, did you know the first GW models didn’t include water vapor which is about 800 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2? Etc, again.

                  Does this excuse the fearmongers, the manipulators of data, the supporters of ‘fairness’ and useful idiots? No, it makes them vile human beings.

                  My apologies for late night rambling.

                  PS: (obvious capitalist ploy here) where does this leave a genius friend of mine who has invented a method / process to remove CO2 at operating temperatures and pressures and fix it in a useable compound?

              • I can do the research myself, and when I take NOAA data that shows temperatures rising and falling NATURALLY since 1880, I will conclude, like most non-government-paid scientists that climate is always changing, has increased 1.4 degrees in 140 years, and there is nothing to worry about unlike those scientists who receive their income from the government which desires to increase the size of it’s power and control.

                • Indeed! And when you ask the CC leftists what the ideal temperature of the earth should be they are stumped. And when you tell them more people die every year from cold than heat, they are stumped again.

                  • Although I remember The Chicago Heat Wave of 1995, when 730 people died…. it was mostly because they lived in horrible neighborhoods and were too afraid of opening a window or door and they literally roasted to death. But as you have accurately stated, most people who die because of the weather, it’s from “freezing to death, not melting in the sun.”

              • Scaife is an honorable man who subscribes to time-honored principles and is willing to put his money where his mouth is, unlike the diabolical George Soros who has no honor at all but has the same rights to spend his money to support his beliefs, as evil as they are.

                However, the facts presented in the above paragraph are worthy of respect. Corporations have the right to spend money to research the truth and then to promote it to the world.

                You are so limited in your world-view; you are brain-washed to believe your views are righteous and those of folks opposing you warrant suppression.

                You are a modern-day brown shirt fascist.

          • In America we have free speech, you can openly dispute lies as often as you openly dispute facts. That said, any person who advocates for jailing scientist that have already had their careers ruined by the climate cartels, simply for their opinion and in most cases accredited research, is the enemy. You have outed your self and your cartels as tyrants willing to jail someone for their opinion. The guns will come out so long as you idiots keep pushing tyranny on a free people.

        • It’s snowing in late April, totally normal for Colorado, it’s called weather.. can you say that word, it has never been constant, and has always changed. You cuckold little weenies just have a goal of collapsing the US economy, admit it, how would paying you fix the problem? I don’t see you trolling Chinese, who will never curb their pollution. Europe does not get acid rain from the US, like we get from China. But I bet you defend China’s rights to pollute. Because of course your only goal is us economy collapsing on itself.

          • If all the programs Obama and his leftists thugs want to enact were, by 2100 it would only have a .1 degree C effect. Even if that were true what difference would it make…….is it worth wrecking our economy for .1 degree?

    • As arrogant as we humans can be, it is impossible for us to alter
      climate on a global scale. The sun puts out more energy in a millisecond
      that all humans since the dawn of time. Volcanoes put out more CO2 in a
      day that humans do in a year. Cycles of warming and cooling have been
      going on for thousands of years and there’s nothing we can do to change
      that.

        • “a comedian in lab coat drag is lecturing us on what science is.”

          Is that not better than a prostitute lecturing you on what science is?

          Is it possible you’re too stupid to see the conflict of interest in an employee of the industry warming the planet writing articles and now making movies about the warming of the planet?

          “Marc Morano is the executive director and chief correspondent of ClimateDepot.com, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Morano is also the Communications Director at CFACT, a conservative think-tank in Washington D.C. that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife. According to 2011 IRS Forms, Morano was the highest paid staff member with a salary of $150,000 per year. Morano’s blog Climate Depot regularly publishes articles questioning man-made global warming.”

          http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano

          • I think it’s people such as you who wouldn’t believe the truth if if it were held three inches in front of your nose. Perhaps you can explain why the Planet Mars warmed simultaneously with the Planet Earth when there was warming, as there has been before? Maybe you can explain why this planet re-warmed after each Ice age? Don’t bother asking climate “expert” Al Gore. 20 years ago he said that the Ocean levels would be 10 feet higher 10 years ago. If it makes you feel better, you can run around flapping your arms and yelling THE SKY IS FALLING !

                  • That is your assertion fallacy – you completely forgot to cite your sources. What makes it worse is that you’re completely wrong.

                    In reality, projections are based on scenarios, but predictions are based on forecasts.
                    That you don’t understand the difference shows me that yo are not worth my time.

                    Maybe you should learn basic English. That would stimulate your non-existent deity!

                    But, nice try though, Lex, you must have been a real short-term hero in your man made climate chnage denialist study group. Have you ever thought that you might be bored simply because you’re kind of stupid? Oh wait, paradox.

              • “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”..,……..!wc15ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !wc15:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsMagazineGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!wc15………..

              • If you hear that news, it will be on Monday at 9:00AM, but if they finally confirm incontrovertibly that gorbal alarming was/is a scam, that news will be released on a Friday after 3:00PM.

            • With all due respect, I don’t think anyone here would believe you know what the “truth” is. In fact, probably nobody does, so why go around passing stuff off as truth when you (and anyone else) don’t really know for sure?

                    • I’ll make you a deal. I’ll answer your question, if, and only if, you promise to answer mine. Is that a deal?

                      Your question is: Do you seriously believe that there is anything humans are capable of doing to cause or reverse climate change?

                      My question is: Why are you in denial of anthropocentric cliamte change.

                      Deal?

                    • First: I don’t believe most of what any government agency says because they follow a political agenda to maintain their funding.
                      Secondly: Scientists who disagree with the Man Caused Global Warming agenda are marginalized. Their investigations aren’t published. I believe this agenda is a scam for political reasons.

                    • Ok, So, you are in denial of anthropocentric cliamte change. because:

                      First: I don’t believe most of what any government agency says because they follow a political agenda to maintain their funding.

                      To say that you believe that means it is your admission that you have not checked the evidence that supports the scientific consensus of anthropocentric cliamte change. Have you ever considered that you should check the evidence first? Have you considered that the (you are yet to name it) government agency are merely accepting what the scientific literature says?

                      Secondly: Scientists who disagree with the Man Caused Global Warming agenda are marginalized. Their investigations aren’t published. I believe this agenda is a scam for political reasons.

                      To say that you believe that means it is your admission that you have not checked the evidence that supports the scientific consensus of anthropocentric cliamte change. Have you not been taught that science is not politics? Any person, scientist or politician) can publish a scientific journal. Don’t you know anything about how the scientific method works?

                      What evidence do you have that can falsify anthropogenic cliamte change (ACC)?
                      Its not like the majority vote of the ignorant should dictate any course of action of such an important magnitude. However, climate change deniers should not reach out to the public to pontificate political rhetoric, but should form an argument based on falsifiable evidence to convince the climate change experts. It just happens that the majority of climate change scientists hold the same position stating that ACC is not false. And you can’t even show me any scientific body of national or international standing that maintains a formal opinion dissenting from ACC. Yet you, the ignorant, claim the experts got it wrong, but you refuse to tell us how you know this. All you have is your denialism and trying to make it a political issue.

                    • Yes, with everything you’ve said about my point of view. But lets keep it simple. Is there anywhere in the scientific “proof” that explains why the Planet Mars warmed simultaneously with Earth during the last warming period? What explains the variation of sea levels from ancient times without the benefit of having Mankind to blame? What explains higher C02 levels during the last Ice Age? What happened to the pending new Ice Age scare during the early 1970’s?

                    • You claim:

                      Yes, with everything you’ve said about my point of view.

                      So, you accept ACC? Or is it that you don’t, hence you refuse to answer my questions?

                      You ask:

                      Is there anywhere in the scientific “proof” that explains why the Planet Mars warmed simultaneously with Earth during the last warming period?

                      What makes you think that there is such a thing as scientific proof? Science does not prove or disprove anything. You are now merely demonstrating that you have no idea how sciecne works.
                      http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php
                      And see this specifically: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b10

                      Now, can you please back up your claim that Mars warmed simultaneously with Earth during the last warming period? What last warming period are you referring to? Where is your published peer reviewed scientific journal that concluded that Mars warmed simultaneously with Earth during your yet to be defined last warming period?
                      Gee, the deniers can’t even agree that the earth is warming up now, yet you know that Mars warmed up during some mystical last warming period. Take a few minutes to reflect how absurd your rhetoric is.

                      You ask:

                      What explains the variation of sea levels from ancient times without the benefit of having Mankind to blame?

                      Again, can you define ancient times, what variation of sea levels? I can’t answer your question when you employ obscurantism.

                      Do you understand the difference between abrupt vs slow change?
                      Slow change allows life to adapt, abrupt change leads to extinctions because life can’t adapt quick enough.
                      Some ‘ancient times’ had high CO2 in the atmosphere (the greenhouse gasses were in balance with the carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks) and life survived because life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had time (millions of years) to adjust to those levels.
                      Some ‘ancient times’ had high temperature rate rises (what is happening now as well). That caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions and were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions.

                      You ask:

                      What explains higher C02 levels during the last Ice Age?

                      Again, I need to guess your time (last ice-age) here. Are you referring to the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago?
                      You do realize that during the Ordovician, the sun was several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Further to this, there was short-term CO2 fluctuations and the CO2 levels were not known exactly. What is known is that CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. CO2 may be a key factor in controlling the climate, but don’t think it’s the only factor.

                      You ask:

                      What happened to the pending new Ice Age scare during the early 1970’s?

                      Oh, now you are referring to the media based ‘scare’. Interesting.
                      Where do you get your scientific information from, the media? Let me guess, you will not answer that. Its so easy these days to become informed and not make foolish unintelligent statements; just do a little research.
                      A quick google search shows: “A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.”

                      How, can you answer my questions?

                      What evidence do you have that can falsify anthropogenic cliamte change (ACC)?
                      Do you even know what evidence is? Do you even know what falsification is? If so, can you explain it to me in your own words?

                      Am getting the popcorn now. This will be fun to read how you offer more pseudo science.

                    • What I mentioned is on the internet. Look it up yourself. I’m not going to engage in petty bickering with you. You obviously have almost a religious belief in Man being the cause of everything wrong. It’s starting to show.

                    • Einstein said ‘When a person resorts to insults, he has no argument to give.’

                      You clearly decided not to answer my questions. What you mentioned were questions. The answers to these questions can be found on the Internet. Yet, you chose not to, but instead ask me to educate you.

                      Importantly, before you call my acceptance of science a religious belief, reread your post. I told you before ” Do a little bit of research, use Google, its so easy these days to become informed and not make foolish unintelligent statements”. So you chose not to, instead you ask me to educate you – and you call my acceptance of science a religious belief!

                      As such, you should not be taken seriously, no mater how serious you take yourself. I destroyed all your canards, and you have no comeback. Clearly, you want the conversation to be as meaningless as possible, to hide your vacuum of knowledge, to conceal your intellectual incapacity. You just gave away your exist strategy, your plan to admit how your reasoning failed.

                      …..crunch crunch, getting more popcorn, crunch crunch….

                    • You would almost think that your drivel refuted anything I said…But then we know you aren’t very good at trends.

                    • You got hit with that many lefts , now you’re back begging for a right ………A true sucker for punishment!!
                      Nice try though. You must have been a real short term hero in your denialist study group. Has it ever occurred to you that you’re bored simply because you’re stupid? Oh wait, paradox.

                    • I don’t understand what you’re saying.
                      People say lots of things, and there’s no legal requirement to be a scientist to say them or even to speak the truth. Nor are scientists required to debunk every false argument; science is not a sport where one side wins by default if the other side doesn’t show up. Scientists are frequently presented with a conundrum: ignore pseudoscientific claims and risk being perceived as unable to refute them, or thoroughly debunk them and risk granting a veneer of legitimacy to an illegitimate position. This is quite common thanks in part to a news media that promotes controversy by assuming every issue always has two equal sides. Evolution and climate change deniers know this very well. It’s why they constantly challenge real scientists to public debates. The public does not realize that this is not how scientific issues are resolved. They are resolved, over time, through the pages of refereed journals and conference proceedings. They exploit this public misconception this to the hilt because their goal is not to change the scientific consensus (which they cannot do, thanks to the checks and balances of the scientific method) but to influence public opinion (of which scientists form a tiny minority). That in turn warps public policy in their favor, which is their ultimate goal. That’s why we’ve long had state legislators trying to ban the teaching of evolution and promoting creationism or “intelligent design”. And now some are trying to ban the teaching of mainstream climate science.

                      Incidentally, I’m educated in physics and chemistry, but not a climate scientist, and suspect neither are you. However, I do try to keep up with important scientific work in other fields, especially when it produces results with significant implications for public policy. I accept the consensus of anthropogenic climate change and that the human extinction risk is high if we do not reduce the CO2 levels immediately. I accept it because I accept the scientific method and I value the truth over what I would personally prefer to be the case. One does not require credentials in a field to understand and accurately summarize its findings. One does require credentials in a field to meaningfully challenge those findings.

                    • Quit being a whiny, hypocritical weasel. Until you take the high ground and refrain from insults and self-aggrandizement, such supercilious blustering only reinforces your lowly stature as a posturing puke without integrity or personal responsibility.

                    • Did I hit a nerve? Good.

                      I’ll give you as many opportunities to demonstrate your insanity as you would like. One should have been sufficient, but you’re obviously a very slow learner.

                      As such, you should not be taken seriously, no matter how serious you take yourself.

                    • You would almost think that your drivel refuted anything I said…But then we know you aren’t very good at trends.

                      As such you are not to be taken seriously. No matter how seriously you take yourself.

                    • You shouldn’t allow yourself to believe that your first year college vocabulary assumes anymore intellect upon you than any street person with superior common sense.

                    • Now you are claiming to know my beliefs when I have not even stated them to you. What other magic can you do besides reading my mind?

                      Oh, you should indeed not be taken seriously.

                    • Interesting…that’s exactly how I think of the Man Caused Climate Change proponents.

                    • Yes, you read minds!

                      You got hit with that many lefts , now you’re back begging for a right ………A true sucker for punishment !!

                      You would almost think that your drivel refuted anything I said…But then we know you aren’t very good at trends.

                      As such you are not to be taken seriously. No matter how seriously you take yourself.

                    • I don’t contend that you’re wrong because you disagree with me, pathetic gas bag; you are wrong because your position is incorrect, erroneous, and without merit. I don’t contend that you are intellectually inept and dishonest because you dispute with me; you have demonstrated nothing but intellectual ineptitude and willful ignorance, and are simply being laid down in the bed you made. It’s nice that you admire me and envy my vocabulary, but what you should admire strive toward is a worldview based upon critical thinking, sound reason, and conclusions derived from demonstrable evidence and sound logic. I’m sure you are bored. There was no in-flight cartoon and or talking animals to captivated your infantile mind.

                    • You’re not the first to try to trump science with your own uninformed “street person with superior common sense”.

                      The name for this fallacious thinking is “arguing from personal incredulity”. Look it up. It’s a way for people with no understanding of a subject to share their ignorance around. And as I commented before the same ignorant attitude can be applied even more strongly to the idea that 10ppm of ozone in the stratosphere is blocking 97-99% of incoming UV. Do you have a problem with that BTW? Any personal incredulity there? Then there’s the fact that this tiny smidgen of CO2 is essential to the maintenance all life on the planet. No personal incredulity problem there? The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has risen by 40% over the last 150 years. Ice core data show that until that time it had been pretty stable at around 200-250ppm for at least 800,000 years. Now it’s at 400ppm. We know the extra CO2 is related to human activity carbon because: a) there has been a commensurate drop in the concentration of O2 as CO2 has risen. This shows that the CO2 is from oxidation of carbon. C + O2 -> CO2. Have a look: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2006.00175.x/pdf b) then there’s the changing ratio of carbon and oxygen isotopes (13C/12C; 18O/16O) in the atmosphere over the last 200 years. Read this: http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf I don’t know what peer reviewed research backs up your odd claim about humans only producing a smidgen of CO2 emissions. You didn’t say. Sometimes people will only look at the amount of extra CO2 that we add to the atmosphere in a single year. This way the cumulative effects of CO2 emission can be ignored. Anyway, show me this research you think backs up your claim and we’ll find out where you got confused.

                    • Why don’t you take your medication and give it a rest. You’re sounding psychotic.

                    • Einstein said ‘When a person resorts to insults, he has no argument to give.’

                      At least you admit that your reasoning failed you!

                    • Re-read my last comment, and then read your comments from the perspective of a third person.

                    • I couldn’t begin to express how very bored I am with reading your comments. Continue if you wish. It seems I may be your only friend.

                    • I’ll give you as many opportunities to demonstrate your insults as you would like. One should have been sufficient, but you’re obviously a very slow learner.

                    • Run, Forest run.
                      Run, Douglas, run.

                      You can’t convince an anthropogenic climate change denier of anything; for their denial is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to deny. To continue to deny that is to start practicing dogma.

                    • Can you explain why climate has changed in past history before man kind ever walked on two legs? Can you explain why the proponents of the man caused global warming scam all benefit financially? Al Gore, the Guru of man caused global warming has increased his wealth be at least $20,000,000 with his Carbon Credit scam. Why is everybody involved in proving the theory making money off it? Of course, if you don’t “prove” the theory, you don’t get on the government’s payroll.

                    • Sadly for you, scientific debates are not conducted on the comment pages of Disqus. They’re conducted in the pages of scientific journals and conference proceedings. Write up your “findings/conclusions” in a scientific journal, get it peer-reviewed and then published in the scientific literature. Then wait until the scientific community can’t falsify your evidence and for the consensus to emerge that your “findings/conclusions” is not false. You’re wasting your time here. Note: if your “”findings/conclusions” consist of accusing the entire scientific community of some sort of massive conspiracy, you are not likely to get very far. Nor will you get very far if you object to the science because of what it implies for your lifestyle and political views. It is not enough just to go against the establishment, you need to be right as well. And that’s exactly as it should be. Save your opinions on what we should do about climate change for the political arena, where they belong.

                      I can very easily accept that I can be mistaken, fooled by my own wishful thinking, by con men selling pseudoscience or by the manufactured doubt industry promoting AstroReality, etc. This is exactly why I accept the scientific method and its results over my own intuition. It was created specifically to detect and correct these very human mistakes, and it has been shown to work extremely well. What I’m not so confident about is the ability of the scientific process to withstand relentless, heavily funded, bad-faith attacks by those who stand to have their livelihoods impaired by the results of the scientific process. We saw it with smoking and the tobacco companies, it’s still there with evolution and some religious sects, and we’re seeing it now with climate change and the fossil fuel industry.

                    • Sadly for you, science is not determined by debate; it’s determined by the ability of a hypothesis to create accurate, measurable and repeatable predictions that match experimental data. Climate alarmists’ pretence that their phony consensus matters in the least cheapens scientific discourse and promotes bad public policy.

                      If you don’t understand how science works you have no right to an opinion, as you’re just parroting other peoples’ lies and contributing nothing to the discussion.

                    • Hey John, you forgot to reply to this one.

                      That’s OK. Exchanging responses with you is like Putin allegedly said negotiating with Obama is like.

                      “Negotiating with Obama is like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon knocks over all the pieces, shits on the board and then struts around like it won the game.”

                    • You replied to yourself!

                      Nice try though. You must have been a real short term hero in your denialist study group. Has it ever occurred to you that you’re bored simply because you’re stupid? Oh wait, paradox.

                      You can’t convince an anthropogenic climate change denier of anything; for their denial is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to deny. To continue to deny that is to start practicing dogma.

                      Pathetic.

                    • You claim:

                      determined by the ability of a hypothesis to create accurate, measurable and repeatable predictions that match experimental data.

                      So, where is your accurate, measurable and repeatable predictions that match experimental data that falsifies the scientific theory of ACC?

                      Your hypothesis:

                      Climate alarmists’ pretence that their phony consensus matters in the least cheapens scientific discourse and promotes bad public policy.

                      So, where is your accurate, measurable and repeatable predictions that match experimental data that supports your hypothesis?

                      You claim:

                      If you don’t understand how science works you have no right to an opinion, as you’re just parroting other peoples’ lies and contributing nothing to the discussion.

                      I understand how sciecne and its method works. That is exactly why I accept the scientific theory of ACC.
                      One does not require credentials in a field of science to understand and accurately summarize its findings. One does require credentials in that field of science to meaningfully challenge those findings.

                      Where is your published peer reviewed scientific journal (your credentials, your citations) that challenges the scientific theory of ACC?

                    • Is science is nor determined by debate, why do you ask me to defeat your carnards?
                      Why do you claim that a scientific theory is wrong but you angrily refuse to back that up with your evidence (your published perr reviewed scientific journal)?

                    • You’re quite right that facts and logic are what matter in science, not anyone’s mental state or motives. Indeed, I see deniers violating this rule all the time, e.g., when they stridently appeal (as you just did) to consequences. Governments might use anthropogenic climate change as an excuse to exert more political power, ergo the science of ACC must be wrong. Did I understand you correctly?

                      I do recommend that you learn more about the subject before you invest your ego in a public stand that you may find difficult to reverse later.

                      The only fraud is on the side of the deniers. They like to claim that the scientists are somehow driven by greed for grant money, which I’ve always found hilariously absurd for two reasons. First, “we’ve reached a consensus” is the very last thing to say if you’re after grant money. No, you say “we just don’t know, much more study is needed…” Second, the loudest screams about financially motivated scientific fraud are from those who stand to lose the most from the acceptance of anthropogenic climate change as a scientific reality: the fossil fuel industry and those funded by them. I don’t know if it’s psychological projection or what, but it’s supremely ironic.

                    • Become a credentialed and published climate scientist and your opinion about what is proper climate science will actually be worth considering. Until then, you’re just another of the many people who deny climate science because they don’t like its political and economic implications. If you were to say instead “Yeah, we’re warming the climate but I just don’t give a damn”, I’d disagree but at least I’d respect you for your opinion. But denying the science itself so you don’t have to admit your greed is just plain dishonest. I’m glad you’re doing something to reduce CO2 emissions, but the real answer will come from carbon-free (or at least very low carbon) sources. That includes wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and yes, nuclear. That’s what really mystifies me about climate change deniers. They all hold strongly right-wing and libertarian political views (I have yet to see an exception), and should therefore favor nuclear power just to annoy the liberals. But instead they deny the science and look ridiculous. Why?

                      Ironically, the people who actually do the science disagree with you. Strongly. Published, peer-reviewed, methodical, exhaustive analyses of data are much more compelling than paranoid accusations from an anonymous Douglas W. Rodrigues of a massive conspiracy for unspecified political reasons. But you are actually correct that 1) the reality of the scientific evidence for a warming earth has nothing to do with politics and 2) public policy decisions about what to do about it are (and should be) political, not scientific. So by all means express your opinions on what we should do, if anything, about a warming earth resulting in potentially catastrophic climate change . But don’t deny the science. That’s just dishonest and downright stupid.

                      Sadly for you, scientific debates are not conducted on the comment pages of Disqus. They’re conducted in the pages of scientific journals and conference proceedings. Write up your “findings/conclusions” in a scientific journal, get it peer-reviewed and then published in the scientific literature. Then wait until the scientific community can’t falsify your evidence and for the consensus to emerge that your “findings/conclusions” is not false. You’re wasting your time here. Note: if your “”findings/conclusions” consist of accusing the entire scientific community of some sort of massive conspiracy, you are not likely to get very far. Nor will you get very far if you object to the science because of what it implies for your lifestyle and political views. It is not enough just to go against the establishment, you need to be right as well. And that’s exactly as it should be. Save your opinions on what we should do about climate change for the political arena, where they belong.

                      I can very easily accept that I can be mistaken, fooled by my own wishful thinking, by con men selling pseudoscience or by the manufactured doubt industry promoting AstroReality, etc. This is exactly why I accept the scientific method and its results over my own intuition. It was created specifically to detect and correct these very human mistakes, and it has been shown to work extremely well. What I’m not so confident about is the ability of the scientific process to withstand relentless, heavily funded, bad-faith attacks by those who stand to have their livelihoods impaired by the results of the scientific process. We saw it with smoking and the tobacco companies, it’s still there with evolution and some religious sects, and we’re seeing it now with climate change and the fossil fuel industry.

                    • What are your scientific credentials, John? Published many papers on climate science? If so, perhaps you can explain the disagreement between dendrochronology and ice core data, or what happened to the well-documented Medieval Warming Period.

                    • The unwillingness to accept the outcome of logic is to me a fatally flawed as this is the very method of reasoning that you claim to use, except, it seems, when it does not agree with your illogical anthropogenic climate chnage denialism.

                      Incidentally, it is not uncommon for people to deny logic when it goes against their denialism. But this ought to give you a pause for serious thought if you are serious about the foundations of your denial.

                      The irony is that the manufactured denialism industry has invaded your critical faculties. Their pseudoscience is the premier in your museum of mistakes and they are using your broken reason filter to cloud your cognitive functions.

                      I accept the IPCC AR5 finding and consensus that humans are changing the climate with CO2 emissions because I accept the scientific method and I value the truth over what I would personally prefer to be the case. One does not require credentials in a field to understand and accurately summarize its findings. One does require credentials in a field to meaningfully challenge those findings. For example, I would not need to test the speed of light in order to accept the scientific fact that it’s ~300mil m/s. You do not need to run experiments, write it up, send it for peer review and wait for the scientific community to accept it if you reject the constant speed of light. The IPCC AR5 report is based on verification, not confirmation, it is based on falsifiable evidence, not opinion of people that have no credentials in climate change science. I accept the basic findings that anthropogenic claims change is not false. You are welcome to try and falsify the finding. The findings is settled, ACC is files as a scientific theory – that is why we call it scientific knowledge. But I have to warn you, make sure you have the credentials, write your work up, send you work for peer review, public it, and then wait till the scientific community accepts it, if you claim it’s false. Then send me your link to your report, and I’ll nominate you for a Nobel prize.

                      Considering the Heartland Institute (their NIPCC report), it seems like they have general pressure to protect their investment ($160 trillion in Oil Reserves). It suggests that that their interest is not for accuracy or curiosity. Given historical examples, their opinion takes on the form of agnotology. Invective without evidence has no basis in science. Divination based quackery does not cut it.

                      You claim:

                      If so, perhaps you can explain the disagreement between dendrochronology and ice core data, or what happened to the well-documented Medieval Warming Period.

                      What makes you think I need to defeat your canard? If I do, then you will not admit to it, but you will play your next canard.

                      Do a little bit of research, use Google, its so easy these days to become informed and not make foolish unintelligent statements or play ridiculous canards.

                      This is not a sport with two equal sides playing. This is not how science get’s settled. The way to settle science is with peer reviewed published journals, evaluation of them and falsification. I suspect you know this, but you are hoping that some ignorant spectator would read your drivel thinking it makes sense. That way you can persuade public opinion to ultimately influence political policy. That is your game, because you know you can’t change the science.

                    • What makes you think I need credentials in climate change science in order to accept its basic findings?

                      What makes you think that you don’t need credentials in climate chnage science in order to meaningfully challenge those findings?

                    • You forgot to answer this:

                      What makes you think I need credentials in climate change science in order to accept its basic findings?

                      What makes you think that you don’t need credentials in climate change science in order to meaningfully challenge those findings?

                    • Because there is no solid proof of cause and effect that can be independently replicated!!!

                    • What makes you think there is such a thing as scientific proof?
                      Please educate yourself before you embarrass yourself again:
                      http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b10

                      Evidence for ACC:
                      http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                      Causes for ACC:
                      http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

                      Effects of ACC:
                      http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

                      Come back when we can deal in fact. next time, before you invest your ego in a public stand that you may find difficult to reverse later, get educated. Any further dialog between us can be from this factual basis.

                    • Oh, I believe there is climate change. There always has been climate change, and there always be climate change. Where you and I disagree is that ManKind is causing it.

                    • Of course it does. No one disagrees with this. What the facts and the evidence indicate is that the planet should be in a cooling trend, owing in part to a period of decreased solar irradiance. The climate is not in a cooling trend, it is in a warming trend. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

                      98% of Scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is not false.

                      97% of Scientific papers states that anthropogenic climate change is not false.

                    • Sure, climate change does have a ‘natural’ component. Nobody denies that.

                      Humans and CO2 are also ‘natural’. However, human activities, not humans, are increasing CO2 levels which in turns heats the earth and that causes ‘anthropogenic’ climate change on top of the ‘natural’ climate change. This would not be a problem if the rate of climate change was bearable.

                      How do we know that human activities results in a rate of climate change that may lead to catastrophic consequences for the earth.

                      How do we know this? Well, there are 3 things to consider.

                      A) Synthesis reports,

                      B) Asking scientific bodies of national or international standing to issue a formal opinion (A statement that you can read on their websites or brochures)

                      C) Surveys of opinion among climate scientists.

                      A) Synthesis reports

                      Synthesis reports are assessments of scientific literature, not of the opinion of scientists.

                      And no, it’s not 97% of scientists agree: climate change is not false, anthropogenic, irreversible and incredibly dangerous, it’s 97% of climate science papers concludes/finds that anthropogenic climate change is not false. There’s a big difference.

                      It means 97% of all the papers written by experts in the subject, and had these peer reviewed and published in long standing well recognized scientific journals of note; (and understand what that implies); agree on anthropogenic climate change and that it explains the fact of a warming earth.

                      The scientific consensus is that the Earth’s climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.

                      B) Scientific Opinion of scientific organizations

                      No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these 5 points;

                      1. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,

                      2. Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities,

                      3. Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale,

                      4. The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time,

                      5. The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).

                      C) Scientific Opinion of climate change scientists

                      This was obtained via the sources below. 98.4% endorsed the 97% consensus. Another survey showed over 95% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that the earth is warming and that human activity is the cause. However, only about 50% the general public think that scientists have reached a consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

                      Where in the above do you see anything that says climate change is 100% anthropogenic?

                      The first (98%) and last (100%) are scientific opinions. The 97% is consensus. Do not confuse consensus with opinion. That can be different, but in the case for climate change, they are basically the same.

                      The 50% includes you, and your opinion is wrong.

                      Sources:

                      Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature (Cook et al., 2013)

                      The scientific consensus on climate change (Naomi Oreskes, 2004)

                      The scientific consensus on climate change: how do we know we’re not wrong? (Naomi Oreskes, 2007)

                      Examining the scientific consensus on climate change (Peter Doran & Maggie Zimmerman, 2009)

                      Expert credibility in climate change (William Anderegg, James Prall, Jacob Harold & Stephen Schneider, 2010)

                      Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations (2009)

                    • Lex, big boy, you forgot to answer this:

                      What makes you think I need credentials in climate change science in order to accept its basic findings?

                      What makes you think that you don’t need credentials in climate change science in order to meaningfully challenge those findings?

                    • To ‘believe in’ or ‘believe that’ means holding cognitive content as true in spite of evidence or not. It does not imply there is no evidence; it implies that you have not checked it. That means you are not sure of yourself and you are clearly moving the focus away from your content and placing it on you.
                      So no, I do not seriously believe that there is anything humans are capable of doing to cause or reverse climate change.

                      I know that human activities increase CO2 levels which in turn causes anthropogenic climate change. I know this because I have checked the evidence: http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
                      And I know that the evidence has not been falsified because consensus emerged: Among published peer reviewed scientific papers, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change (ACC).

                      At this stage we can’t reverse the effects of ACC. The best we can do is limit the CO2 levels, and limit the impact on the planet. That will give life on earth time to adapt to the rate of change, and hopefully not go extinct.

                      Now that I have answered your question, you may answer mine.

                      Why are you in denial of ACC?
                      Or do you deny being in denial?

                    • Look at the benefits of higher C02 levels and a warmer climate….increased production of food. Nature always compensates.

                    • You claim:

                      Look at the benefits of higher C02 levels and a warmer climate. ….increased production of food.

                      The negative impacts of CO2-driven warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf+html

                      Nature always compensates.

                      Correct, yet if we look into history we see that 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct today. The issue is not climate change, it is the rate of climate change. Life adapts to the environment. If the environment changes to quick, then life can’t adopt quick enough and go extinct. Earth will keep on going since there is not ‘ideal’ temperature or climate on earth.

                      Now, can you answer my question; why are you in denial of ACC?

                    • So, John, do you accept the theory of evolution? If so, why are you concerned or surprised that 99.9% of all species are extinct today? Isn’t that pretty much what the theory of evolution predicts? Let’s not haggle over numbers because I could challenge how you gained that knowledge that so many species ever existed or when they went extinct or what caused their extinction.

                      So, are you a believer in ‘selection of the fittest’ and evolution?

                    • You ask:

                      So, John, do you accept the theory of evolution? If so, why are you concerned or surprised that 99.9% of all species are extinct today? Isn’t that pretty much what the theory of evolution predicts?

                      What makes you think evolution predicts extinction?
                      Do you want humans and all life to go extinct?

                      Let’s not haggle over numbers because I could challenge how you gained that knowledge that so many species ever existed or when they went extinct or what caused their extinction.

                      Do a little bit of research, use Google, its so easy these days to become informed and not make foolish unintelligent statements such as yours.

                      So, are you a believer in ‘selection of the fittest’ and evolution?

                      To believe means holding cognitive content as true in spite of evidence or not. It does not mean there is no evidence, it just means that you admit to not checking if evidence exists. You are essentially moving the focus away from your content and placing it on you; stating that you are not sure of yourself.

                      So no, I don’t believe in ‘selection of the fittest’ and evolution.
                      Rather, I accept that the scientific theory of evolution is not false because falsifiable evidence exists and it has not been falsified.

                      And no, it is not ‘selection of the fittest’, you don’t understand evolution.
                      Evolution and “survival of the fittest” are not the same thing.
                      Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.
                      “Survival of the fittest” describes the process of natural selection. Fitness is defined as reproductive success, not Social Darwinism – the fittest individuals are simply the ones who have the combination of traits that allow them to survive and produce more offspring that in turn survive to reproduce. It does not refer to the strongest, biggest, or smartest and most cunning individuals. In fact, the “fittest” may be relatively weak, small, and not particularly intelligent.
                      therefore, I accept that the process of natural selection (one of the mechanisms of evolution) is not false because falsifiable evidence exists and it has not been falsified.

                      Now, my turn:
                      Do you accept the scientific theory of evolution?
                      Do you accept the scientific theory of anthropogenic cliamte change?

                      If not, why not – make sure you cite your source if you claim that you can falsify them?

                    • Why do you have a fact free religious faith in ACC when zero scientific evidence supports it? There is only one form of acceptable evidence, and that’s proof that a hypothesis can be used to make accurate predictions. Alarmists are basing zero in the only area that matters. The fact that we’re discussing it at all reveals its political motivation. There’s no science to discuss.

                    • You ask:

                      Why do you have a fact free religious faith in ACC when zero scientific evidence supports it?

                      I don’ have fact free faith in ACC, nor do I believe in ACC.
                      Rather, I accept ACC because it has not been falsified, it is supported by falsifiable evidence.
                      http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                      You claim:

                      There is only one form of acceptable evidence, and that’s proof that a hypothesis can be used to make accurate predictions.

                      Nonsense.
                      There is no such thing as scientific proof.
                      http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b10

                      Further, hypothesis can graduate to a scientific fact, or scientific law, or scientific theory, or be disregarded. Those are the 4 things that matter.

                      We classify scientific knowledge in 3 broad categories:

                      1) Scientific Facts

                      2) Scientific Laws

                      3) Scientific Theories.

                      And don’t confuse point 3 with the English word Theory that means ‘guess, conjecture, belief, speculation, assertion, premise, hypothesis, etc.’

                      A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts and contains predictability power (often using models).

                      A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. Scientific laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation, they don’t need to make predictions. Many laws take mathematical forms, and thus can be stated as an equation; e.g Conservation of Energy: delta E=0.

                      A scientific fact is a statement of how things are or appear to be, it does not make any predictions. Fact in science means data, not absolute certainty but “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” That the Earth has gotten warming in the last few decades is a scientific fact; we have measured that.

                      CO2 is a greenhouse gas – that’s a scientific fact.

                      CO2 is a product of breathing, fermentation, fossil fuel emissions, etc. – that’s a scientific fact.

                      A scientific theory is an explanation for how something works, explaining the body of scientific facts and have some predictability capability. The explanation for the fact that the earth has been warming is CO2 that has been released by humans caused this temperature increase. It predicts an increase in earth’s surface temperature (1-2 degC by end of 210), an increase in CO2 ppm levels, climate sensitivity (CO2 – degC relationship), frost-free season (and growing season) will lengthen, changes in precipitation patterns, more droughts and heat waves, hurricanes will become stronger and more intense, sea level will rise 1-4 feet by 2100, arctic likely to become ice-free, etc.

                      Anthropogenic climate change is the best explanation for a warming earth. In fact, it is the only scientific theory that fits all observed facts. That is why it is the prevailing scientific theory.

                      Anthropogenic climate change is the scientific theory. (Anthropogenic global warming AGW is not the scientific theory.) The risk assessment is high (dangerous) is we do not act (reduce CO2 levels). Some regions may be have catastrophic consequences if we do not act (reduce CO2 levels).

                      Please educate yourself in science and its method.

                      The way to settle science (file scientific knowledge) is with peer reviewed published journals, evaluation of them and failed falsification. To say that science can never come to any conclusions, that we can never reasonably settle any question, never file any knowledge, is to give up on the entire scientific adventure of understanding the natural world. That is to reject all scientific knowledge that we have filed over the last ~500 years. If we can never know anything, what’s the point of investigating, of science? Saying that the anthropogenic climate change is not settled is arguing that scientific theories do not exist. Saying that the ‘earth is warming’ is not settled is arguing that scientific facts do not exist. Saying we have not settled anything in science is saying that the SI unit for time is not a second, it is claiming that the speed of light in a vacuum is not 299 792 458 m/s, it is saying that something/anything can go faster than the speed of light.

                      Claiming scientific knowledge do not exist (is not settled) is a message that is profoundly anti-science.

                      You claim:

                      Alarmists are basing zero in the only area that matters.

                      Your sentence is not grammatically sound.
                      State your claim, and make sure you cite your scientific sources to support it.

                      The fact that we’re discussing it at all reveals its political motivation. There’s no science to discuss.

                      Yes, you know that you can’t change the science, so you try to make this a political issue.

                      And the only way you can win is to try and influence the ignorant in order to steal their vote to wrap political policy in your favor. That is because you are greedy. You don’t like the implications of climate change on your selfish lifestyle, on your greed.

                      That is why you will not debate the science, you will rely on agnotology.

                    • “…a hypothesis can graduate to a scientific fact” – ROFLMFAO!

                      Thanks for demonstrating for all that you have absolutely no clue about science. Go back to your “Navel Studies” classes, or whatever kind of BS humanities curriculum you’re in.

                    • More asserion fallacies from you. How predictable. How embarrassing for you.
                      The fact that you could not show one mistake in my excellent post cements your museum of mistakes.

                      acceptable evidence… proof that a hypothesis can be used to make accurate predictions

                      That’s the biggest piece of nonsense ever.
                      You should be embarrassed about it.
                      Proof, bejesus man. A hypothesis that makes predictions? Are you a comedian.

                      You don’t even know what evidence is. Do you?

                      If so, explain it to me in your own words. Tell how something graduates to become evidence. Explain to me what can constitute that ‘something’.

                      We both know that you can’t. And that’s why you pontificate such rubbish like “acceptable evidence… proof that a hypothesis can be used to make accurate predictions”.

                      Nice try though. You must have been a real short term hero in your denialist study group. Has it ever occurred to you that you’re bored because you’re kind of stupid? Oh wait…paradox.

                    • If you believe there’s no such thing as scientific proof, a) you’re scientifically illiterate and b) admitting my point that there’s no proof that climate alarmism is anything but a politically-motivated con job.

                    • You have not answered my questions.

                      You claim:

                      If you believe there’s no such thing as scientific proof, a) you’re scientifically illiterate

                      I have given you the reason why. I will do so again. You have not pointed out what is wrong with the literature, not have you backup your claim that scientific proof exists.

                      http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b10

                      Until you do that, you are the one that is scientifically illiterate.

                      If you believe there’s no such thing as scientific proof, …and b) admitting my point that there’s no proof that climate alarmism is anything but a politically-motivated con job.

                      There is no proof that ACC is true, nor should there be. However, there is evidence that ACC is not false. The fact that you don’t understand the difference underscores your point that you are scientifically illiterate.

                      http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                      I have repeatably asked you to show me what is wrong with that evidence. You refuse to tell me. Yet you claim it is false.
                      No, I don’t think I’m smarter than the people who actually study climate change science. That’s your department, remember?

                      In fact, you have no idea what evidence is either. I asked you to define that in your own words, yet you fail consistently.
                      You do however project your ignorance with such confidence that it completely begets any knowledge.

                      You think that a scientific fact has to make predictions. That is wrong.
                      You think that a scientific law has to make predictions. That is absurd.
                      You think that a hypothesis has to make predictions. That is ridiculous.
                      Only scientific theories are suppose to make predictions. And ACC does make predictions, I listed some of them. Yet, you fail repeatably to falsify any of them.

                      Please go and read this: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/intro_01

                      Come back when we can deal in fact.

                    • hypothesis can only graduate to fact when repeatably on finds that there is a predictable pattern and that pattern can be explained for past data and predict future data. Until then there is no way that any hypothesis could be accepted scientifically.
                      Therefore all those who are believers in man made climate change are in fact….frauds.

                    • Your argument is not only invalid, it is profoundly unsound.

                      I’m not expecting you to understand that given that you are in denial.

                    • However, we are not even close to the top of a geological temperature spike and statistically speaking we are geologically where we should be in the temperature rise that has been ongoing.

                      You idiots think that having a couple years worth of data means something geologically. It doesn’t.
                      The mean of means is the mean. The range is the range. Trends are trends. Statistics are pure but can be made to look like anything if used improperly.

                      Man has changed NOTHING. We are too insignificant to change the weather. Hell less than a .005% change in the output of the sun would change this earth many times more than what we are talking about. We don’t even know how much energy the sun has put out geologically speaking.

                      We never looked at water vapor…why CO2? because it can be measured and taxed. that is why.

                      Idiots….anyone who doesn’t see the writing on the wall and thinks they are intelligent will have a rude awakening.

                      Sapient Hetero below stated it well. There is no hypothesis that can be used to make any accurate prediction. Therefore there is no science involved.

                    • You would almost think that your drivel refuted anything I said…But then we know you aren’t very good at trends.

                      Now, can you answer my question; why are you in denial of ACC?

                    • You’re not the first to try to trump science with your own uninformed “gut feeling – higher C02 levels and a warmer climate….increased production of food “.
                      The name for this fallacious thinking is “arguing from personal incredulity”. Look it up. It’s a way for people with no understanding of a subject to share their ignorance around. The same ignorant attitude can be applied even more strongly to the idea that 10ppm of ozone in the stratosphere is blocking 97-99% of incoming UV. Do you have a problem with that ? Any personal incredulity there? Then there’s the fact that this tiny smidgen of CO2 is essential to the maintenance all life on the planet. No personal incredulity problem there? The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has risen by 40% over the last 150 years. Ice core data show that until that time it had been pretty stable at around 200-250ppm for at least 800,000 years. Now it’s at +400ppm. We know the extra CO2 is related to human activity carbon because: a) there has been a commensurate drop in the concentration of O2 as CO2 has risen. This shows that the CO2 is from oxidation of carbon. C + O2 -> CO2. Have a look: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2006.00175.x/pdf b) then there’s the changing ratio of carbon and oxygen isotopes (13C/12C; 18O/16O) in the atmosphere over the last 200 years. Read this: http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

                      I don’t know what peer reviewed research backs up your odd claim about higher C02 levels and a warmer climate always leads to increased production of food and that nature always compensates.. You didn’t say. Sometimes people will only look at the amount of extra CO2 that we add to the atmosphere in a single year. This way the cumulative effects of CO2 emission can be ignored. Anyway, show me this research you think backs up your claim and we’ll find out where you got confused.

                      The negative impacts of CO2-driven global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf+html

                      Only 7% of total CO2 is from anthropogenic sources. The remaining 93% of naturally occurring CO2 emissions belongs to the earth’s carbon cycle, wherein every natural atmospheric CO2 input exists in balance with an environmental carbon sink, such as the oceans and plant life. Anthropogenic emissions have no such offset, and such they are contributing to a build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
                      The mass of the atmosphere is 5.3 x 10^18 kg. 0.03% of this is carbon dioxide, which is trillions of tons. Every CO2 molecule constituting that 9 trillion tons is capable of facilitating an unlimited number of heat transfer events. That is why it is called a greenhouse gas. People who do not understand this do not understand the laws of physics. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html

                    • And you are not arguing from ‘personal incredulity?’ It seems to me that your opinions are based more on beliefs than established facts AND CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIPS that can be proved by independent observers.

                      If I had to bet, you’ve got an axe to grind here; but you are not telling us what it is. If you told us know, I would question your honesty.

                    • You ask:

                      And you are not arguing from ‘personal incredulity?’

                      No. Are you implying that I am? If so, care to back up your drivel?

                      You claim:

                      It seems to me that your opinions are based more on beliefs than established facts AND CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIPS that can be proved by independent observers.

                      Why do you have the need to write some words in capitals? Struggling to express yourself? I bet your friends and family also comment on your proficiency in incoherence!

                      What makes you think there is such a thing as scientific proof or that science proves or disproves anything?

                      Please educate yourself before you embarrass yourself again:
                      http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b10

                      Evidence for ACC:

                      http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                      Causes for ACC:

                      http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

                      Effects of ACC:

                      http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

                      Come back when we can deal in fact. next time, before you invest your ego in a public stand that you may find difficult to reverse later, get educated. Any further dialog between us can be from this factual basis.

                      You claim:

                      If I had to bet, you’ve got an axe to grind here; but you are not telling us what it is. If you told us know, I would question your honesty.

                      If you told us know, I would question your honesty.
                      You need to work on your sentence structure, grammar and punctuation. Unless you do, people will continue to laugh at you.

                      I’m for maximizing survival and minimizing the extinction of life on earth.
                      Deniers such as you don’t care about life on earth, you want it to go extinct. You think that you can get unlimited growth from limited resources, you can’t. Your pontification of your ideology of total Lessez-Faire Capitalism based on agnotology is disgusting. The realization that the earth has limited resources and that some sort of regulation is necessary is simply unacceptable to your ideology, so it must be rejected at all costs.
                      The fact that deniers such as you reject the findings of settled science is a statement of your rejection of the foundation that resulted in technological advancement and stability.

                      To say that science can never come to any conclusions, that we can never reasonably settle any question, is to give up on the entire scientific adventure of understanding the natural world. That is to reject all scientific knowledge that we have filed over the last ~500 years. If we can never know anything, what’s the point of investigating, of science? Saying that the anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is not settled is arguing that scientific theories do not exist. Saying that the ‘earth is warming’ is not settled is arguing that scientific facts do not exist.

                      Claiming scientific knowledge do not exist is a message that is profoundly anti-science, and you should know that what Heartland and the NIPCC stand for is not some “alternative” science, but a private, alternative reality, born in delusion.

                      Shame on you.

                    • 800,000 years? wow..a drop in the bucket in time according to the big bang. And..guess what we find Co2 at much higher levels before that..several times….In fact, it could be that we are in a Co2 Starved world today!

                      If we stopped cutting down the forests of the world this would all be a moot point to begin with! So take the easy route…stop the decimation of forests.

                      BTW, cause and effect relationships might be observed…however they may be completely biased to the observers’ intentions as well (especially where religion and or political need and belief interferes). This has happened many many times with human observations of natural phenomena. Later we find that there was a completely different (unobserved) cause or effect and that in fact there was no direct relationship. Many times these misbeliefs go on for decades..even centuries until methods and science are reviewed by someone not afraid to be killed, ostracized or punished for finding truth.

                    • 800,000 years? wow..a drop in the bucket in time according to the big bang. And..guess what we find Co2 at much higher levels before that..several times….In fact, it could be that we are in a CO2 Starved world today!

                      Higher CO2 levels, has been detected in history. But humans were not around then, nor the type of life we have now. Also, CO2 levels did not have the rate of increase that we are experiencing now. What was the sun luminosity when those high CO2 levels were detected?
                      If you claim that we have a CO2 staved world, why is it so hard for you to evidence that?

                      If we stopped cutting down the forests of the world this would all be a moot point to begin with! So take the easy route…stop the decimation of forests.

                      Why would it be a moot point?

                      BTW, cause and effect relationships might be observed…however they may be completely biased to the observers’ intentions as well (especially where religion and or political need and belief interferes).

                      That is why we have science, it strips out biased.

                      That you and many other deniers keep trying to make it political is very revealing since science has nothing to say about what we should do about anthropogenic climate change (ACC). It simply establishes the fact that warming is happening, explains climate chnage and what will likely happen in the future.

                      What we do about it is quite properly in the realm of public policy and politics, but the decisions must be informed by the scientific facts. To deny them so you can pretend there’s no problem is dishonest.

                      This has happened many many times with human observations of natural phenomena. Later we find that there was a completely different (unobserved) cause or effect and that in fact there was no direct relationship. Many times these misbeliefs go on for decades..even centuries until methods and science are reviewed by someone not afraid to be killed, ostracized or punished for finding truth.

                      Name one please.

                      or is this a case of failing to understand how science works. There is a difference between religion, philosophy and science. There is a difference between a hypothesis and scientific knowledge. The latter comprise of facts, laws and theories. It does not comprise of hypotheses.
                      To date, no scientific theory has ever been shown false. Many have been updated as more information comes in, but none have been falsified to date. ACC is a scientific theory. A warming earth is a scientific fact. If you have any evidence that either of these are wrong, then why not present your case? You will get multiple Nobel prizes and be more famous than Einstein.

                      And no, sciecne is not in the pursuit of truth. It is merely accumulating scientific knowledge. Nothing in science is declared 100% true or 100% certain. Everything is tentative and open for chnage and updates. However, scientific knowledge (facts, laws, theories) are confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.

                      Please educate yourself on the scientific method. It teaches you how to think, not what to think.

                    • That is the most specious and meaningless explanation that I have ever seen and I’m more than 70 years old with and IQ above 150, still. It is not a direct explanation but a recitation of evidence without causative linkage or replicable results to sustain it. There can be no ‘proof’ that increased CO2 levels are the result of man’s behaviors. Even if that were true, should the solution be – at least in part – to stop the geometric increase in the world’s population? There are 3 times as many people on earth as there were 75 years ago. Is population growth, then, not equally culpable and perhaps far easier to control with birth control?

                      I’m not in denial. I’m waiting for sufficient evidence and cause/effect relationships that can be independently verified before committing to either side.

                      What convinced you, John?

                    • You did not answer any of my questions.

                      Why are you in denial of ACC?
                      Or do you deny being in denial?

                      Let me demolish your drivel again, just to show your pathetic mistakes.

                      That is the most specious and meaningless explanation that I have ever seen and I’m more than 70 years old with and IQ above 150, still.

                      That is your appeal to assertion.
                      You complete forgot to mention what and why it conflicts with your denialism.
                      Are you new to reality? Oops, you are in denial, you have your own astro reality!

                      You claim:

                      It is not a direct explanation but a recitation of evidence without causative linkage or replicable results to sustain it.

                      But before you claimed it was an explanation (albeit meaningless). Maybe you should re-read your post.
                      Btw, your sentence is not coherent, it lacks structure and punctuation.
                      If you think that I’m about to explain the last 150-200 years of climate science to you in a post then you are more delusional than I thought.

                      if you have some issue with the evidence, causes, effects of ACC, then you need to state them exactly. Claiming that they do not exist, or claiming that they are not falsifiable is not enough. That just shows your denialism.

                      You clam:

                      There can be no ‘proof’ that increased CO2 levels are the result of man’s behaviors. Even if that were true, should the solution be – at least in part – to stop the geometric increase in the world’s population? There are 3 times as many people on earth as there were 75 years ago. Is population growth, then, not equally culpable and perhaps far easier to control with birth control?

                      There can be no ‘proof’?
                      Agree, because there is no such thing as scientific proof. Science does not prove or disprove anything. The fact that you don’t know this shows me that you are not worth my time.
                      Read this
                      http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b10

                      Why can’t there be any evidence that increased CO2 levels are the result of man’s behaviors?
                      I know why, because that is simply against your ideology of total Lessez-Faire Capitalism – the realization that the earth has limited resources and that some sort of regulation is necessary is simply unacceptable to that ideology, so it must be rejected at all costs.
                      Rather, if you claim that >b>there is no evidence that increased CO2 levels are the result of man’s behaviors, then you need to cite your scientific sources. Because this http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ shows that CO2 level increases are anthropogenic. Only 7% of total CO2 is from anthropogenic sources, the remaining 93% of naturally occurring CO2 emissions belongs to the earth’s carbon cycle, wherein every natural atmospheric CO2 input exists in balance with an environmental carbon sink, such as the oceans and plant life. Anthropogenic emissions have no such offset, and such they are contributing to a build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

                      Increase concentrations of greenhouse gases (CO2, etc) in the atmosphereis due to breathing, fermentation, fossil fuel emissions, deforestation, etc.
                      Not only human breathing. And it is not only CO2 that contributes to the warming.

                      Are you that ignorant?

                      You claim:

                      I’m not in denial. I’m waiting for sufficient evidence and cause/effect relationships that can be independently verified before committing to either side.

                      That is quite a dishonest statement from you. I would have accepted ignorant, but use common sense, do a little bit of research, use Google, its so easy these days to become informed and not make foolish unintelligent statements.
                      http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
                      https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

                      Further, you seem to claim that these findings were not independently verified. How do you know that? That’s either your dishonesty, your denial, or you know something that I don’t.

                      You ask:

                      What convinced you, John?

                      Good question. I understand how sciecne and its method works. And therefore know where to find scientific information, specifically where to find scientific knowledge (files scientific theories, laws and facts).
                      One does not require credentials in a field to understand and accurately summarize its findings. One does require credentials in a field to meaningfully challenge those findings.

                      I can very easily accept that I can be mistaken, fooled by my own wishful thinking, by con men selling pseudoscience or by the manufactured doubt industry promoting AstroReality, etc. This is exactly why I accept the scientific method and its results over my own intuition. It was created specifically to detect and correct these very human mistakes, and it has been shown to work extremely well. What I’m not so confident about is the ability of the scientific process to withstand relentless, heavily funded, bad-faith attacks by those who stand to have their livelihoods impaired by the results of the scientific process. We saw it with smoking and the tobacco companies, it’s still there with evolution and some religious sects, and we’re seeing it now with climate change and the fossil fuel industry.

                      I have given you the evidence for ACC. Why do you think that is not sufficient to convert your denial or your denial of being in denial?

                    • Where was the funding that the consensus players obtained? guaranteed it was from the government tit and the government for some reason has made it OFFICIAL that they support climate change as science. Therefore anyone who does not agree looses their funding and jobs. (BTW Obama was one of the founders of the Carbon Exchange…wonder how that worked?)
                      That is NOT concensus.

                      John, Consider. One volcanic burp can create more CO2 and pollutants than man has since the beginning of the industrial revolution. (and has many times)

                      Consider. One such burp caused and THREE YEAR ice age that killed millions..many many millions.

                      Consider. Co2 is so little of our atmosphere .038% that it is not even scientifically possible to associate it with climate change. No model even shows it provable at all. Especially considering that plants readily need and convert C02. The more there is the faster they grow and the ore they use. Their conversion of energy cools the earth and moderates its temperatures.

                      Hey..I have an idea. Lets stop cutting down the equatorial jungles and ending the ability of EARTH to repair herself…uhh..no that won’t work. If we just do that then we can’t create a global government and control the entire world.

                      Too bad.

                    • There were multiple scientific papers that evidenced the consensus. Consensus does not emerge because some paper is being funded to be written, it emerges when scientists stop arguing because that they can’t falsify the evidence. That is how we settled and filed the scientific theory of evolution, gravity, big bang, cell theory, etc.
                      That you don’t understand the difference shows me that you are not worth my time.

                      Deniers know that you can’t change the science, so you try and make this political issue.

                      I’m not interested in debating the science with you. Science is not a sport. It does not have two equal sides. This is not how science get’s settled. You and I have no say in scientific theory, we’re not qualified.
                      I’m not interested in shooting down your canards. It’s to easy, and you will not acknowledge it anyway, you will just play your next one. Boring.

                      I want a challenge. I’m interested in:

                      1) Your explanation of your greed, your justification for it. Tell me about it. Tell me what do you have to fear if ACC (anthropogenic climate change) is not false. Tell me why you think that you can get unlimited growth from limited resources. Tell me why you think that governments should not regulate the use of these limited resources. Tell me why your ideology of Laissez Faire Capitalism should be taken seriously.

                      2) Your explanation how you will come to accept scientific knowledge, if at all. Tell me how you will move yourself from stage 1 denial, to stage 2 anger and then stage 3 acceptance of the ACC consensus. Or are you a case of you can’t be convinced given that your denial is not based on evidence but on a deep seated need to deny.

                      I don’t want to debate the science with you. Science is not a sport, nor does it have two sides. Neither you or me have any say in scientific knowledge, we’re not qualified. One does not require credentials in a field of science to accept the basic findings. You do need to have credentials in that field of science to meaningful challenge those findings. That you can’t tell the difference tells me that you should not be taken seriously, no matter how serious you take yourself.

                      You now know what to do if you want my attention. Failing that, your just one of those people that refuse to accept the economic and political implications of ACC on your greedy lifestyle.

                      Are you going to answer this time, or run away the way you normally do?

                    • Do you seriously believe that there is anything humans are capable of doing to cause or reverse climate change?

                      You are assuming that I form my knowledge using belief; that is wrong.
                      You are assuming that all climate change is natural; that is wrong.

                      We know that the C)2 levels are the cause of warming. We also know where this ‘extra’ CO2 is coming from that is accumulating. What makes you think we can’t reduce these anthropogenic CO2 sources?

                    • We know no such thing. What we KNOW is that water vapor and solar cycles have much greater influence on climate than CO2. And we know that gullible people put more faith in what vacuous Hollywood starlets say on the subject than they do the opinions of experienced people like myself who have studied the science for over two decades and are utterly unconvinced.

                    • You claim:

                      We know no such thing. What we KNOW is that water vapor and solar cycles have much greater influence on climate than CO2.

                      Sadly for you, you completely forgot to supply your source for your claims.

                      You claim:

                      And we know that gullible people put more faith in what vacuous Hollywood starlets say on the subject than they do the opinions of experienced people like myself who have studied the science for over two decades and are utterly unconvinced.

                      Yet, you fail to provide any citations, no published peer reviewed scientific journal to back up your outrageous epidemiological claims.

                      That says more about you than you think.

                      Tell me, do you know how falsification in science works?
                      If so, can you tell me, explain it to me in your own words? And then can you provide me with your falsification of the scientific theory of ACC – you need a published peer reviewed scientific journal that was accepted by the climate change scientific community. You fail to provide that, yet you claim ACC is false.

                      How pathetic.

                      1) Can you name me a scientific body of national or international standing that maintains a formal opinion dissenting anthropogenic CC?

                      2) Can you present me your Peer Review scientific report that has been accepted by the scientific community that falsifies anthropogenic CC?

                      3) Can you present me your climate change model to support your peer review report?

                      4) Can you present me your review of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ and highlight what is wrong with it?

                      5) Can you present me your evidence that the majority of climate scientists are wrong when it comes to anthropogenic CC?

                      Prediction: You will not answer any of my questions. You will respond offering more assertion fallacies and weak attempts at libel. Are you happy with that?

                    • John, could you please enlighten us with the knowledge of your educational and professional credentials and personal work experience history?

                    • You did not answer any of my questions. Why is that?
                      Why do you perfect to show me your museum of mistakes with your pathetic angry insults?

                      You ask:

                      John, could you please enlighten us with the knowledge of your educational and professional credentials and personal work experience history?

                      I’m well educated in science (physics and chemistry).
                      What makes you think you need to have credentials in a field of science to be able to accept its basic findings and conclusions?
                      What makes you think you do not need to have credentials in a field of science to be meaningful challenge those findings and conclusions?

                      You claim:

                      You seem primed to attack others’ information, opinions and beliefs based on what you attribute to them as their credentials and experience; so why not share yours with us?

                      That is quite a claim there big boy.
                      Become a credentialed and published climate scientist and your opinion about what is proper climate science will actually be worth considering. Until then, you’re just another of the many people who deny climate science because they don’t like its political and economic implications. If you were to say instead “Yeah, we’re heating the climate but I just don’t give a damn”, I’d disagree but at least I’d respect you for your opinion. But denying the science itself so you don’t have to admit your greed is just plain dishonest.

                      We both know that you will not answer my questions because you are in denial.
                      I dare you, show me wrong.

                    • “You did not answer any of my questions. Why is that?
                      Why do you perfect to show me your museum of mistakes with your pathetic angry insults?”

                      You have pontificated broadly but I don’t really know what questions your asked. Do I believe that man has affected the environment? Yes. Do I believe that man can cooperate without corruption on the scale required to change the effects you and others claim to have been caused by mankind? No.

                      You question whether or not we deny ‘anthropocentric climate change’. Yes, I deny that the scale of changes posited can be attributed to the acts of mankind and that mankind can cooperate adequately to do anything about what you claim has occurred. If you believe that those things have occurred and can be corrupted, I can only assume that you accept this credo on faith because I see no credible evidence a) that the causes are as you claim, and b) that any so-called plan posited to date that has come to my attention is workable.

                      Does that satisfy your challenge? If not, why not?

                      “Why do you perfect to show me your museum of mistakes with your pathetic angry insults?”

                      This reads like the rantings of a madman. What does ‘perfect to show’ mean? I’ve not run into that construct in over 7 decades of experience in any of the 3 languages I speak. And what is the museum of mistakes that I’ve shown? Sounds like an alliterative phrase in an attempt to add weight to a statement that is meaningless. As for ‘angry insults’ I am neither angry nor trying to insult you, but I have tried to pin you down on specifics instead of rantings. Yes, I’ve cast aspersions on your claims, but I haven’t said that you are ugly or that your mother is a prostitute. Those latter things constitute insults; deriding your comments and beliefs are merely tools in the process of forensic debate.

                      I doubt that you care more about the Earth and the welfare of current and future generations than I do, but I could be wrong.

                      “You claim:

                      ‘You seem primed to attack others’ information, opinions and beliefs based on what you attribute to them as their credentials and experience; so why not share yours with us?’

                      That is quite a claim there big boy.
                      Become a credentialed and published climate scientist and your opinion about
                      what is proper climate science will actually be worth considering. Until
                      then, you’re just another of the many people who deny climate science
                      because they don’t like its political and economic implications. If you
                      were to say instead “Yeah, we’re heating the climate but I just don’t
                      give a damn”, I’d disagree but at least I’d respect you for your
                      opinion. But denying the science itself so you don’t have to admit your
                      greed is just plain dishonest.”

                      Wow! I stated my opinion of your writings. My opinion is that you see primed to attack others as stated. Your very comments here in such a heated tone support my supposition.

                      And, please, show a little respect for yourself and others. I have no doubt that I am your senior by age, by experience and by education. To refer to me as ‘big boy’ is vain and condescending. You must learn to offer up ideas and opinions without hostility if you are to be taken seriously.

                    • You state:

                      You have pontificated broadly but I don’t really know what questions your asked.

                      Questions normally end with a “?”.

                      You claim:

                      Do I believe that man has affected the environment? Yes. Do I believe that man can cooperate without corruption on the scale required to change the effects you and others claim to have been caused by mankind? No.

                      To believe means holding cognitive content as true in spite of evidence or not. It does not mean there is no evidence, it just means that you admit to not checking if evidence exists. You are essentially moving the focus away from your content and placing it on you; stating that you are not sure of yourself.

                      If you claim that there is some sort of global corruption and that most climate scientists are in on that, then surely you must have some evidence to back that up. Do you?

                      You claim:

                      Yes, I deny that the scale of changes posited can be attributed to the acts of mankind and that mankind can cooperate adequately to do anything about what you claim has occurred.

                      Then where is your evidence?
                      Or is your denial based on your assumption that you don’t need evidence given your pseudo reality that you invented because you can’t deal with this reality?
                      You should be careful when picking your words. Deny has a clear meaning, so has belief.
                      If you make claims, then you need to back them up. Or else, I’ll file them as your opinion (your emotional interpretation of some subjective claim).

                      You claim:

                      If you believe that those things have occurred and can be corrupted, I can only assume that you accept this credo on faith because I see no credible evidence a) that the causes are as you claim, and b) that any so-called plan posited to date that has come to my attention is workable.

                      Please don’t tell me what I believe, or what my beliefs are. Ask me, and I will tell you. I don’t believe in ACC, I know that ACC is not false, because I understand how science works.

                      Now you claim there is no evidence, but before you said “Do I believe that man has affected the environment? Yes. ” You contradicted yourself.

                      Here is the evidence for ACC:
                      http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
                      Now, what excuse will you offer to reject it? Because, if you are in denial, then you will merely deny that the evidence exists or that I pointed you to it.

                      That you and many other deniers keep trying to make it political is very revealing since science has nothing to say about what we should do about ACC. It simply establishes the fact that it exists and what will likely happen in the future. What we do about it is quite properly in the realm of public policy and politics, but the debate must be informed by the scientific facts. To deny them so you can pretend there’s no problem is dishonest.

                      You ask:

                      Does that satisfy your challenge? If not, why not?

                      No, for the reasons mentioned above.
                      E.g. Claiming there is no evidence is not acceptable. You need to tell me how you know that.
                      Your contradiction lingers – I pointed that out.
                      You made a wild accusation – conspiracy theory.
                      Your use of believe, deny, and claiming to know my beliefs are absurd.
                      etc.

                      You claim:

                      This reads like the rantings of a madman. What does ‘perfect to show’ mean? I’ve not run into that construct in over 7 decades of experience in any of the 3 languages I speak.

                      I was suppose to be prefer, not perfect. But, ironically, you did it again! You prefer to show me your museum of mistakes with your pathetic angry insults.

                      You ask:

                      And what is the museum of mistakes that I’ve shown?

                      I pointed them out. And have pointed them out again. the fact that you deny that is another one of your mistakes.

                      And what makes you think this is a debate – a sport with two sides?

                      You claim:

                      Wow! I stated my opinion of your writings. My opinion is that you see primed to attack others as stated. Your very comments here in such a heated tone support my supposition. If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

                      An opinion is merely an emotional interpretation of a claim (yours or some other’s). It carries the burden of evidence. You failed to supply your evidence for your ‘opinion’.
                      See ms like you can’t take the heat, but prefer to stay in the kitchen. That’s your anger, yes!

                      You claim:

                      And, please, show a little respect for yourself and others. I have no doubt that I am your senior by age, by experience and by education. To refer to me as ‘big boy’ is vain and condescending. You must learn to offer up ideas and opinions without hostility if you are to be taken seriously.

                      I find your command quite stifling and condescending. I suspect your command does not apply to you, or your content, hey big boy?

                      You claim:

                      I his last bit you are regurgitating to me statements you made to other.

                      This reads like the rantings of a madman. What does ‘I his last’ mean? I’ve not run into that construct in over x decades of experience in any of the y languages I speak.

                      Statements made to other? Why do you ask me silly questions then if you already know the answer (read it in my posts)?

                      You claim:

                      I have no desire to become a credentialed climate scientist and it seems you have none either.

                      You forgot to answer my questions. Is that your amnesia?

                      What makes you think you need to have credentials in a field of science to be able to accept its basic findings and conclusions?

                      What makes you think you do not need to have credentials in a field of science to be meaningful challenge those findings and conclusions?

                      If you have no desire to become a published climate change scientists, then you can’t meaningful challenge the findings. And you have no credibility when you simply reject those findings because you don’t like the economic and political implications on your greedy lifestyle.
                      In case you missed that; I can’t take your claim that there is no evidence for ACC seriously.

                      You claim:

                      You have stated elsewhere that it is not necessary to be a scientist to accept truth.

                      Where did I say that?
                      I said that you do not need to have credentials in a field of science to be able to accept its basic findings and conclusions, all you need is to understand the scientific method, and ensure that the scientific inquiry adhered to it.
                      I never said that science declares truth.
                      Everything in science is provisional, nut never 100% certain or 100% true. Science is not about absolute certainty but scientific knowledge (theory, fact and law) is “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent”.

                      You ask:

                      You have stated elsewhere that it is not necessary to be a scientist to accept truth. Why can’t you accept your own assessment?

                      Because, I already stated it. And I will again. It was part of the two questions that I asked you, the questions that you deliberately ignored to answer.

                      You do not you need to have credentials in a field of science to be able to accept its basic findings and conclusions.
                      You do need to have credentials in a field of science to be meaningful challenge those findings and conclusions.

                      The fact that you can’t tell the difference shows me that you are not worth my time.

                      Enjoy your denialism.

                    • Let me remind you why I’m not debating you:

                      (i) You chose not to answer my simple questions. You are telling me that you have no respect for my time or your own content. That tells me that you are a climate change mis-informer and a denier.

                      (ii) I already pointed out that ‘It’s clear that you refuse to answer my questions, yet you expect me to answer yours. That is a rather illogical request from you.’, yet you repeated it again. “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein

                      The difference between us is whether we accept the scientific method as the best way we have to get at the objective certainty about the physical world around us. I do, and you apparently don’t despite your loud protests. And I’m backed up on this by psychological research — there are numerous studies showing a very strong correlation between ACC denial and belief in Laissez-Faire Capitalism. I for one do not believe that objective scientific certainty depend on subjective political beliefs.

                      You’re quite right that facts and logic are what matter in science, not anyone’s mental state or motives. Indeed, I see deniers violating this rule all the time, e.g., when they stridently appeal (as you just did) to consequences. Governments might use anthropogenic climate change as an excuse to exert more political power, ergo the science of ACC must be wrong. Did I understand you correctly?

                      I do recommend that you learn more about the subject before you invest your ego in a public stand that you may find difficult to reverse later.

                      The only fraud is on the side of the deniers. They like to claim that the scientists are somehow driven by greed for grant money, which I’ve always found hilariously absurd for two reasons. First, “we’ve reached a consensus” is the very last thing to say if you’re after grant money. No, you say “we just don’t know, much more study is needed…” Second, the loudest screams about financially motivated scientific fraud are from those who stand to lose the most from the acceptance of anthropogenic climate change as a scientific reality: the fossil fuel industry and those funded by them. I don’t know if it’s psychological projection or what, but it’s supremely ironic.

                      You’re not the first to try to trump science with your own uninformed “gut feeling”. The name for this fallacious thinking is “arguing from personal incredulity”. Look it up. It’s a way for people with no understanding of a subject to share their ignorance around. And as I commented before the same ignorant attitude can be applied even more strongly to the idea that 10ppm of ozone in the stratosphere is blocking 97-99% of incoming UV. Do you have a problem with that BTW? Any personal incredulity there? Then there’s the fact that this tiny smidgen of CO2 is essential to the maintenance all life on the planet. No personal incredulity problem there? The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has risen by 40% over the last 150 years. Ice core data show that until that time it had been pretty stable at around 200-250ppm for at least 800,000 years. Now it’s at 400ppm. We know the extra CO2 is related to human activity carbon because: a) there has been a commensurate drop in the concentration of O2 as CO2 has risen. This shows that the CO2 is from oxidation of carbon. C + O2 -> CO2. Have a look: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2006.00175.x/pdf b) then there’s the changing ratio of carbon and oxygen isotopes (13C/12C; 18O/16O) in the atmosphere over the last 200 years. Read this: http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf I don’t know what peer reviewed research backs up your odd claim about humans only producing a smidgen of CO2 emissions. You didn’t say. Sometimes people will only look at the amount of extra CO2 that we add to the atmosphere in a single year. This way the cumulative effects of CO2 emission can be ignored. Anyway, show me this research you think backs up your claim and we’ll find out where you got confused.

                      I don’t contend that you’re wrong because you disagree with me, pathetic gas bag; you are wrong because your position is incorrect, erroneous, and without merit. I don’t contend that you are intellectually inept and dishonest because you dispute with me; you have demonstrated nothing but intellectual ineptitude and willful ignorance, and are simply being laid down in the bed you made. It’s nice that you admire me and envy my vocabulary, but what you should admire strive toward is a worldview based upon critical thinking, sound reason, and conclusions derived from demonstrable evidence and sound logic. I’m sure you are bored. There was no in-flight cartoon and or talking animals to captivated your infantile mind.

                    • Sure, climate change does have a ‘natural’ component. Nobody denies that.

                      Humans and CO2 are also ‘natural’. However, human activities, not humans, are increasing CO2 levels which in turns hears the earth and that causes ‘anthropogenic’ climate change on top of the ‘natural’ climate change. This would not be a problem if the rate of climate change was bearable.

                      How do we know that human activities results in a rate of climate change that may lead to catastrophic consequences for the earth.

                      How do we know this? Well, there are 3 things to consider.

                      A) Synthesis reports,

                      B) Asking scientific bodies of national or international standing to issue a formal opinion (A statement that you can read on their websites or brochures)

                      C) Surveys of opinion among climate scientists.

                      A) Synthesis reports
                      Synthesis reports are assessments of scientific literature, not of the opinion of scientists.

                      And no, it’s not 97% of scientists agree: climate change is not false, anthropogenic, irreversible and incredibly dangerous, it’s 97% of climate science papers concludes/finds that anthropogenic climate change is not false. There’s a big difference.

                      It means 97% of all the papers written by experts in the subject, and had these peer reviewed and published in long standing well recognized scientific journals of note; (and understand what that implies); agree on anthropogenic climate change and that it explains the fact of a warming earth.

                      The scientific consensus is that the Earth’s climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.

                      B) Scientific Opinion of scientific organizations
                      No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these 5 points;

                      1. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,
                      2. Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities,
                      3. Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale,
                      4. The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time,
                      5. The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).

                      C) Scientific Opinion of climate change scientists
                      This was obtained via the sources below. 98.4% endorsed the 97% consensus. Another survey showed over 95% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that the earth is warming and that human activity is the cause. However, only about 50% the general public think that scientists have reached a consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

                      Where in the above do you see anything that says climate change is 100% anthropogenic?

                      The first (98%) and last (100%) are scientific opinions. The 97% is consensus. Do not confuse consensus with opinion. That can be different, but in the case for climate change, they are basically the same.
                      The 50% includes you, and your opinion is wrong.

                      Sources:
                      Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature (Cook et al., 2013)
                      The scientific consensus on climate change (Naomi Oreskes, 2004)
                      The scientific consensus on climate change: how do we know we’re not wrong? (Naomi Oreskes, 2007)
                      Examining the scientific consensus on climate change (Peter Doran & Maggie Zimmerman, 2009)
                      Expert credibility in climate change (William Anderegg, James Prall, Jacob Harold & Stephen Schneider, 2010)
                      Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations (2009)

                    • What BS. Should we ask so-called “scientists” to vote on quantum mechanics too? You’re an ignorant troll with no concept of what science is or how it works. Go back to your social studies classes where everything is a matter of opinion and the result doesn’t matter anyway.

                    • You claim:

                      What BS. Should we ask so-called “scientists” to vote on quantum mechanics too?

                      According to your logic we should. According the the scientific method, it is about the falsifiable evidence as found in published peer reviewed scientific journals.

                      The 97% is consensus on ACC is based on falsifiable evidence, it emerged. Do not confuse consensus with opinion. That can be different, but in the case for ACC, they are basically the same.

                      You claim:

                      You’re an ignorant troll with no concept of what science is or how it works. Go back to your social studies classes where everything is a matter of opinion and the result doesn’t matter anyway.

                      All you have is insults because you can’t falsify ACC.

                      As such you are not to be taken seriously. No matter how seriously you take yourself.

                      Please accept my apologies that you are so stupid. I really am sorry about that.

                      To continue to deny that is to start practicing dogma.

                      Inane blather and invective without evidence has no basis in science.

                      Honestly, I think that I should type more slowly in the unrealistic hope that you might be able to keep up with even the most basic of coherence.

                      It is ok to be loud. And it is ok to have nothing to say. But to be both, like you, on a YouTube forum, is pathetic.

                      Seriously, you should think more slowly in the unrealistic delusion that you might be able to keep up with even the most basic of coherence.

                    • Nope, it’s not 97% of scientists agree: climate change is not false, anthropogenic, irreversible and incredibly dangerous, it’s 97% of climate science papers concludes/finds that anthropogenic climate change is not false. There’s a big difference.

                      The fact that you don’t understand this difference, remembering that I wrote it before to you, shows me that you are not very smart and not worth my time. You’re clearly not very intelligent, that’s a fact. Your I.Q. on observation is no more than 90, and that’s being kind.

                      Science pay attention to, not eminence, but falsifiable evidence. Your post content (the evidence) shows your intellectual bankruptcy. And I so happen to agree with the evidence.

                    • How have climate scientists misrepresented basic science? Or is it that you’d like to believe they’ve misrepresented basic science so you can dismiss everything their evidence concludes?

                      One does not give equal weight to the correct and incorrect sides of an argument. This is science, not politics.

                      Do you know what “appeal to consequences” is? You should, since you’ve just committed that particular fallacy. If anthropogenic climate change is not false, then unpleasant things will happen (e.g., you’ll have to change your libertarian ideology, let go of your greed, relax your life style). Because of that, therefore ACC can’t be true for you. I think you can do better than that. We both know that you are in denial of ACC because you fear the impact on your life style – you’re greedy!

                      Tell me honestly why you are in denial of anthropogenic climate change (ACC)?
                      Why are you so scared of it, what will you lose?

                      You are quite right, I listen only to science and I don’t let BS sway me. That’s why I know ACC is real and ACC Denial is rubbish. You’re also right that science follows fact (i.e., evidence and logic). That’s exactly why there’s such a strong consensus that ACC is real. All the deniers have are appeals to authority (e.g., you says it’s not real, therefore it can’t be real no matter what the many other scientists, including some nobelists, who actually work in the field say); appeals to consequences (ACC may force us to change our political beliefs and lifestyle, therefore it can’t be real) and lots of false claims that just won’t die no matter how many times they’re debunked.

                      At least you’re deliberately honest in conceding that you haven’t studied the ACC matter to any appreciable degree. You should, because you would learn that much of what you have heard from the denier world is simply false. You should also understand the difference between the objective scientific fact of a warming planet, the objective scientific theory of ACC and the political question of what, if anything, should be done about it. ACC deniers frequently conflate the two, and it’s probably too generous to assume it’s an honest mistake.

                    • You forgot to respond to this post:

                      How have climate scientists misrepresented basic science? Or is it that you’d like to believe they’ve misrepresented basic science so you can dismiss everything their evidence concludes?

                      One does not give equal weight to the correct and incorrect sides of an argument. This is science, not politics.

                      Do you know what “appeal to consequences” is? You should, since you’ve just committed that particular fallacy. If anthropogenic climate change is not false, then unpleasant things will happen (e.g., you’ll have to change your libertarian ideology, let go of your greed, relax your life style). Because of that, therefore ACC can’t be true for you. I think you can do better than that. We both know that you are in denial of ACC because you fear the impact on your life style – you’re greedy!

                      Tell me honestly why you are in denial of anthropogenic climate change (ACC)?

                      Why are you so scared of it, what will you lose?

                      You are quite right, I listen only to science and I don’t let BS sway me. That’s why I know ACC is real and ACC Denial is rubbish. You’re also right that science follows fact (i.e., evidence and logic). That’s exactly why there’s such a strong consensus that ACC is real. All the deniers have are appeals to authority (e.g., you says it’s not real, therefore it can’t be real no matter what the many other scientists, including some nobelists, who actually work in the field say); appeals to consequences (ACC may force us to change our political beliefs and lifestyle, therefore it can’t be real) and lots of false claims that just won’t die no matter how many times they’re debunked.

                      At least you’re deliberately honest in conceding that you haven’t studied the ACC matter to any appreciable degree. You should, because you would learn that much of what you have heard from the denier world is simply false. You should also understand the difference between the objective scientific fact of a warming planet, the objective scientific theory of ACC and the political question of what, if anything, should be done about it. ACC deniers frequently conflate the two, and it’s probably too generous to assume it’s an honest mistake.

                    • There always gas been climate change since the last Ice Age.

                      Of course, sure. No one disagrees with this. What the facts and the evidence indicate is that our planet should be in a cooling trend, owing in part to a period of decreased solar irradiance. The climate is not in a cooling trend, it is in a warming trend. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

                      How do we know it’s in a warming trend?

                      Check these databases for yourself rather than relying on claims by others. Here are some links:

                      BEST: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt

                      CRU: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/CRUTEM4v-gl.dat

                      NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/6/1880-2016

                      UAH: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

                      NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt

                      and that includes the UAH dataset, a dataset by ACC deniers Christy and Spencer.

                      Go to each database, copy & paste the data into MS Excel or some other spreadsheet, then produce scatter plots of data points over time. Run trend lines through the period 2000 to present for each database. You’ll find the line always slopes up to the right, i.e. warming not cooling. Use this method to satisfy yourself that warming is still occurring before posting again. Any future debate can then proceed from a factual basis.

                • For the sake of clarity: The reply was meant to be to lifeisntabowlofcherries’s comment, not yours. I can understand w hy you would react because apparently I clicked the wrong button how you did and I don’t know how it ended up being a reply to you.

                  When i got notice of your comment, I had no idea what you were talking about as I the comment I was replying to contained no questions.

                  Hopefully, you’ll be levelheaded enough to believe I actually made a mistake and apologize for the insult flinging.

          • “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”..,……..!wc22ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !wc22:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsMediaGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!wc22………..

                • I KNOW that I’m not “related” to any Polar Bears, just like I know that I’m not related to you, thank God! Now then, I undoubtedly share a certain percentage of my DNA with polar bears, and you unfortunately, but that doesn’t make either you or the bear my relations. It just means that back a few million years ago, or more, that we all have a common biologic ancestor.

                  • Ah, you did not answer my questions. Remember, I asked you:
                    Why are you a bitch? Is it because you think that you’re not related to polar bears?

                    You claim:

                    I KNOW that I’m not “related” to any Polar Bears, just like I know that I’m not related to you, thank God!

                    How do you know that?
                    So, you know that common ancestry from evolution is wrong. Care to provide your evidence of that?
                    Let me guess, your god did not create it all either, and that is why you and I and the polar bear are not related, hey?
                    You can’t have it both ways, your ignorance is stifling you.

                    You claim:

                    Now then, I undoubtedly share a certain percentage of my DNA with polar bears, and you unfortunately, but that doesn’t make either you or the bear my relations.

                    How do you know that?
                    DNA is DNA. You can’t have less than 100% DNA. The fact that you, the polar bear and I have DNA is evidence that we are related. Are you that ignorant?

                    You claim:

                    It just means that back a few million years ago, or more, that we all have a common biologic ancestor.

                    And now we are related. But before you clearly stated that I’m not “related” to any Polar Bears. Want to have it both ways?

                    Maybe that is why you are a self proclaimed bitch.

                    As such, you should not be taken seriously, no matter how serious you take yourself.

                    • Thank you, John, for proving that you are nothing more than a stupid fùckhèàd!

                      “Ah, you did not answer my questions. Remember, I asked you:

                      Why are you a bitch? Is it because you think that you’re not related to polar bears?

                      You claim:

                      I KNOW that I’m not “related” to any Polar Bears, just like I know that I’m not related to you, thank God!

                      How do you know that?
                      Because I’m not a stupid fùckhèàd like you.

                      So, you know that common ancestry from evolution is wrong. Care to provide your evidence of that?
                      I didn’t say that you stupid fùckhèàd.

                      Let me guess, your god did not create it all either, and that is why you and I and the polar bear are not related, hey? Wrong again, you stupid fùckhèàd.

                      You can’t have it both ways, your ignorance is stifling you.

                      You claim:

                      Now then, I undoubtedly share a certain percentage of my DNA with polar bears, and you unfortunately, but that doesn’t make either you or the bear my relations.

                      How do you know that?
                      Because, once again, I’m not a stupid fùckhèàd like you.

                      DNA is DNA. You can’t have less than 100% DNA. The fact that you, the polar bear and I have DNA is evidence that we are related. Are you that ignorant?
                      I never said that we can have less than 100% DNA, you stupid fùckhèàd.

                      You claim:

                      It just means that back a few million years ago, or more, that we all have a common biologic ancestor.

                      And now we are related. But before you clearly stated that I’m not “related” to any Polar Bears. Want to have it both ways?
                      Related pertains to familial connections you stupid fùckhèàd.

                      Maybe that is why you are a self proclaimed bitch.
                      I was calling Jessica Toledo a bìtch, not myself, you stupid fùckhèàd.

                      “As such, you should not be taken seriously, no matter how serious you take yourself”. I take myself much more seriously than any stupid fùckhèàd like yourself John..

                    • You have not answered my questions. A libel based response is not an answer. Are you that new to reality?

                      Prediction: You will once again not answer any of my questions. But you will persist with your weak libel based assertions. Are you happy with that?

                    • Yes, quite happy. Aren’t you happy? And …. do you think that I might give a flip for your emotional well being? You stupid fùckhèàd.

                    • You did it again, you lived up to my prediction. Well done.

                      Prediction: You will once again not answer any of my questions. But you will demonstrate how your reasoning fails, how you think that your weak insults can triumph science. Are you happy with that?

                      Do it again, I dare you.

                    • First of all, true scientific method ALWAYS triumphs over myth and superstition. Secondly, my being here is not intended to engage you in any kind of discourse except for the purpose of agitating and ridiculing you. Thirdly, It makes me very happy to be able to laugh at your pompous replies and to observe YOUR irrational anger at having YOUR ridiculous statements crash and burn.

                    • Well done, my puppy dog. You did it again, you lived up to my prediction.

                      “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein

                      Why are you repeating your action to live up to my prediction?

                      Prediction: You will once again not answer any of my questions. But you will demonstrate how your reasoning fails, how you think that your weak insults can triumph science. Are you happy with that?

                      Do it again, I command you! Show me that you are predictable and that you are my puppy, following my command!

                      It is ok to be loud. And it is ok to have nothing to say. But to be both, like you, on a Disqus forum, is pathetic.

                      Do it, I dare you.

                    • USMC MSgt. Do you really represent the limited vocabulary of the Marine Corps? What a disgrace to the US military!

                    • Do you need a definition for obfuscation? Are you trolling here for ☭ømrade KILLary? Do you have a problem with MY Marine Corps?

                    • You did not answer my questions.

                      Have you checked the databases to see if the earth is warming or not?

                    • Nope, but I did check my database of “warming” freaks, and there you were right alongside Al (Hot Air) Gore. Tight, wadded up panties are a real inconvenience aren’t they?

                    • Write me when you have a url link to your published peer-reviewed scientific journal that can falsify ‘dangerous’ ACC. Else, don’t bother.

                    • Wow! Those little pink panties are so wadded up that they have affected your sanity. YOU publish a link to YOUR pile of agenda-driven garbage. What’s it titled, “You can fool some of the people, some of the time”?

                      This “exchange” has become very boring, fun, but boring. So then, it’s time to cut it off in mid-stream. Live a long unhappy life while trying to pass off your BS.

                    • ‘Wise men speak when they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something’ – Plato

                    • I want to help you.

                      It seems to me that you are desperately trying to come up with arguments and evidence why ACC is false.

                      To date you have given me nothing, other than your insane claim that ACC is false because you don’t like the economical and political implications on your greedy life style. I think you can do better than that. My guess is that you must be annoyed with your denier camp because all they can offer is pseudoscientific, bad-faith nonsense promulgated by political rhetoric.

                      The scientific theory of ACC is falsifiable. Falsifiable evidence is discovered via experimentation and / or observation.

                      Here are the 10 way to falsify ACC (the human impact on climate).

                      Observe and / or find a test to find / conclude (and don’t forget write it up, send it for peer review, then for publication, and then wait for the scientific community to accept your findings, then send me your url link to your paper, I’ll nominate you for a Nobel prize):

                      A drop in global temperatures for some period of time to the level of 50 years ago or longer, without a clear cause

                      A drop in global sea level for some period of time

                      A strong rise or decline in the atmospheric CO2 level

                      Climate forcings in the past were much larger, or temperature changes much smaller, than science found

                      Warming of the stratosphere

                      Major errors in equipment in satellites, measuring outgoing longwave radiation

                      Evidence of a substantial fall of relative humidity with rising temperature

                      A source of heat in the climate system that we do not know yet

                      A fundamental flaw in the scientific understanding of radiation physics or thermodynamics

                      CO2 molecules appear to behave differently in the wild, than they do in a laboratory

                      I have now given you 10 ways that you can falsify ACC. Want to have a go?

                      Think before you answer, before you invest your ego in a public stand that you may find difficult to reverse later. Any further dialog between us can be from this factual basis.

                      Yep, I have given you some homework to do. I did it because you don’t seem to be able to string a coherent argument together to defend your denialism position or to convince me that you have a basic understanding of science and its method.

                      And don’t just reject it with your knee-jerk fashion. It’ll take you some time. Don’t expect to learn and understand it while standing on one foot. Or while assuming it’s all some sort of massive conspiracy among scientists to make this hard for you. Remember, the floor is now yours, it is your chance to shine!

                    • Quit being a whiny, hypocritical weasel. Until you take the high ground and refrain from insults and self-aggrandizement, such supercilious blustering only reinforces your lowly stature as a posturing puke without integrity or personal responsibility

                    • What two “claims”? The first comment of mine, (that you responded to me with “Why are you a bitch? Is it because you think that you’re not related to polar bears?”) was directed to Jessica Toledo and said “Flag this bìtch”.
                      My FIRST response to you was in response to your ridiculous comment to me.
                      This is my second, and last response to you. It would be a total waste of oxygen if I didn’t ignore you.

                    • You ask:

                      What two “claims”?

                      Indeed, you are suffering from amnesia!

                      Your first claim: I KNOW that I’m not “related” to any Polar Bears
                      Your second claim: we all have a common biologic ancestor.

                      Are you having a slow day? Actually, you provided more evidence that you have a strong case of amnesia.

                      Re-read your comments to me. I find your intellectual dishonesty and bankruptcy quite stifling.

                      No wonder you are in denial of anthropogenic climate change.

                    • Classic, you are denying being in denial! Thank you for your admission. No wonder you claim that you are not related to polar bears, yet you claim you have a common biological ancestor with polar bears. Have it both ways, hey; Monckton maneuver! Why are you so upset, are you always this angry?

                      We both know that you are in denial of anthropogenic climate change. You are now trying to call it a conspiracy sham. Bejesus!

                      There is well known phenomena called crank magnetism; cranks are attracted to cranky ideas just like magnets.
                      Is there a crank theory / sham that you do not believe in?

                      Prediction: You will once again not answer my question. But you will showcase your intellectual bankruptcy again with your fallacious reasoning and your weak insults. Are you happy about that?

                    • I’m not at all “angry”, but you definitely appear to be.
                      Prediction: You will always be an angry fùckhèàd.
                      Are you happy about that, you stupid fùckhèàd?

                    • You lived up to my prediction, once again! And you are so angry and happy about it!

                      Prediction: You will once again not answer any of my questions. But you will demonstrate how your reasoning fails, how you think that your weak insults can triumph science. Are you happy with that?

                      Do it again, I command you! Show me that you are predictable and that you are my puppy, following my command!

                      Do it, I dare you.

                    • With pleasure, you blithering idiot. It makes me very happy to be able to laugh at your pompous replies and to observe YOUR irrational anger at having YOUR ridiculous statements crash and burn.

                    • You did it again, incredible!

                      Once more, do it for me! You are now my puppy dog, do it.

                      Now you want the conversation to be as meaningless as possible, to hide your vacuum of knowledge, to conceal your intellectual incapacity. You just gave away your exist strategy, your plan to admit how your reasoning failed.

                      Prediction: You will once again not answer any of my questions. But you will demonstrate how your reasoning fails, how you think that your weak insults can triumph science. Are you happy with that?

                      Do it again, I command you! Show me that you are predictable and that you are my puppy, following my command!

                      Do it, I dare you, my puppy dog!

                    • I’ll give you as many opportunities to demonstrate your insanity as you would like. One should have been sufficient, but you’re obviously a very slow learner.

                    • Honestly, I think that I should type more slowly in the unrealistic hope that you might be able to keep up with even the most basic of coherence.

                    • Insults and abuse are fine, but only as long as it is accompanied by sensible responses to my questions. If your reply has nothing besides invective, libel and false claims (i.e. no answers), then it will be pointed out.

                      You got hit with that many lefts , now you’re back begging for a right ………A true sucker for punishment !!

                      You would almost think that your drivel refuted anything I said…But then we know you aren’t very good at trends.

                      As such you are not to be taken seriously. No matter how seriously you take yourself.

                      Please accept my apologies that you are so stupid. I really am sorry about that.

                      To continue to deny that is to start practicing dogma.

                    • Those panties are causing you to be in denial. You can’t accept the fact that my goal is to ridicule and disparage you. You must take me very seriously, otherwise you would be able to refrain from responding.

                    • Wow! Those wadded up panties are really causing you grief, aren’t they? Maybe you should put on a fresh pair, one’s not so clogged up with “denier” crap.

                    • Those wadded up panties of yours just get tighter, and tighter, don’t they? I see no end in sight for any relief.

                    • What’s incredible is that your underdeveloped nether parts haven’t succumbed from exsanguination while performing “69” with either your mommie, or your cow. How’re those little pink panties fitting? Tight enough?

                    • Dear Neanderthal bitch,

                      I can very easily accept that I can be mistaken, fooled by my own wishful thinking, by con men selling pseudoscience or by the manufactured doubt industry promoting AstroReality, etc. This is exactly why I accept the scientific method and its results over my own intuition. It was created specifically to detect and correct these very human mistakes, and it has been shown to work extremely well. What I’m not so confident about is the ability of the scientific process to withstand relentless, heavily funded, bad-faith attacks by those who stand to have their livelihoods impaired by the results of the scientific process. We saw it with smoking and the tobacco companies, it’s still there with evolution and some religious sects, and we’re seeing it now with climate change and the fossil fuel industry.

                    • Hmmmmm .. didn’t you already “say” most of that already? Dementia WILL out. I’ll bet that your little diatribes have been funded by Al Gore and the rest of his acolytes. How are those twisted up panties feeling?

                    • Well then, at least when I ask myself a question, I get an intelligent, well thought out answer. Are those tight little wadded up pink panties becoming unbearably uncomfortable? Too bad, little shill.

                    • I am not interested in homework, Teacher, as you may, or may not, have gathered I am able to educate myself on any subject of my interest.

                    • All the pre-schoolers must quake in fear when the drool starts to run down your chin as you prepare another barrage of dolt-speak. Well, at least you’ve given up the pretense that you have any sort of valid position or legitimate intellectual capacity and have decided to simply flaunt what you really are–a laughable imbecile.

                    • However, the goal of keeping your little girl panties all wadded up is succeeding quite effectively.

                    • Ignore John. He’s just a mindless liberal troll. One of their defining characteristics is the inability to learn or think logically, so your chance of communicating with this guy is zero. Teach a dog to sing instead.

                    • Hey, don’t go insulting dogs! I’ve got a Basenji and he “sings” constantly!
                      Besides, I’m not trying to communicate with “John”, I’m just intent on keeping him pìššèd off; it’s working ….
                      🙂

                    • Well done my puppy dog.

                      Come one, live up to my prediction again, show me your anger and your intellectual vapidness.

                      You got hit with that many lefts , now you’re back begging for a right ………A true sucker for punishment !!

                    • Well done, my puppy dog. You followed my command again and lived up to my prediction!

                      Yes, the most cogent and persuasive assessments of scientific peer review typically begin “Why are you so stupid?” Your credibility is obviously unimpeachable and your scathing indictment of the scientific establishment has convinced me to join your cult. Where do I mail the check?

                    • If you’re serious about mailing a check, just send it to Mr. Trump’s campaign manager. Be sure to keep a small portion for yourself, you obviously need some fresh panties.

                    • My pool of evidence widens while you can only be contrite to present your museum of mistakes. Your noose tightens to make place for your growing broken reason filter and vacuum of evidence.

                    • Tightly wadded up panties obviously have contributed to your inability to construct a cogent, precise statement

                    • Of course I don’t expect to win, because climate science denial is itself a cult, driven by the ideology of total lessez-faire capitalism.
                      The realization that the earth has limited resources and that some sort of regulation is necessary is simply unacceptable to that ideology, so it must be rejected at all costs.
                      Yes, the temperature of the sun plays a role in climate. However, the sun’s output has been measured from space since almost the beginning of the space age and it varies only 0.1% over the 11-year solar cycle. It does not explain rising temperatures, and the claim that it does is a common denier fallacy. Increases in temperature can either lead or follow increases in CO2 depending on the cause of the temperature increase. There can be more than one cause, you know. Just because past increases were driven by, say, Milankovich cycles does not mean that the increases now cannot be driven by human CO2 emissions. That’s another common denier fallacy. Planetary positions have no effect on the earth’s climate except indirectly by causing the earth’s poles and orbit to precess. That’s the cause of Milankovich cycles, but they are very slow and fairly predictable, so they cannot explain the current rapid temperature rise. That’s another common denier fallacy. Yes, the CO2 in the atmosphere has been this high in the past. But it wasn’t supporting the same life as today — specifically homo sapiens. The last time was about 800,000 years ago, long before modern humans. It’s now +400 ppm. The last time it reached even 300 ppm was 325,000 years ago, again before modern humans. Yes, the earth’s temperature has been much higher (and much lower) than today, but again it wasn’t supporting the same life because this was long before modern humans.
                      These are just a few of the common denier fallacies that won’t go away because denial is based on political ideology, not science

                    • Seriously, you should think more slowly in the unrealistic delusion that you might be able to keep up with even the most basic of coherence.

                    • Suffering from a little case of fat-finger? Tight, pink, wadded up panties can cause that.

                    • Denialism: The denial of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of radical and controversial crank theories.

                      That is such an admission from you.

                      Today must be Opposite Day. Because the opposite of what you drivel-typed is true.

                      If you weren’t malicious you would just be an idiot: your argument so unsound and invalid that you have to misrepresent what I am to even begin making a case.

                    • Ridicule works! Your life must really be boring, like your diatribes. How are those wadded up panties feeling?

                    • Inane blather and invective without evidence has no basis in science.

                      Honestly, I think that I should type more slowly in the unrealistic hope that you might be able to keep up with even the most basic of coherence.

                    • You already said that before, but then one who has obvious dementia can’t be blamed for inanely repeating themselves. Those panties are REALLY distracting aren’t they?

                    • You have demonstrated nothing but intellectual ineptitude and willful ignorance, and are simply being laid down in the bed you made.

                    • It’s ok to be loud. It’s ok to have nothing to say. But to be both, on a Diqus forum, like you, is pathetic – it reinforces your lowly stature as a posturing puke without integrity or personal responsibility.

                    • I’ll give you as many opportunities to demonstrate your insanity as you would like. One should have been sufficient, but you’re obviously a very slow learner.

                    • Nope, you started this. I’m just here to keep you pìššèd off. It’s working very well. Those little panties of yours are really wadded up.

                    • You got hit with that many lefts , now you’re back begging for a right ………A true sucker for punishment !!

                    • Wow! Those wadded-up panties of yours must be getting REALLY uncomfortable. I’ll bet that it really pìššèš you off that I won’t respond to your feeble jibes.

                    • Over 10,000 peer-reviewed studies directly related to climate change get published per year now. There is no field of study in 400 years of science that has not gotten more accurate as more scientists have piled on. The body of peer-reviewed papers in this arena has moved in a clear direction: Away from denial.

                      You can count on two hands the scientists affiliated with Big Oil either directly or indirectly who claim humans do not influence climate. (Scientists who have actually gotten climate change research published). You can count on 1 hand the diminishing tally of studies they manage to squeeze past peer-review disparaging ACC even as the number of papers directly related to ACC rapidly crests 10,000 studies annually.

                      Climate scientists are paid to research impartially. Deniers are paid to advocate an opinion. If you can’t differentiate the two, you’re probably right in denier’s target demographic.

                    • Oh boy, those little pink panties of yours are getting tighter by the moment.
                      Dang but it’s entertaining knowing how much time and trouble you’ve put into trying to rebut me. Every time you respond to one of my jibes, it sends me into gales of laughter. Almost as much laughter as your hero Al (Hot-Air) Gore brings to me.
                      Keep it up, shill, I can’t wait to laugh at your next rejoinder.

                    • Nope, I’m right here. Are you lost, again?
                      I’ll bet that helps tighten up your little pink panties.

                    • You lost, it’s game over.

                      No, I don’t think I’m smarter than the people who actually study climate science. That’s your department, remember?

                    • Two mistakes on your side.
                      1. The use of capitals to express yourself. I bet your friends and family comment on your proficiency in incoherence as well.
                      2. Really: “Avoiding this word is a really great idea.” Reason: A really great idea is the same as a great idea. If you need to emphasize something, such as the “greatness” of an idea, use a single word that means what you are trying to say, e.g., “Avoiding this word is an excellent idea.”

                      See: 10 Words to Avoid When Writing by David Bowman

                    • Well, okay then, Johnnie boy.
                      You’re panties are even more wadded up than ever before.
                      But then, you shills for the global warming scam, have a right to have those little pink things constricting your ability to think. You do think with your ” little head”, don’t you? That would explain why your thought process, what there is of it, is all fùcked up.

                    • One does not require credentials in a field to understand and accurately summarize its findings. One does require credentials in a field to meaningfully challenge those findings.

                    • Now then, little boy with the tight wadded up panties, that was one of the most stupid comments you have made to date.

                    • Assertion fallacy.
                      You accept assertion without questions and expect others to do the same. Shame on you.

                    • It’s a good thing I was sitting down when I read your drivel, it’s hilariously stupid.

                    • The fact that you keep on wearing those wadded up panties is what’s hilariously stupid, and quite predictable.

                    • Only a stupid shill, like you, would respond. Those panties must be becoming unbearably tight.

                    • Yet, you responded.
                      “The greatest obstacle to discover is not ignorance. It’s the illusion of knowledge…” -Daniel Boston

                    • I don’t have to sound erudite. I know that I’m keeping you in pìššèd off mode. Those panties are really getting tight, aren’t they?

                    • Yep, but good enough to get a response from a stupid “climate change” shill. You really need to do something about those tight little pink panties, they’re obviously restricting blood flow to whatever’s left of your feeble mind.

                    • No, I don’t think I’m smarter than the people who actually study climate change science. That’s your department, remember?

          • The far greater conflict of interest is the so-called “scientists” prostituting the scientific method for grants from corrupt politicians who want us to give more money and power to them. Politicians already make far more money from the production of oil products than all of the companies involved in doing the actual work.

          • Reading your post it appears you are one of Nye’s street walkers, defender of all things leftist.
            Kudos on your attack skills to skirt the issue of Nye being a tool of the warmers.

            • Ernie,

              You see like a smart guy.
              Can you falsify the scientific theory of anthropogenic cliamte change (ACC)?
              If so, let’s hear it then. You do know how falsification in science works, yes?
              If not, then I was mistaken, you’re not very smart at all given that make claims that you can’t defend.

              What now?

          • Don’t you ever get tired of lying and being wrong?
            The less intelligent alarmists have written a paper allegedly connecting the scientists to Exxon Mobil. Note that though this continues to be a knee jerk reaction by some of the followers, there is no funding of skeptic causes by big oil BUT Exxon has funded Stanford warmists to the tune of $100 million and BP UC Berkeley to $500,000,000. Climategate emails showed CRU/Hadley soliciting oil dollars and receiving $23,000,000 in funding.

        • Bill Nye has a degree in mechanical engineering from Cornell.

          John Coleman is a journalist; Not even a meteorologist.

          I think I’ll take the word of the guy with a science degree over the journalist.

              • That’s a pretty condescending statement. You have no idea what level of education I have nor what field of study. All I know about the “scientists”working on government grants is that their predictions are wrong (NY is STILL not under water), the Al Gore Polar Bear picture was taken out of context, the latest 5year Ice Chart was doctored, etc… My comment had to do with “sheeple” blindly following someone’s rhetoric simply because they have “Degrees”. Get over yourself!

                • You claim:

                  That’s a pretty condescending statement.

                  .
                  It was no statement, it was two questions.

                  You have no idea what level of education I have nor what field of study.

                  Correct, that is why I asked if you can falsify the scientific theory of anthropocentric climate change (ACC). You did not answer that, but you still claim (see below) that ACC is false. That says more about you than you think.

                  All I know about the “scientists”working on government grants is that their predictions are wrong (NY is STILL not under water), the Al Gore Polar Bear picture was taken out of context, the latest 5year Ice Chart was doctored, etc…

                  Learn something today. When you hear of two rediculious claims, then you can’t use the second absurd claim to explain the first mystical claim. You can’t claim that predictions are wrong to explain why ACC is false.
                  You need to back up your claim that some prediction is wrong and then explain why that falsifies ACC.

                  And then you contradict yourself:

                  My comment had to do with “sheeple” blindly following someone’s rhetoric simply because they have “Degrees”.

                  Let me guess, your comment does not apply to you, hey?

                  And then you execute your exist strategy with an insult because you have no argument:

                  Get over yourself!

                  I will ask you again:

                  Can you falsify the scientific theory of anthropocentric climate change?

                  If so, let’s hear it then. Or will your swift departure now follow given that you have some homework to do?

                  • John, I am with you, but if you are going to convince people, try to find a common ground. You brought up the quote from Einstein that those who run out of arguments resort to insults. You have done this several times in your comments calling people imbeciles and such. Putting people on the defensive is only going to make them attack, and not reason.

                    We need people like you that can recount facts and counter with logic. Most do not have the time or ability to do so. Just please structure your debate on trying to reach an agreement on why others do not understand things the same way. A lot of people are bent about climate change being an abused issue to push agenda. Of course that doesn’t make the truth not exist, but people have stopped listening because the trust is lost. You have to make people trust again, and that is not going to happen if you place your self above because you know better. Know in your heart you know better, but do not advertise it. You are here to enlighten, not belittle people. Shame does not work unless in mass doses.

                    • You have not answered my questions.

                      You have done this several times in your comments calling people imbeciles and such.

                      I will pay you $1,000 if you can highlight where I called you an imbecile. I find your dishonesty a reflection of your post content. And that is not an insult, it is pointing to your unfounded and ridiculous accusation.

                      You claim:

                      I am with you

                      People in denial refuse to offer sound arguments, because, you guess it, they have no idea what a sound argument is.

                      Now, the rest of your post is trying to berate me. That does not work. Your insults will not change the science. Nor will it change the deniers. I honestly do not want to change them because I know it will not work. The best to do is to show their intellectual vapidness for others to read. That is the goal. It is not to convince them, but to let the readers that have not decided yet to employ their own cognitive faculties to discern that denial has no place in science. For you to belittle me show me that you can’t string a coherent argument together to convince me or the deniers.

                      You deliberately did not reply to me or answer my questions because you thought there was a chance that I would not call you on your emotional masturbation. All that in a vain attempt to give your self esteem a small boost.

                      You are dismissed. I have no further use for you. Thanks for your assistance.

                    • Are you a bot?

                      I wasn’t trying to berate, but instead enlighten your activity to a more acceptable social level that is productive.

                      You never called me personally an imbecile, just the climate deniers. “Intellectual vapidness” is a clear substitute for “imbecile”. Why are you so pugnacious? You have an ally here, but your comment is posed as aggressive. No one can defeat an army alone. Allies are necessary. We, being the people that accept the scientific process, need people that are able to distill it as fast as you, bot or not. I never did “not reply” to any questions because you never asked me any.

                      So I ask you this: What are they questions you think you asked me? And why are you so dismissive, even if I am trying to help?

                      I am tenacious when trying to reach a middle ground, so humor me.

                    • So, you could not show where I called ‘several times in my [sic] comments calling people imbeciles and such.’

                      There goes your $1,000 and your credibility. What else are you lying about, I wonder……

                      You claim:

                      You never called me personally an imbecile, just the climate deniers.

                      Yet, you fail to evidence your claim.

                      You claim:

                      “Intellectual vapidness” is a clear substitute for “imbecile”.

                      Nope, if it is true, it’s not an insult, nor is it calling someone an imbecile.
                      Nice try though. You must have been a real short-term hero in your bible study group. Have you ever thought that you might be bored simply because you’re kind of stupid? Oh wait, paradox.
                      And no, that is not calling you an imbecile, it is merely stating the facts.

                      You claim:

                      No one can defeat an army alone. Allies are necessary. We, being the people that accept the scientific process, need people that are able to distill it as fast as you, bot or not. I never did “not reply” to any questions because you never asked me any.

                      That is your dishonesty, shown my the history of this comment thread.

                      You ask:

                      What are the questions you think you asked me?

                      The questions that were in my post that you responded to, your post that contained the ‘berate’ that you now deny.

                      You ask:

                      And why are you so dismissive, even if I am trying to help?

                      Help? Do you call berate help?
                      Am still waiting for you to tell me:
                      I will pay you $1,000 if you can highlight where I called you an imbecile or anyone else.
                      Where is that?

                      My central question still lingers:
                      Can you falsify the scientific theory of anthropocentric climate change?

                    • Ok, so you want to play a game?

                      You claim:

                      “‘You never called me personally an imbecile, just the climate deniers. ‘

                      Yet, you fail to evidence your claim.”

                      And then in the next point you quote me on ‘intellectual vapidness’. If you want ‘evidence’, then there it is. The “if it is true” argument doesn’t make it any less of an insult when you could be much more tactful about it. There is something you have to learn about eloquence.

                      You go on to say I was in a bible group. Just where is your proof of that? You demand people of proof and truth, then you make outlandish comments as that. Just after that you call me stupid. And you deny insulting people? If you want facts, I haven’t been in any type of bible study since my family had me do it in my teens. Now who is ignorant?

                      You then go on to say I am dishonest. There is nothing I have been dishonest about. This is my third post to you, and what was I lying about?

                      When I asked you about what questions you asked me that I am evading, you responded, “The questions that were in my post that you responded to, your post that contained the “berate that you now deny.” My first post to you was trying to give advice. You responded to that first post with saying I did not answer your questions. I could not have responded to any questions because I had no communication with you before my first post towards you.

                      You claim: That I am berating you. You are in-accurate. I am chastising you. In the overall picture: I am trying to make you a more efficient tool for scientific representation. Your arguments are sound and backed up. You know the proper scientific method to relate ideas. You just suck at making the doubtful to ever change their mind.

                      “I am with you.”

                      That was the weirdest thing to accuse me of being in denial. It is weird because I was showing my support, then you say I was in denial? Was I in denial about thinking that you are right? Why benefit do you have in thinking I am denying that? It doesn’t make sense.

                      Still I chastise you. You seem to have a great mind, but need some tuning to make it productive in an argument. Humans do not like being looked down at. Regardless, I have done a chunk-load of that on you right now, but I hope that this is more in the ‘tough-love’ category.

                    • And there we have it. Your intellectual bankruptcy. So mush for your accusations and that $1,000. Guess you will refuse to take back your accusation, but will persist with your lies. In case you missed it, I’m waiting for your apology.

                      Just where is your proof of that?

                      There is no such think as scientific proof. Prove and disprove belongs to math and math alone. Wake up, dude.

                      I asked if you can falsify ACC and you refused to answer that.

                      You demand people of proof and truth, then you make outlandish comments as that.

                      Liar. Where did I demand proof and truth? There is no such thing as 100% truth in science. Everything in science is tentative. Again, I will pay you $10,000 if you can show where I asked anyone for proof or the truth. If you can’t show me that, then you need to retract your absurd accusation.

                      Just after that you call me stupid. And you deny insulting people?

                      You missed it again, It is not an insult when it is not false. Perhaps you are still bored because you’re stupid. Oops, your paradox lingers.

                      You then go on to say I am dishonest. There is nothing I have been dishonest about. This is my third post to you, and what was I lying about?

                      Your accusations were lies. I offered you $1,000 and now 10,000, yet you will not be able to show that. And yet, you will not apologize. That’s because you’re stupid, and that’s why you are bored. How is that paradox, hey!

                      You just suck at making the doubtful to ever change their mind.

                      Deniers can’t be convinced. I’m not here to convince them or turn them at all. I know that I can’t penetrate their astro pseudo reality, nor do I want to. My posts are for the undecided, the rational, to share the evidence (not proof, lol) and for the stupid (am looking a you) to understand that the deniers can’t be convinced. Evolution will sort them out.

                      You need to stop berating me. I find your tone quite offensive, you are an angry person that needs some friends.

                      Still I chastise you.

                      That is the best obscurantism from you so far. You accused me, and you berated be. And I was right, you are dishonest, thanks for proving more evidence for that fact.

                      Humans do not like being looked down at.

                      Let me guess, that does not apply to you, to your actions, hey.

                      My central question still lingers:

                      Can you falsify the scientific theory of anthropocentric climate change?

                      And another one.
                      I want your apology.

                    • No, it should signal to you that your responses are not following a pattern representative of human empathy.

                    • Nice try though, Cheese Whiz, you must have been a real short-term hero in your denialist study group. Have you ever thought that you might be bored simply because you’re kind of stupid? Oh wait, paradox.

                    • Let me guess, your comment does not apply to you, hey?

                      You’re a hypocrite.

                      Debating climate deniers is like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon knocks over the pieces, shit on the board, and still walks around triumphantly. I’m not here to try to convince them because they can’t be convinced. The fact that you claim that they can be convinced shows that you don’t even understand them.
                      You can’t convince a denier of anything; for their denial is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to deny. Think about that, read about the deniers and get to know them. I have studied deniers for many many years. I have written too many papers on them, done to many experiments on them, they have deep cognitive failures that only they can overcome.

                      Ah, the view must be very limited from that high horse you’re obviously riding. No wonder you refuse to back up your claims (that $1,000 lingers) or address you mistakes by answering my questions.

                      The unwillingness to accept the outcome of logic is to me a fatally flawed as this is the very method of reasoning that you claim to use, except, it seems, when it does not agree with your illogical belief. Incidentally, it is not uncommon for people to deny logic when it goes against their beliefs. But this ought to give you a pause for serious thought if you are serious about the foundations of your beliefs.

                      You deliberately did not answer my questions because you thought there was a chance that I would not call you on your emotional masturbation. All that in a vain attempt to give your self esteem a small boost.

                      You are dismissed. I have no further use for you. Thanks for your assistance.

                    • If climate deniers cannot be convinced, then why are you here?

                      You finally asked me a question. To answer: Your guess is incorrect. Do you realize that with every response you give I am trying to put together a picture to understand how your mind works? That is the very definition of empathy. Rhetorically: if you cannot convince someone in a debate, you can still attempt to find a middle ground. If you cannot enlighten (benefiting them), it is still worthwhile to understand (benefit yourself).

                      You claim you know the deniers because you studied them for many years, but clearly you have not had any productive arguments with them. I’ve read every single comment in this comment section for this story (I find it fascinating). Not a single one of them changed their mind, nor have you made any attempts to understand their reasoning. There is nothing pragmatic about your activity here. You say I am on a high horse and berating you

                    • You claim that I am ‘mentally masturbating’. Your comments are starting to read that the things you think you hate about other people are really the things you hate about yourself, and projecting that in others.

                    • You replied to yourself. That is the evidence for your ‘mentally masturbating’.

                      You claim:

                      Your comments are starting to read that the things you think you hate about other people are really the things you hate about yourself, and projecting that in others.

                      Indeed, you don’t think much of yourself, hey!

                      Now you want the conversation to be as meaningless as possible, to hide your vacuum of knowledge, to conceal your intellectual incapacity. You just gave away your exist strategy, your plan to admit how your reasoning failed.

                    • And you come back for more, even after I dismissed you. A true sucker for punishment.

                      If climate deniers cannot be convinced, then why are you here?

                      As stated before, it is the undecided that will read these posts and hopefully not fall for the pseudo scientists. It is also for people such as you, to learn about the deniers and how to converse with them.

                      “Those who have the privilege to know have the duty to act.” – Albert Einstein

                      You finally asked me a question. To answer: Your guess is incorrect.

                      I can tell that you rely heavily on obscurantism and avoidance. I actually think that you are showcasing your intellectual dishonesty here. You berate me and then claim that your responses follow a pattern representative of human empathy. That is quite a dichotomy there. How is that working out for you so far?

                      You claim:

                      Do you realize that with every response you give I am trying to put together a picture to understand how your mind works? That is the very definition of empathy.

                      Yet, that is not represented in your post content at all. You are making making up artificial facts in your head similar to your post content. What you have done is berate me. You are doing your best to put me down, to bring me down to your level of rudeness. I refuse to.

                      You claim:

                      Rhetorically: if you cannot convince someone in a debate, you can still attempt to find a middle ground. If you cannot enlighten (benefiting them), it is still worthwhile to understand (benefit yourself).

                      Oh, the irony. Or perhaps it’s your satire.
                      You are trying to do your best to convince me, yet you refuse to offer a middle ground, or even admit that yo are simply wrong.

                      Climate change is not up for debate.
                      People say lots of things, and there’s no legal requirement to be a scientist to say them or even to speak the truth. Nor are scientists required to debunk every false argument; science is not a sport where one side wins by default if the other side doesn’t show up. Scientists are frequently presented with a conundrum: ignore pseudoscientific claims and risk being perceived as unable to refute them, or thoroughly debunk them and risk granting a veneer of legitimacy to an illegitimate position. This is quite common thanks in part to a news media that promotes controversy by assuming every issue always has two equal sides. Evolution and climate change deniers know this very well. It’s why they constantly challenge real scientists to public debates. The public does not realize that this is not how scientific issues are resolved. They are resolved, over time, through the pages of refereed journals and conference proceedings. They exploit this public misconception this to the hilt because their goal is not to change the scientific consensus (which they cannot do, thanks to the checks and balances of the scientific method) but to influence public opinion (of which scientists form a tiny minority). That in turn warps public policy in their favor, which is their ultimate goal. That’s why we’ve long had state legislators trying to ban the teaching of evolution and promoting creationism or “intelligent design”. And now some are trying to ban the teaching of mainstream climate science.

                      So, no. This is not a debate. This is not how sciecne is settled. Sadly for you, scientific debates are not conducted on the comment pages of Disqus. They’re conducted in the pages of scientific journals and conference proceedings. Write up your “findings/conclusions” in a scientific journal, get it peer-reviewed and then published in the scientific literature. Then wait until the scientific community can’t falsify your evidence and for the consensus to emerge that your “findings/conclusions” is not false. You’re wasting your time here. Note: if your “findings/conclusions” consist of accusing the entire scientific community of some sort of massive conspiracy, you are not likely to get very far. Nor will you get very far if you object to the science because of what it implies for your lifestyle and political views. It is not enough just to go against the establishment, you need to be right as well. And that’s exactly as it should be. Save your opinions on what we should do about climate change for the political arena, where they belong.

                      you claim:

                      You claim you know the deniers because you studied them for many years, but clearly you have not had any productive arguments with them.

                      But clearly I have not had any productive arguments with them?
                      How on earth do you know that?
                      Can you read my mind? I wonder, what other magic can you do?

                      You claim:

                      I’ve read every single comment in this comment section for this story (I find it fascinating). Not a single one of them changed their mind, nor have you made any attempts to understand their reasoning.

                      You must have a quite a bit of spare time. If you honestly read all my comments, then you would not have asked these intellectual vapid questions. I’m referring to the so called ‘there is a debate’. I’m also referring to your accusation (the $1,000 offer) which you could not evidence, yet still refuse to admit to your mistake, you refuse to retract your accusation – yet you call this empathy!

                      You are correct, no single denier changed his/her mind. They will not, because denialism it is a position. Unlike being a skeptic, which is a process. That is why I do not try and change their mind. But you do try, but you don’t recognize your own disability of not understanding denialism. That is why you are increasing entropy by trying to convince them and now berate me.
                      If I could reason with a denier (and you for that matter, it seems), then they would not be in denial.

                      You claim:

                      There is nothing pragmatic about your activity here. You say I am on a high horse and berating you

                      Did you have amnesia between these two sentences?
                      You are basically stating that I’m not pragmatic (perhaps you mean I’m therefore dogmatic), yet you claim you are not berating me but have empathy.

                      How on earth do you know I’m not being pragmatic, if you yourself already claimed that you don’t know why I’m chatting to deniers?

                      That is just another one of your dichotomies.

                      Tell me, how many deniers have you convinced, converted in your so called climate change debate sport?

                    • Sorry, you cannot dismiss me. I am not your vassal.

                      You at least started to make sense and give some purpose. This is also not punishment. Your insults roll right off me; however, I must say I getting bored now now. I agree I had a little time to spend to read every comment. I really usually never read comment threads, especially vitriolic ones like this, but I just had a semester studying climate change, and one of the biggest quandaries my professor had was how to get people to listen. The tribal nature of humans also fascinated me

                    • You claim:

                      Sorry, you cannot dismiss me. I am not your vassal

                      I nere said you are my vassal. How absurd. Nice non sequitur from you.
                      More importantly, you don’t respect my wishes. You keep on insulting me, berating me with your innuendo and lies.

                      You claim:

                      I just had a semester studying climate change, and one of the biggest quandaries my professor had was how to get people to listen. The tribal nature of humans also fascinated me.

                      Yes, indeed, you have much to learn about science and its method. This is not politics, nor philosophy, no matter how much you want it to be. ACC is not false, not matter what you believe.

                      Sadly for you, no person will be converted in a comment section. You need to address the core with respect to deniers, and it’s not science. It is greed. They fear the implications on their life style, that is why they want public political policy in their favor.
                      based on my many years of research, you can’t convert them, or you. Only, in some cases, self reflection triumphs. But it is better time spend on the undecided.

                      There is a 97% consensus, and 98% agreement my climate change scientists on ACC. However, there is only a 50% understanding of the public that ACC consensus exists.

                      Now, tell me, how do you increase the 50%? This is not about science, it is about the ignorant (the undecided) and the deniers (they are so small in count, it does not matter – evolution will sort them out, or their self reflection years later).

                      You got hit with that many lefts , and came back begging for a right ………A true sucker for punishment !!

                    • You cannot dismiss me, I am not your vassal. You can demand I stop if this is bothering you. This isn’t punishment either. Your insults have no affect on me since you have not earned my respect. You almost did, but after my first comment to you, in which I was trying to side with you, you attacked me like you are attacking all the deniers.

                      You have started explain yourself though, so thank you, but it is still my opinion that your tactics are bad, and are only going to push people away. You are only fueling why they do not trust the scientific process. If you are trying to get the undecided on our side, you are making us look like pompous dicks. So please, try to remove yourself from comments such as “intellectual dishonesty” and “intellectual vapidness”. They only come off as angry insults. You use them so repetitively they are losing meaning.

                    • You claim:

                      If you are trying to get the undecided on our side, you are making us look like pompous dicks.

                      Oh, now you are undecided? But previously you mentioned that you are with me….

                      Dude, grow up. Decide what you support, learn about science, learn the basic definition of denialism.

                      Come back when we can deal in fact.

                    • You cannot dismiss me as I am not your vassal. You could request that I stop if this is bothering you. This is also not punishment. Your insults have no affect on me since you haven’t earned my respect.

                      You have started to explain yourself, so thank you. I still assert my opinion that your tactics are bad. You are only adding fuel to the fire by giving people reason not to trust the scientific process. You are making us look bad by being a dick. Please remove yourself from phrases such as “intellectual dishonesty” and “intellectual vapidness”. They are not diplomatic, unless you are purposely trying to inflate conflict. You use them so repetitively they are losing any meaning.

                      Be glad, this is my last post. Any reply by you will not be read or responded to. I’ve gotten what I need and any more is a waste of time.

                    • You responded multiple times to my comment. Let me know if I have missed anything as you seem to be new to coherence.

                      You post consists of more berate and innuendo.

                      You claim:

                      You cannot dismiss me as I am not your vassal.

                      So much for your empathy. I asked you stop writing me, yet you continue. And you think that I claimed you to be my vassal. That is your non sequitur, your pathetic logical fallacy. Nice try though.

                      You claim:

                      You could request that I stop if this is bothering you. This is also not punishment. Your insults have no affect on me since you haven’t earned my respect.

                      But I did dismiss you, yet you continue to contradict yourself. You want the conversation to be as meaningless as possible, to hide your vacuum of knowledge and intellectual capacity.

                      You claim:

                      You have started to explain yourself, so thank you. I still assert my opinion that your tactics are bad.

                      And your opinion is wrong, especially given that you can’t defend them.

                      You claim:

                      You are only adding fuel to the fire by giving people reason not to trust the scientific process.

                      That is your assertion. Care to back it up?
                      Many of these climate deniers understand the science. They know they can’t change it, that is why it is pointless to debunk their canards as stated previously. They are after influencing the undecided, the ignorant, because they know that they can’t change the science. They want to steal the undecided’s public vote, to wrap policy in their favor. They want to do this (you never asked me why) because of their greed. They don’t fear the tax, they fear the economical and political implications on their life style – they are greedy thinking that you can get unlimited growth from limited resource.

                      You don’t understand that, even thought I explained it to you. That shows me that you are not worth my time, that is why I dismissed you. Yet, your purposely decided not to employ the empathy that you claim to have, but to poster me with your contradictions.

                      You claim:

                      You are making us look bad by being a dick. Please remove yourself from phrases such as “intellectual dishonesty” and “intellectual vapidness”

                      You want me to hide the facts? No thank you. It is exactly what the deniers want you to do.

                      You claim:

                      Be glad, this is my last post. Any reply by you will not be read or responded to. I’ve gotten what I need and any more is a waste of time.

                      I’ll read your other relies and point out your fallacy. You still seem to think that this is a sport with two sides. You are wrong. It’s quite obvious that you have no understanding of how science works or what denialism is.

                      You need to educate yourself. Grow up.

                    • You did not answer my question.

                      Tell me, how many deniers have you convinced, converted in your so called climate change debate sport?

                    • Climate deniers are in the first stage of accepting scientific knowledge (the scientific anthropogenic climate change and the scientific fact of a warming earth). The stages are:

                      1) Denial: They deny the science due to their ignorance of science and its method and their greed

                      2) Anger: It contradicts some scripture or their belief

                      3) Acceptance: They always knew it was so.

                      Before you try and understand this, let me explain to you more detail regarding stage 1: denial.

                      Their denial will always take on 3 basic logical fallacies:

                      1.1. Appeal to authority.

                      They will always cite some scientific expert that claims anthropogenic climate change is false. They will never point to what the scientific community says, or what the leading scientific theories are, or point to peer review journals.

                      1.2. Appeal on consequences

                      They will also state how bad it will be if we accept the science and act. This is merely their outcry to the public and looking for support, hoping that they can spread their ignorance to the public to the undecided, and instill unsupported fear, rather than focusing on the science and trying to falsify it.

                      1.3. Circular Reasoning

                      They will offer one canard (false claim) after the other. When we rebut the first, they will not acknowledge that, they will just play the next canard. On and on we go, hey.

                      I can’t change them or that, neither can you, only the deniers can do it. All I can do is explain the facts and the stages of denial/acceptance that they are in. It’s their job to understand it; I can’t do their homework for them.

                      What makes you think this is sport where there are 2 sides of equal authority? When I hear rubbish such as what you are preaching then I understand the conundrum: 1) Do I engage and debunk every single false denier claims? The risk with that is that it could be perceived that there is some legitimacy in their claims and that it’s worth my time. 2) Do I not engage to debunk every single false denier claim? The risk with that is that it could suggest that their claims can’t be debunked and is therefore not false. And here is the thing; scientists are also not required to debunk every false argument; science is not a sport where one side wins by default if the other side doesn’t show up. This is quite common thanks in part to people like you, deniers and news media that promotes controversy by assuming every issue always has two equal sides. I suspect people like you know this very well; the deniers do. It’s why they constantly challenge scientists to public debates. The public does not realize that this is not how scientific issues are resolved. They are resolved, over time, through the pages of refereed journals and conference proceedings. Deniers will exploit this public misconception to the max because their goal is not to change the scientific consensus (which they cannot do, thanks to the scientific method) but to influence public opinion (of which scientists form a tiny minority). That in turn warps public policy in their favor, which is your ultimate goal. That’s why climate deniers are trying to ban the teaching of mainstream climate science.

                      Only the deniers can get themselves from stage 1 denial to stage 2 anger. Most can’t, because of their greed and intellectual vapidness when it comes to science. There is a well know phenomena called crank magnetism; cranks are attracted to cranky ideas juts like magnets. Deniers have a deep seated need to deny which; they are attracted to crank theories.

                      You are wasting your time trying to convert them. Only they can do it, most will not.

                • Sadly for you, scientific debates are not conducted on the comment pages of Disqus. They’re conducted in the pages of scientific journals and conference proceedings. Write up your “findings/conclusions” in a scientific journal, get it peer-reviewed and then published in the scientific literature. Then wait until the scientific community can’t falsify your evidence and for the consensus to emerge that your “findings/conclusions” is not false. You’re wasting your time here. Note: if your “findings/conclusions” consist of accusing the entire scientific community of some sort of massive conspiracy, you are not likely to get very far. Nor will you get very far if you object to the science because of what it implies for your lifestyle and political views. It is not enough just to go against the establishment, you need to be right as well. And that’s exactly as it should be. Save your opinions on what we should do about climate change for the political arena, where they belong.

                  I can very easily accept that I can be mistaken, fooled by my own wishful thinking, by con men selling pseudoscience or by the manufactured doubt industry promoting AstroReality, etc. This is exactly why I accept the scientific method and its results over my own intuition. It was created specifically to detect and correct these very human mistakes, and it has been shown to work extremely well. What I’m not so confident about is the ability of the scientific process to withstand relentless, heavily funded, bad-faith attacks by those who stand to have their livelihoods impaired by the results of the scientific process. We saw it with smoking and the tobacco companies, it’s still there with evolution and some religious sects, and we’re seeing it now with climate change and the fossil fuel industry.

                  Incidentally, I’m educated, well leaned in physics and chemistry, but not a climate scientist; suspect neither are you. However, I do try to keep up with important scientific work in other fields, especially when it produces results with significant implications for public policy. I accept the consensus of anthropogenic climate change and that the human extinction risk is high if we do not reduce the CO2 levels immediately. I accept it because I accept the scientific method and I value the truth over what I would personally prefer to be the case. One does not require credentials in a field to understand and accurately summarize its findings. One does require credentials in a field to meaningfully challenge those findings.

                  If you have no idea what the difference between a projection and a prediction in science is, then you should rather keep your ignorance to yourself. You clearly have no understanding of climate models. Nor do you have your own climate model. Yet, here you are, claiming that the well established, accepted, published, public available climate models are wrong. Seriously, think about that for a minute; your claim is simply absurd.
                  All of science is models. Every scientific theory models reality. Scientists devise models, also known as hypotheses, and test them by using them to make predictions. If they don’t match real-world observations, the models are adjusted and the process is repeated until they do. Eventually the hypothesis/model is gradually accepted as a theory, which is a comprehensive explanation of some natural phenomenon. This works for electromagnetism, this works for quantum electrodynamics, this works for relativity, and it works for climate science.

                  I know this is hard for you to understand. It’ll take you some time to fully get my explanation given that you are not very good at trends and have a predisposition to crank theories. Don’t expect to learn and understand science or its method while standing on one foot. Or while assuming it’s all some sort of massive conspiracy among scientists to get more grant money. Remember, the very worst thing a scientist solely interested in more grant money can say is “we’ve reached a consensus, we’re done, there’s not much more to do”.

                  Yet there is a 97% consensus that emerged for anthropogenic climate change. Scientists will continue to attempt to falsify that, continue to research history and devise better models. To say that science can never come to any conclusions, that we can never reasonably settle any question, that consensus never emerges, is to give up on the entire scientific adventure of understanding the natural world. That is to reject all scientific knowledge that we have filed over the last ~500 years. If we can never know anything, what’s the point of investigating, of science? Saying that ‘dangerous’ anthropogenic climate change is not settled is arguing that scientific theories do not exist. Saying that the ‘earth is warming’ is not settled is arguing that scientific facts do not exist.

                  Claiming scientific knowledge do not exist is a message that is profoundly anti-science, and you should know that what Heartland and the NIPCC stand for is not some “alternative” science, but a private, alternative reality, born in delusion.

          • John Coleman was a meterologoist long before Meteorology was ever a degree program in college. I’ll take the word of someone who was a practicing weatherman for 20 years before Bill Nye could even get a job over the guy with honorary degrees and a mechanical engineering degree. The University of Illinois, where John Coleman has his journalism degree from (in 1957), didn’t offer meteorology as a major until 1980. Meanwhile, John was getting his degree while Bill Nye was still in diapers.

                • How do you know anthropocentric climate change is not sciecne if you are in denial of it? I mean, do you even know what denialism is? You walked into that one, hey! At least you admit to being in denial. That, in itself, is progress of some kind.

                  Which people lied to you, what did they lie about, and how do you know they are lies? I mean, how on earth can yo claim that when you just admitted to being in denial?

                  Denialism is the refusal to accept well-established theory, law, fact or evidence. It is an irrational position in that’s a person’s choice to deny reality, to invent a pseudo reality, as a way to avoid a uncomfortable truth of this reality.

                  Do you now deny being in denial of anthropocentric climate change?

          • What does a degree in mechanical engineering have to do with meteorology? Oh, nothing! What’s Al Gore’s “degree” in? “Scamming for solar dollars”?

            I’ve never seen a polar bear who was shedding his fur because he was too warm.

            • You ask:

              What does a degree in mechanical engineering have to do with meteorology?

              Physics, and an understanding how the scientific method words.

              Where do you get your scientific information from?

          • *Bachelor’s degree. That moron in a bow tie said that the Paris attacks were caused by climate change and considered ‘climate deniers’ be jailed. So go ahead side with a lunatic. Don’t let me stop you.

            • Meteorology, climatology, atmospheric physics, and atmospheric chemistry are sub-disciplines of the atmospheric sciences.

              Climatologists and meteorologists are two types of atmospheric scientists who study weather patterns and their effects on humans and the environment. A key difference relates to time horizons. Meteorologists focus more on short-term weather conditions while climatologists are more interested in long-term climate conditions.

              The climatologists publishing papers are the ones working in the field. Published climate change scientists are the ones doing all the research; their work is subject to peer review by the top scientists in the world. People taking pot shots from afar, not doing any research and never putting their own ideas up for scientific scrutiny have no credibility. (looking at you John Coleman and Steve)

              The point is that your conclusion that John Coleman knows anything about anthropogenic climate change is rather pathetic.

                • You missed the point.

                  People taking pot shots from afar, not doing any research and never putting their own ideas up for scientific scrutiny have no credibility. (looking at you John Coleman and SapientHetero).

                  You claim:

                  I think his point is that he might know more than a mechanical engineer who’s been in the children’s entertainment business for decades.

                  Why would John Coleman know anything about the science of climate change if he has no published papers on the subject?

                  One does not require credentials in a field to understand and accurately summarize its findings. One does require credentials in a field to meaningfully challenge those findings.

                  The mechanical engineer is saying something much more simple: he excepts the scientific process. That means having many scientists gain the necessary credentials, formulate hypotheses, conduct experiments if possible, observe and collect the relevant data, analyze it, publish the results and have their peers review it. And then iterate this process until a consensus is established. Then he tentatively accept that consensus. He does not reject it out of hand because he doesn’t like its implications. He does not appeal to the authority of specific well-known scientists, or weather men (John Coleman) especially those with specialties in other fields, who happen to say what you prefer to hear. That’s propaganda and self-delusion, not science.

                  Can you now answer my question?

                  • What a foolish thing to say. I’ve not published papers on many of the subjects in which I have 35+ years of experience. Does that mean I know nothing about it, or even that I know less than those who have published papers? Only an imbecile would think this is true.

                    Science does not work in the way you think it does (or should) at all. There is exactly ONE figure of merit in science, and that’s a proposed theory’s ability to make accurate, verifiable and reproducible predictions. Nature couldn’t care less about your political “consensus”, and neither should anyone else.

                    The emphasis you place on “credentials” suggests an unhealthy obsession with authority. You’d have fit right in with the Nazis and Stalinists.

                    • You claim:

                      What a foolish thing to say. I’ve not published papers on many of the subjects in which I have 35+ years of experience. Does that mean I know nothing about it, or even that I know less than those who have published papers? Only an imbecile would think this is true.

                      Correct – one does require credentials in a field to meaningfully challenge its findings – one does not require credentials in a field to understand and accurately summarize its findings – if you have not done any research, nor written up your work to be sent for refereeing, then you have no credibility when you want to deny or reject scientific findings.
                      However – one does not require credentials in a field to understand and accurately summarize its findings – you don’t have to do any research, or write up your work to be sent for refereeing, to accept scientific findings. All you have to do is understand the scientific method and to ensure that the scientific findings adhered to it.

                      Let me make this more simple for your ignorant mind.
                      You don’t have to be a climate change scientist in order to accept the basic findings/conclusions of climate change science – all you need is to check if it followed the scientific method.
                      You need to be an expert in climate science in order to reject it’s basic findings/conclusions. ‘Expert’ meaning you need to have shown your work, written it up, and had it reviewed by other experts in order to reject the findings. It is not enough just to go against the establishment, you need to be right as well.

                      Let me make it more simple for you. I don’t have to be a biologist to accept evolution. I don’t have to be a physicist to accept gravity or the big bang. However, you need to be an expert, to show your falsification based on evidence if you claim evolution, gravity or the big bang is false.

                      You claim:

                      Science does not work in the way you think it does (or should) at all. There is exactly ONE figure of merit in science, and that’s a proposed theory’s ability to make accurate, verifiable and reproducible predictions.

                      I always find it quite laughable when people (you in this case) claim that someone is wrong( me in this case) without stating what I’m wrong about, and why it is wrong.

                      I agree, a scientific theory needs to make predictions. But that is not all that defines a scientific theory. And no, scientific knowledge does not only consist of scientific theories, it also consists on scientific laws, and scientific facts. Neither of those are reliant on predictions. You are basically arguing that sceintific laws and scientific facts do not exist, or have no merit in science. How absurd.

                      Further to that, you are trying to imply that the scientific theory of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) does not make any predictions, or have had predictions that failed. If that is the case, if that is indeed your outrageous claim, then you need to show your work. Show me your published peer reviewed scientific journal that falsifies ACC.
                      We both know you will not do this, because all you have is claims, you have no evidence. How sad for you.

                      Nature couldn’t care less about your political “consensus”, and neither should anyone else.

                      What political consensus are you referring to? You seem to fail to even define your claim, not to mention any evidence to support your conjecture.

                      If you are referring to the 97% consensus that ACC is not false, then you need to:
                      i) Claim that clearly, stop with the obscurantism
                      ii) Show your evidence that scientific consensus of ACC is actually political consensus as. That’s going to very hard for you because you are basically claiming that all of science is politics. Oh dear.
                      iii) Falsify the 97% consensus. In other words, show your peer reviewed scientific journal (that hosts the falsifiable evidence) that the scientific theory of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is false.

                      You claim:

                      The emphasis you place on “credentials” suggests an unhealthy obsession with authority. You’d have fit right in with the Nazis and Stalinists.

                      As expected, you end with an insult.
                      Einstein said ‘When a person resorts to insults, he has no argument to give.’ But you go further, you cement the Godwin Law.

                      My dear, if you have no ‘credentials’ (refereed evidence) then you are admitting to have no substance to reject consensus science.

                      However, I will suspend my disbelief in your intellectual bankruptcy and give you the opportunity to shine. I now open the take for you to show your work, to show me the evidence that ACC is false. You have claimed that ACC is false, yet you ‘forgot’ to provide any substance, any evidence to support your outrageous claim.

                      What will you do now?

                      Prediction: You will not present me with any of your published peer reviewed scientific journals that falsifies ACC – you have none, all you have is some outrageous claim that ACC is false. But you will offer more claims, not back them up, and end with an insult. Are you happy with that?

                    • I don’t understand what you’re saying. People say lots of things, and there’s no legal requirement to be a scientist to say them or even to speak the truth. Nor are scientists required to debunk every false argument; science is not a sport where one side wins by default if the other side doesn’t show up.

                      Scientists are frequently presented with a conundrum: ignore pseudoscientific claims (similar to yours) and risk being perceived as unable to refute them, or thoroughly debunk them and risk granting a veneer of legitimacy to an illegitimate position. This is quite common thanks in part to a news media that promotes controversy by assuming every issue always has two equal sides. Evolution and climate change deniers know this very well. It’s why they constantly challenge real scientists to public debates. The public does not realize that this is not how scientific issues are resolved. They are resolved, over time, through the pages of refereed journals and conference proceedings. They exploit this public misconception this to the hilt because their goal is not to change the scientific consensus (which they cannot do, thanks to the checks and balances of the scientific method) but to influence public opinion (of which scientists form a tiny minority). That in turn warps public policy in their favor, which is their ultimate goal. That’s why we’ve long had state legislators trying to ban the teaching of evolution and promoting creationism or “intelligent design”. And now some are trying to ban the teaching of mainstream climate science.

                      Incidentally, I’m educated in physics and chemistry, but not a climate scientist, and suspect neither are you. However, I do try to keep up with important scientific work in other fields, especially when it produces results with significant implications for public policy. I accept the consensus of anthropogenic climate change and that the human extinction risk is high if we do not reduce the CO2 levels immediately. I accept it because I accept the scientific method and I value the truth over what I would personally prefer to be the case. One does not require credentials in a field to understand and accurately summarize its findings. One does require credentials in a field to meaningfully challenge those findings.

                    • Really. Tell me about your physics and chemistry education. I’ve actually practiced science in the real world for over 35 years with results that price my competence. What have you done?

                    • You need to show your work, show me your evidence, show me that you followed the scientific method if you want to convince me that the scientific theory of ACC and the scientific fact of a warming earth is false. Unless you do that, I have to file your claims as having no credibility.

                      One does not require credentials in a field to understand and accurately summarize its findings. One does require credentials in a field to meaningfully challenge those findings.

                      I accept the scientific method and understand that ACC complied with it, that’s why I accept it. That is what I have have. You don’t have to be a published climate change scientists in order to accept a scientific theory. However, you do need to be an expert, a published climate chnage scientists in order to reject the findings of a scientific theory (such as ACC).

                      How is the real word different to the world?
                      What climate chnage credentials do you have, where is your falsification of ACC?

                      Now, stop claiming ACC is false. You need to provide your falsifiable evidence, your published peer reviewed scientific journal that ACC is false. You have not done that. You have repeatably avoided to provide that, yet you still claim ACC is false.

                      How is that logical?

                    • What have I done?
                      I called you out on your assertion fallacies.
                      I reminded you that your inane blather and invective without evidence has no basis in science.
                      I dared you to produce your credentials in climate chnage science, but you refuse to do it because you have none.

                      All you did was made claims that the scientific theory of ACC is false. You could not back your claim up with any evidence.

                      As such, you should not be taken seriously, no matter how serious you take yourself. In fact, if you did practice science then you definitely practiced pseudo science.

                      No scientist would claim a scientific theory is false and then completely, purposely neglect to provide the backup falsification.

                      Pathetic.

                    • When did I claim to be a published climate change scientist?
                      I’m just a physics and chemistry leaned person who happens to understand the scientific method and the basic conclusions of that method when applied to earth’s climate. And I get highly annoyed by the pseudoscientific, bad-faith nonsense promulgated by the deniers. I always accord basic respect to every person, whether they hold a Nobel Prize or not, but I place the scientific method well above naked appeals to authority. So I also suggest you accord more respect to the scientific method than to individuals pontificating outside their fields — Nobel or not.

              • “Knowing” anything about anthropogenic global warming, cooling, climate change or however it’s been renamed to avoid embarrassment this week, is like the Medieval art of estimating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. It’s a fact-free, completely ideological activity.

                • That is your claim, can you now back it up?

                  Seriously, are you claiming that NASA got it wrong? Are you claiming that scientific consensus did not emerged for anthropogenic climate change (ACC) then you need to ‘show me your work, show me your evidence that supports your claim’.

                  http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
                  https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

                  Now that you have the evidence for ACC, can you now show me your evidence that the ACC evidence does not exist, or is false?

                  We both know that you will not. That’s because you can’t. You have no idea how to falsify a scientific theory, nor do you even know what falsification is. You think it is enough to just go against the establishment. It is not. You need to be right as well. And you have not demonstrated that at all. In fact, you have not even demonstrated that you have the slightest idea how to falsify science or how to support your claim. You’re on your own, dear denier.

                  Pathetic.

                • You claim:

                  “Knowing” anything about anthropogenic global warming, cooling, climate change or however it’s been renamed to avoid embarrassment this week, is like the Medieval art of estimating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

                  Thank you for admitting that you don’t know anything about anthropogenic climate change (ACC). That is quite an admission by you.
                  Now, since you admit not knowing anything about ACC, why do you claim it is false then?
                  Hu? Can you explain your dichotomy to me?

                  The only way out my dear is to admit that your claim does not apply to you, that you lied when you made that claim.

                  You claim:

                  It’s a fact-free, completely ideological activity.

                  Is that your admission again to your intellectual vapidness when it comes to climate science, that your claims are fact-free and completely an ideological activity?

                  I can very easily accept that I can be mistaken, fooled by my own wishful thinking, by con men selling pseudoscience or by the manufactured doubt industry promoting AstroReality, etc. This is exactly why I accept the scientific method and its results over my own intuition. It was created specifically to detect and correct these very human mistakes, and it has been shown to work extremely well. What I’m not so confident about is the ability of the scientific process to withstand relentless, heavily funded, bad-faith attacks by those who stand to have their livelihoods impaired by the results of the scientific process. We saw it with smoking and the tobacco companies, it’s still there with evolution and some religious sects, and we’re seeing it now with climate change and the fossil fuel industry.

                  You need to show your work, show me your evidence, show me that you followed the scientific method if you want to convince me that the scientific theory of ACC and the scientific fact of a warming earth is false. Unless you do that, I have to file your claims as having no credibility.

                  Your choice.

                    • You did not answer any of my questions.

                      You claim that ACC is false, yet you can’t string a coherent argument together to defend it. You are merely projecting your ignorance with such confidence that it completely begets any knowledge. All you have is your weak attempt at libel given that your reasoning failed.

                      “The greatest obstacle to discover is not ignorance. It’s the illusion of knowledge…” -Daniel Boston

                      You need to show your work, show me your evidence, show me that you followed the scientific method if you want to convince me that the scientific theory of ACC and the scientific fact of a warming earth is false. Unless you do that, I have to file your claims as having no credibility.

                    • Thank you for admitting that you don’t know anything about anthropogenic climate change (ACC). That is quite an admission by you.

                      Now, since you admit not knowing anything about ACC, why do you claim it is false then?

                      Hu? Can you explain your dichotomy to me?

                    • Where did I admit that?
                      Since when is acknowledging the scientific methodan acknowledgment that I’m a gullible fool?

                      You forgot to take your meds again; your reasoning failed, sadly for you.

                      Pathetic.

                    • Either you are one of the most sophisticated trolls I have ever encountered on Disqus, or I owe you thanks for so eloquently deconstructing the points made by your fellow climate change science deniers.

                      Which one you rather be?

                    • I want to help you.
                      It seems to me that you are desperately trying to come up with arguments and evidence why ACC is false.
                      To date you have given me nothing, other than your insane claim that ACC is false because you don’t like the economical and political implications on your greedy life style. I think you can do better than that. My guess is that you must be annoyed with your denier camp because all they can offer is pseudoscientific, bad-faith nonsense promulgated by political rhetoric.

                      The scientific theory of ACC is falsifiable. Falsifiable evidence is discovered via experimentation and / or observation.
                      Here are the 10 way to falsify ACC (the human impact on climate).

                      Observe and / or find a test to find / conclude (and don’t forget write it up, send it for peer review, then for publication, and then wait for the scientific community to accept your findings, then send me your url link to your paper, I’ll nominate you for a Nobel prize):

                      A drop in global temperatures for some period of time to the level of 50 years ago or longer, without a clear cause

                      A drop in global sea level for some period of time

                      A strong rise or decline in the atmospheric CO2 level

                      Climate forcings in the past were much larger, or temperature changes much smaller, than science found

                      Warming of the stratosphere

                      Major errors in equipment in satellites, measuring outgoing longwave radiation

                      Evidence of a substantial fall of relative humidity with rising temperature

                      A source of heat in the climate system that we do not know yet

                      A fundamental flaw in the scientific understanding of radiation physics or thermodynamics

                      CO2 molecules appear to behave differently in the wild, than they do in a laboratory

                      I have now given you 10 ways that you can falsify ACC. Want to have a go?

                      Think before you answer, before you invest your ego in a public stand that you may find difficult to reverse later. Any further dialog between us can be from this factual basis.

                      Yep, I have given you some homework to do. I did it because you don’t seem to be able to string a coherent argument together to defend your denialism position or to convince me that you have a basic understanding of science and its method.

                      And don’t just reject it with your knee-jerk fashion. It’ll take you some time. Don’t expect to learn and understand it while standing on one foot. Or while assuming it’s all some sort of massive conspiracy among scientists to make this hard for you. Remember, the floor is now yours, it is your chance to shine!

                • Sadly for you, scientific debates are not conducted on the comment pages of Disqus. They’re conducted in the pages of scientific journals and conference proceedings. Write up your “findings/conclusions” in a scientific journal, get it peer-reviewed and then published in the scientific literature. Then wait until the scientific community can’t falsify your evidence and for the consensus to emerge that your “findings/conclusions” is not false. You’re wasting your time here. Note: if your “”findings/conclusions” consist of accusing the entire scientific community of some sort of massive conspiracy, you are not likely to get very far. Nor will you get very far if you object to the science because of what it implies for your lifestyle and political views. It is not enough just to go against the establishment, you need to be right as well. And that’s exactly as it should be. Save your opinions on what we should do about climate change for the political arena, where they belong.

                  I can very easily accept that I can be mistaken, fooled by my own wishful thinking, by con men selling pseudoscience or by the manufactured doubt industry promoting AstroReality, etc. This is exactly why I accept the scientific method and its results over my own intuition. It was created specifically to detect and correct these very human mistakes, and it has been shown to work extremely well. What I’m not so confident about is the ability of the scientific process to withstand relentless, heavily funded, bad-faith attacks by those who stand to have their livelihoods impaired by the results of the scientific process. We saw it with smoking and the tobacco companies, it’s still there with evolution and some religious sects, and we’re seeing it now with climate change and the fossil fuel industry.

                    • Why do you think my age has any bearing on the scientific theory of ACC?

                      You have not even tried to falsify ACC, yet you claim it is false.

                      Tell me more about your greed, we both know that is why you reject scientific knowledge (the scientific theory of ACC) – you feat the political and economical implications on your life style.

                      You are in the first stage of accepting scientific knowledge. The stages are:
                      1) Denial: You deny the science due to your ignorance of science and its method
                      2) Anger: It contradicts some scripture or your belief
                      3) Acceptance: You always knew it was so.

                      How do you get you to stage 2?

              • I’m a college student and don’t have much money, so usually I do volunteer work. I like cleaning up outdoor areas so people can enjoy them. Still I probably donated about a hundred dollars over the last year.

                I wouldn’t say I am a socialist, although I could easily sometimes fit that stereotype. I am a humanist and a universalist. I just believe that we are all in this together as a species, and that it requires occasional sacrifice. Ideally I hope people want to do this voluntarily, but I know that there are still too many humans on this planet that are in it for themselves, so I’m not gonna kid myself.

                If people want to hoard resources, be it money or commodity, not only do these people provide nothing of worth to others, a portion of them turn it the other way around, and exploit others for their own gain. Those are the people that are afraid of regulation. Really I hope regulation would someday not be necessary, that as a species we can eventually evolve beyond this and do it because we want to.

                I’m also not saying that it is bad to be rich or have money, but a human only really needs so much to be happy, and generally happiness just means security, good health, a home, an occupation, family and friends, and not being hungry. A base amount of income is generally required to fulfill most of that, but after a certain point more money is just superfluous.

                  • Yes, forcing people to “do what is right” is less than optimal. Regulation is most appropriate when it prevents exploitation. Exploitation has two negative effects on a society. It first forces the ‘have nots’ to struggle when it wasn’t necesssary, and it also consumes or destroys resources at a rate that is not sustainable in the long run, past generations.

                    No one should ever to have to tell someone that they ‘should’ do something and force them to do it. But if they are a burden on society with their need to have all the wealth, then there needs to be some kind of safeguard to prevent those people from causing their greed from hurting others.

                    A Conservative argument for wealth is that those individuals provide the capital to build infrastructure, monetary investment, jobs, ect. This is very valid, and our society does need individuals that have enough economic security to be able to be able to throw money around just as much capitally as philanthropic. There is nothing wrong with having wealth. Poor or rich are able to exploit others without contributing to society. The important thing is to be active in progressing society to make it more functional and increasing overall happiness.

                    I just hope to change the paradigm that ‘having it all’ is not the definition of success, but success is ‘what can we do as a human species’.

                    • Errrrrrrrr……No.
                      • Regulation is appropriate when a certain standard must be met to apply to everyone equally. The conservative stand is that there are far too many regulations than we actually need, and those are hampering liberty and snowballing bureaucracy, which also increases the cost of government.
                      • Having wealth is a not a burden on society. One person making money doesn’t prevent anyone else from also making money. It doesn’t deny anyone else. That’s like saying one person breathing is denying another person vital oxygen. That is ridiculous. What one person does with their money is really not anyone else’s concern, either, because no one else is entitled to it. The conservative stand is that everyone should be given the same equal footing to go out and make all the money they want, and then do with it as they please. If a person who knows how to make money spends it by creating a business and jobs, or showing other people how to emulate them, then so much the better. Taxes are a known necessary evil, but tax payers are happiest when their confiscated money is wisely-spent.
                      • A person, wealthy or not, who “throws money around” carelessly will not have that money for very long. As the saying goes, “A fool and his money are soon parted.” As you say exploitation happens at many different levels, but when the poor exploit they are taking advantage of the other taxpayers. The conservative stand is that it’s completely understandable for some of the other tax payers to be angry about this. Tax laws in this country are completely upside down, which is a shame as the people who should be elected to correct them never will.
                      • The definition of success is different for each person. Everyone has a different amount of ambition, and different goals and values. We are still a pretty immature species, but “consuming resources past a sustainable rate” is a bit much. The “environment” was altered a lot more in the past than it is being “altered” today. Technological advances are happening at a quickening pace and that trend of improvement will get faster. The conservative stand is: relax.
                      • The truly frightening “future costs” that subsequent generations are going to have to deal with is the enormous debt that has been accumulating for decades. Every administration has increased it, some more than others, but it has almost doubled what it was under the mere 8 years of Obama. That is beyond irresponsible and venturing into criminal.
                      • There will always be greedy people who cling to their money at all costs, and there will always be lazy people who insist on living at someone else’s expense. This is simply human nature, and to get bent out of shape outraged about it is a waste of effort.

                    • ? We are starting to argue in different directions for the same thing. We obviously both feel strong about our own philosophies, but have very different filters on our perspectives.

                      You are correct with your first point, but that was not what I was trying to say. Of course regulation is meant to apply to everyone equally, as is with all laws. And our government is quite bloated with bureaucracy. I was speaking ideally when talking about regulation preventing exploitation. Laws work best when the only people affected are those who break them, but with class disparity, the ‘haves’ have the resources to circumvent those laws, which leaves the ‘have nots’ to pick up the tab with limited resources as they are forced to roll with it, or worse treated unfairly because they are seen as worthless poor trash. I hope you agree with me the about the high percentage lower-class citizens who are in jail for crimes they didn’t commit, or at best did commit but got the highest sentence, compared to any other class. I don’t want to take the time to research numbers for a comment thread.

                      I never said wealth was bad. In fact in my last two posts I distinctly said the opposite. The restriction of resources where they could otherwise be used to make a happy and productive society is bad. Like I said in my last post, those with wealth are the most capable to make that happen, but those who hoard it or exploit others for it are a burden.

                      Of course everyone has a different definition of success, and too many of those definitions are based on a society that says you are only somebody if you have all the toys. When I said ‘consuming at a sustainable rate’, I am not thinking in the short term. You and I are mostly fine in our lifetime. I’m thinking a hundred years from now. When you look at the current debt, that is something we have to deal with ‘right now’, but when it comes to climate change, we are not seeing the OMG moments of it yet and probably won’t for another 30 years. It will be a slow burn. The problem is we’ve already burned so much carbon into the air that there is no way to reverse what is happening 30 or a hundred years down the road. I don’t know why I’m writing this though, I’m predicting we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

                      At least your last point I agree with 100%

                    • @jlschmugge Not sure where your post went, but I don’t think we’re “arguing” for the same things at all. I don’t know about filters, but I suspect we have incompatible philosophies about most things. You said you suspect yourself of being a socialist, and I definitely am not.

                      I don’t think of people as “haves” or “have nots.” Some people do not want to be rich; that doesn’t mean they are missing something. I don’t believe that innocent people automatically go to jail most often when they’re poor. Most people who go to jail are guilty. Our justice system is not perfect, so statistically some are not guilty. Expensive, hot-shot lawyers cannot prevent this from happening. I don’t think wealthy people who hoard their wealth are a burden. I do think climate change is a preposterous scam designed to destroy western industrialized nations because some people in those nations feel guilty about having a better quality of life than others, and/or foreigners are jealous. Carbon is not a pollutant, and neither automatically is carbon dioxide nor methane or anything else that has carbon in it—including you. Perhaps you do not realize that what is now called “climate change” is already a 50 year-old scam.

                      Very few rich people I know consider “toys” the symbol of success. Most of them consider themselves successful by living comfortably but not ostentatiously, loving their family, giving back to the communities in which they live, and being happy about their lives and how hard they work. But, you know what? Middle-class and even poor people can be just as successful in those regards.

                      The reason the public debt is such a problem is exactly because it is not going to be dealt with right now. The can has been kicked down the road for 100 years and it has picked up enough mud and gunk that the can is now the size of the moon. It’s ridiculous, and it’s going to be a problem for our descendants long after “climate change” is forgotten about. It’s called living within one’s means, and we need to start doing it as a society.

                    • There are things we know as humans:

                      -We know the climatic patterns of the past through dendrochronology, ice cores, and geologic means such as studying the layers of rock and their chemical composition.

                      -We know the composition of gasses in the atmosphere.

                      -We know the thermal properties of how these different gasses react at different atmospheric layers.

                      -we know gasses like methane and carbon dioxide not only retain heat, but prevent infrared radiation from being reflected back into space.

                      -We know these gasses, most by far, carbon dioxide, has increased at an un-natural rate in the past 100 or so years when compared to historical climate data recovered by the first point.

                      -We know we have been burning fossil fuels as humans at an unseen rate in the past 100 or so years when compared to human history.

                      -We also have day-to-day weather data from the past hundred years, and can still make a model of temperature changes using historic weather recordings and, again, from data in the first point.

                      -We are able to see that in the last hundred years, the temperature has risen, on average, a degree and a half Celsius.

                      -This rise in temperature matches the thermal properties of adding the same amount of CO2 to the atmosphere that has been recorded in historical data.

                      -We can use statistical models to take current data, and extrapolate that in the next 100 years, at best the climate will rise two degrees C–if we stop EVERYTHING right now–or up to 4 degrees C. There is no reversing the 2 degree rise that we know of, damage has already been done, and it takes 100-1000 years for that carbon to dissipate back to natural levels.

                      -Warming the planet warms the oceans, which has many major effects on the earth’s climate: The thermal properties of water cause it to expand. That is what is going to cause the rise in sea-level. Second to the sun, the ocean is responsible for all weather patterns, and it will be inputting more violent moisture patterns into the air. The addition of more CO2 into the oceans will make it more acidic, throwing off balances sea life is currently adapted to, Melting of sea ice in Greenland has been already changing currents in the Gulf stream by adding fresh water to salt water, changing the viscosity of layers in the ocean the Gulf stream flows through.

                      This stuff is not just all made up to press an agenda, not at least by scientists and educators. It has been discovered by people who try their darnedest to not add any bias, document and publish what they are doing so that it can be repeatable by anyone, and have other specialists, who also gave their lives to studying their specialty, double check their work until any bias and errors are eliminated as much as possible. And best of all, if their data was wrong or disproved by someone else, they concede and work with the better data, because it is a better model for the real world.

                      This data is unfortunately misused by Politicians and public figures to push their agenda. Liberals love it because it gives them a reason to push regulation. Conservatives deny it, because if they don’t, it means they have to concede to allowing regulation to control it. Regardless of political agenda, climate change is happening and doesn’t care about who says what. And in the mean time, we are a bickering little infant species sitting on our hands and holding our breath because we are arguing about who is right.

                    • Actually, we don’t. Tree rings and ice cited give different temperature histories during periods of overlap. Michael Mann’s infamous “Nature Trick” was created to conceal this inconvenient truth.

                      And you don’t have to be a climate specialist to recognize that precipitation levels affect both metrics, not just temperature. Since we have no record of precipitation that extends into the distant past, it’s impossible to separate the effects of the two. Yet alarmists pretend that they can ignore this.

                      As Mark Twain observed, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.

                    • You are correct on tree rings vs temperature.I have taken forestry in college, spent a semester writing a paper on climate-induced habitat change in forest trees, and am currently counting tree rings for a researcher. Tree rings are VERY variable to different regions, species, and racial variants of the same species, and precipitation. But if you know exactly how one specific racial variant of a tree species grows in one spot, those rings will be nearly identical as the next tree in that spot (minus competition factors based on stand density), and you can pretty much sniff out variables based on anything else. Yes, trees primarily respond to moisture for their growth, but it is not entirely unaffected by temperature, especially when there is a drought, or a rise in the yearly average, which puts more stress on a tree to retain the moisture it needs to stay alive. But yes, it is hard to pull that out apart from the precipitation factor. Still, they do give you an indicator of climate patterns.

                      What the cores mostly give us is the composition of the atmosphere. All those little air bubbles trapped in the ice is air thousands of years old from the atmosphere when it snowed. The cores mostly show us the change in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses. They are even recording the amount of carbon dioxide in the air as we speak. We know there has been a big change recently compared to natural fluctuations, we know exactly how much of a change, and since chemists on this planet know the thermal properties of those gasses, and know the volume and proportion of them in the atmosphere, they can calculate how well the atmosphere is able to retain temperature based on that composition.

                      And yes, statistics can be horribly abused to the unbeknownst to trick them. Specific samples or methods can be gathered to bias statistics in a certain direction. This is why people spend 8 years getting a Phd to learn how NOT to do that, as it is scientifically unethical, and you will generally loose all credibility as a scientist if you are giving everyone bad data. Garbage in garbage out. No one in the scientific community wants that.

                    • The time frame covered by ice core data is a geological blink of the eye, my friend. We must go much deeper into the past in order to talk meaningfully about what “normal” means. Calcium carbonate deposits suggest atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been significantly higher through most of earth’s history than today, including epochs when it was much colder than it is now.

                    • You are right. Before cyanobacteria, there was no oxygen, just carbon dioxide (and nitrogen, argon, helium….). Then all of a sudden there was a surplus of oxygen. Then non-photosynthetic organisms started eating those producers and or started balancing out. Still the amount of carbon on and above the earth’s surface was rich for millions of years, much higher than it is now. What happened to it all? Most of it was combined with the shells of microscopic sea creatures to turn into that calcium carbonate. Another great portion of that was photosynthesized, buried under layers of more dead plants, plus the animals that ate them, and turned into coal and oil. Now what have we been doing as humans in the last 100 years? The same 100 years that CO2 levels have mysteriously risen? We’ve been taking all that hydrocarbon stored from millions of years of decomposition and burning it, which turns hydrocarbons into two things: water and CO2. So subtracting the majority of carbon locked up in calcium carbonate over millions of years, whatever is left after that stored for millions of years as fossil fuels, we are now dumping into the atmosphere in one hundred thousandth of a percent of the time it took to accumulate.

                    • That is a very elegant and well-rationalized set of points.

                      The issue facing all skeptics isn’t whether you believe it to be all true and all happening. It’s about where does the science stop and the hyperbole begin?

                      You will never convince me the sky is falling. It’s already been yelled too many times in the past. Others, no matter their good intentions, have thrown things into the air and had them rain down on us to try and convince us the sky is falling. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

                      I believe that cause and effect can be scientifically proved, demonstrated, and repeated. But I no longer have any reason to trust any data plugged into those theories. You can show me graphs showing water vapor and CO₂ for the last 500,000 years, but I will remain skeptical not that those things can be measured that long ago, but that the measurements on the graph are actually honest and true. I appreciate that it is extremely easy to manipulate data to bias it to a particular conclusion and that it is extremely hard to keep that a secret. The secret’s been out.

                      It’s pretty difficult to prove or convince someone of something when all of the supporting data is considered untrustworthy.

                    • Such is the sad truth. Too many people crying wolf, until of course the wolf finally comes and it’s too late, and nobody is listening anymore.

                    • The hysteria does not affect me, because to me it is an old political pawn game. Some on both sides are desperate to have their way—desperate enough to immorally skew research and sway public opinion. Hysteria is how politics has always worked, and yes, on both sides. With the fate of of the planet allegedly on the line it sounds so grave and serious, but do not be taken in by that on face value alone.

                      I know you don’t have much hope for the future the way things are going right, but trust me, it will be okay. Even if the worst happens, humanity will survive and the Earth will continue and evolve.

                      Our biggest asset is our potential for improving our way of life is constantly growing and is even accelerating. We really will eventually cure cancer. We will control the weather. We will end famine and disease and poverty. We will find better energy sources than fossil fuels and fission. These may not happen in my or your lifetimes, but they will happen.

                    • Well said. This I can agree on. I do have hope for the long long future. I’ve watched way to much Next Generation in my youth that I cannot-not hope we get there at some point. It’s the step back after the two steps forward that gets me frustrated and has me asking “why” to humanity. “What did you do now, is this your mess? “

                    • And now, maybe you can appreciate the dilemma that climate skeptics see: two steps forward—the industrial revolution, the microchip revolution—and one step back (proposed): throwing most of that away to revert to the middle ages because the Earth MIGHT warm 2° in the next 200 years. And it’s allegedly most (if not all) our fault. Or something.

                      Compound that proposal with the die-hards that propose it not living what they preach. That leaves me, always seeking-out the simplest meaning/solution/rationale, to believe that it’s political and not environmental.

                      The side effect of all of these proposals is that our advances in technology slow down. Great horrors have been done to the environment in the past, and some of those are still to be resolved. (I speak of things like mercury and lead contamination and other industrial waste sites, industrial ocean and river pollution [I’m looking at you, China!], not to mention Chernobyl and Fukushima.) Newer technologies are the promise of addressing those problems. But if we slow down our pursuit of technological advancement, then those kinds of solutions get pushed further and further down the line.

                      It could almost be compared to the wimpy reactionary who has a broken bone but can’t handle the pain of setting it and mending. But now I’m babbling. I just hope I’ve conveyed where I’m coming from.

                    • It’s not just “less than optimal”, it’s a criminal violation of peoples’ rights. Who’s to say what is “right”? You? Me? Unless we all agree, American notions of liberty dictate that each of us must be left to make our own choices unless our actions actively prevent others from making their own choices. For instance, theft, assault & murder usurp the rights of the victim and we largely agree that they should be discouraged. But nobody, regardless of how needy they may be, have a RIGHT to the fruits of others’ labor. Instead, we all have a RESPONSIBILITY to provide for ourselves and our families. Failing to do so when we are able to is anti-social behavior.

                    • In a perfect society everyone would be responsible for themselves and their families within their means.

                      We do not live in a perfect society, unfortunately. Such a thing does not exist. The reason capitalism has been so successful, though, is because it allows anyone to be empowered to up their lot in life if they want to.

                    • Again, I find no fault in the argument in favor of Liberty. It may be imperfect but it beats everything else we’ve tried. Especially collectivism. Have you seen “The Commanding Heights”? I suspect you’d appreciate it.

                    • You’ve just identified one of the widening rifts in our society. “Unless we all agree”. Yes it is a democracy and we vote on what rights people have, or vote people into office that make those decisions. I am in the camp that as a society we pool our resources, together, willingly, as a society, because we want to see it thrive. I am less concerned with those who feel they have a “right to the fruits of the others labor” than those who don’t, but still benefit from those fruits, including my own, to not live in squalor. I WANT to pay more taxes, (of course along with my fellow citizens, it wouldn’t work otherwise), but I also hope those taxes are appropriated to build a better society, which our squabbling electorate has kinda lost a hold of and hasn’t really been happening. There are many citizens that work in government because they believe it is their social duty, and it is difficult when every new elected official passes or changes another law that makes everybody have to start over all over again. I totally agree with conservatives that our government is bloated and needs a serious overhaul for efficiency. I’ve worked in government, and it takes forever to get anything done because there is a form to make sure every “i” is dotted, then a second set of forms for the “t’s”. That’s the cost of being accountable to the public and supposedly transparent, but we wouldn’t be able to call it a democracy otherwise.

                      If you are in the camp that only sees the responsibility to yourself and your family, then it follows anything beyond that is not your concern. To me that is anti-social. That tribalism is what causes humans to build walls and fight over resources. We are trying to make “our” tribe better and increase their chance of survival at the expense of other tribes that are trying to do the same. That’s what we as humans are bred to do, but as humans we are capable of so much more than that. We need to look beyond what we are familiar with and identify with every single human as ourselves, good, bad, rich, poor, speaks another language or not. It is all one tribe.

                      Unfortunately with my thinking it is not realistic, because it only works if everyone thinks that way, which obviously is not the case. Like Jovet above said, “There will always be greedy people who cling to their money at all costs, and there will always be lazy people who insist on living at someone else’s expense. This is simply human nature, and to get bent out of shape outraged about it is a waste of effort.” It is utopian, but I strive for it, and hope our species can get there one day, even if it is not in my lifetime I too do not think people should be forced to do what is right. I want people to do it voluntarily. Regulation ‘shouldn’t’ have to exist, because what would be the point if we all worked selflessly as members of a society and doing it anyway because it is the normal thing to do.

                      Yes I’m a dreamer, but I’m tired of hate, tired of seeing people hurt at others’ expense, tired of seeing humans consume their resources at an inefficient rate, tired that we form mobs based on fear, tired that cultures hold onto anger and refuse to see eye-to-eye, and cannot see that everyone is trying to survive no more or less than anyone else. I am tired of seeing pain and know it doesn’t have to be that way. I’m done here. Say whatever selfish thing you are going to say. We are not changing eachother’s minds.

                    • I am a dreamer too. I dream of a world where we can and want to take care of the needy (those who can’t take care of themselves), where there is no famine, no major disease, no war, no racism or prejudice, and where people can respect each other even if they disagree. The whole point of the Declaration of Independence—one of the most profound documents ever written by man—is that it plainly states that freedom of man is required for such a world to take shape. It is the government’s job to serve the people, not itself. A king automatically serves his own best interests first, not his people’s.
                      Socialism is not the answer. Communism is not the answer. Dictators are not the answer. Theocracy and oligarchy are not the answer. Only an empowered people can shape their own destiny.

                      The failure of our country now is that people are not taught these principles like they used to be. A vast majority of the populace is ignorant of the strife that spawned this country and its moral center. Most of the founders did not want slavery…they knew it is wrong and 180° out of phase with their philosophy… but they also had to have some pro-slavery support in order for this country to even happen. It took a few years, but slavery was abolished. Hundreds of thousands of people have died for the cushy lives we enjoy today. How many of their names do you know?

                      As I said, human nature is what it is. The rotten state of our indoctrinated government is a prime example of that. The selfish people have voted themselves into the treasury. Votes are bought with pork projects and entitlement programs. I fear it’s too late for us, as a nation, to reverse course…but I would love to be proved wrong. And so I keep dreaming, just like you. I am not a Republican, I am not a Democrat, I am not even a Libertarian. I am a Constitutionalist and I believe the principles of the founding fathers are just as important today as they were 240 years ago. The United States has the power to do far more good in the world than harm, but we have to get back to basics if we’re going to survive at all.

                    • One more point… Hate and fear are natural responses to force. Liberals hate the religious right because they wish to force their beliefs on others. Is it not natural for those who don’t share the views of liberals to respond the same way when they try to force their beliefs on them? In my ideal society there would be no coercion except to protect personal safety and property rights. I abhor attempts by ANYONE, regardless of their claims of moral superiority, to impose their will on others. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all thought they were doing the right thing. If history teaches us anything, it’s that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

                    • May I recommend that you find a copy of “The Skeptical Environmentalist “? The Malthusian hypothesis has looking been discredited, but still there are those who use it to control out behavior. My point of view results from the high value I place on individual freedom that I will not willingly surrender on the basis of unsupported claims of impending doom. The real threat lies in those who purport to”help” us but are really only interested in helping themselves by controlling us.

                      I’m a Libertarian by nature, a social liberal and a fiscal conservative with a healthy wariness of Greeks bearing gifts. You may get a sense of what I mean by watching this:
                      https://youtu.be/SWmSicVPDG8

                    • I am quite aware of this human behavior, it generally concerns me as well. People need to think for themselves. Watching these elections in the US is frightening tish-show of peer-based behavior.

                      Refer to the Milgram test. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

                      It also worries me that Humans get their science from reality shows, even if it is based on science.

                      You are correct that some politicians will use climate change to try and control us, but that doesn’t mean climate change isn’t happening. It is also unfortunate that it is making mistrustful of science. Climate also isn’t “impending doom” as some people will have you think, but it will incur changes that we will have to deal with as a species. Never trust ANYIONE using fear to get you to do what they want. Fear of terriorism is another way they get people to vote. Our country is horrible with giving into fear, liberal or conservative. Trust facts. but make sure they are facts. With the internet nowadays that is a challenge. I feel we can agree on this one.

                      See my post to Jovet above about climate change. I feel we might not agree on that one, but humor me to educate yourself with real scientific journals.

                    • My post disappeared… I think if you edit it too much.

                      I am with you on this human behavior, and it concerns me. Just look at the US presidential elections. Those frighten me how ridiculous they are. People need to think for themselves.

                      Reference the Milgram experiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

                      I also worry when people get their science from reality shows. 😉

                      Yes, may politicians do use fear to get us to believe what they want, including the “impending doom” of climate change, but that does not mean it isn’t happening. It is also not an “impending doom” either rather than a major inconvenience we definitely will have to deal with. It is unfortunate that this fear-mongering has made people distrustful of science.

                      We should never trust ANYONE that uses fear to goad us. This happens with climate change, terrorism, or even the latest fad of distrusting the government (I’ve worked in government, please realize that the ‘lying’ electorate is actually only a fraction of government compared to the thousands of well-intentioned civilian employees that believe in public service).

                      On climate change, please see my post(s) above to Jovet. We might not agree, but those are the facts I know.

                • I don’t disagree with your notion that we should help one another. The problem comes, my friend, when we are compelled by the State to “help” people against our will.

                  I donated $3,700 to charity last year, as well as a great deal of my time. It’s highly likely that I also paid more in federal taxes last year than you earned. I’m nearly 60, and in my prime earning years.

                  I “hoard” money for retirement so I don’t have to live in poverty when I’m unable to work. I guess that makes me a bad person in your eyes. But the money I save finances mortgages and other activities that benefit our economy; it doesn’t just sit there. Most people consider this to be prudent, responsible and civic-minded. I don’t want to be a burden on my neighbors when I retire. This will be a challenge, considering that inflation has increased prices by over 100% in my lifetime. I paid $2 for a Hershey Bar with Almonds the other day; I paid $0.05 for the same size bar when I was a child, and have little doubt this will continue as long as a highly politicized Federal Reserve deliberate fosters inflation.

                  Have you ever considered what entitles you or anyone else to decide how much money is “enough” for someone else to have? Or that recipients of government hand-outs “provide nothing of worth to others” (they can’t even provide their own needs, much less anything of worth to others)?

                  The problem with State-coerced “giving” is that it moves discretion regarding who is a deserving recipient from the giver to politicians who dole out rewards to buy votes. I donate money to causes and individuals that I believe deserve my support, and that’s how it ought to be. If you want to give to other groups or individuals, that’s fine with me. But it’s wrong for me to try to force you to do what I think is right, and vice-versa.

                  • It sounds like you are one of the good ones. Saving is not hoarding, and does not involve exploitation. I just wish more people like you do things for society automatically and not have to be forced. That’s all. It’s wishful thinking, I know, but is got to start somewhere.

                    • If you don’t like how other people behave, then lead by example and show them how it is done.

        • As an American myself, I hope more of the rest of the world keeps calling us idiots. Maybe my fellow citizens will finally start to get it, or not. One thing Americans are really good at is being stubborn when they want to believe something.

      • Amen…. i have long said it is pure arrogance by the liberals to think they can affect anything that God has made….and no I am not a religious man. the earth and climate will do as it pleases regardless of how much we pay in taxes to “combat” it……the planet always goes through long cycles of warming and cooling and as you have stated it has nothing to do with us.

        • There is no such thing as a “climate cycle” since that term implies a regular frequency of recurrence. Weather shifts in phases, from ice-age to non-ice-age per the Earth’s complex and pseudo-random relationship with its sun. One year could be the hottest on record and the next could be the coldest. We’re at the sun’s whim, and we owe everything to it besides the soil we stand on.

          • thanks for correcting me. Obviously my explanation was a bit rudimentary, but I try. Bottom line, I think we can both agree that we have control over any of it. thanks Jovet and have a good night (morning)..

          • Actually, there are numerous well-understood natural cycles that change climate, including the precession of the earth’s axis, changes in axial tilt and sun spot cycles, to name a few. All are documented and, unlike climate alarmist nonsense, can be used to make accurate predictions about climate changes.

            • Sure, the seasons come and go predictably as the Earth goes around the sun, and the tilt of the Earth slowly rotates around, and we can recognize those cycles. But weather and the resulting climate are not just the result of these influences. The sun (whose once-thought understood sunspot cycle has gone weird) is the biggest factor on our weather, and its subtle mechanics of influence are still chaotic and random to us.

              • Even though I hesitate to list Wikipedia as a source in any political discussion (which is what the “Climate Change” discussion really is), there’s some useful information at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_oscillation.

                I agree whole-heartedly with your post’s implicit observation that the biggest problem with any scientific discussion of climate is that we simply haven’t been watching long enough to know what “normal” is.

                • I’ll expound on that and say it’s not even a matter of watching long enough. It’s that there are millions of variables and trillions of correlations and we’re nowhere near sophisticated enough to be able to rationalize it, let alone collect it or analyze it to a cohesive output. As I said, the sun is random and chaotic to us. We can see and recognize some obvious cycles (sunspots, eclipses) but beyond that we’re pretty inept.

      • Cherries, your assertion regarding volcanoes is completely false. A recent U.S. Geological Survey indicated that all volcanic activity emits approximately 250-450 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. That pales in comparison to human industrial activity. We produce nearly 40 billion tons. That means volcanic activity accounts for approximately one percent of additional carbon dioxide compared to humans. One percent.

        Please do not be enamored with natural scale just because it seems impressive to you. Over seven billion human beings can very well impact the environment and your claims are based on misinformation and fear. No wonder the U.S. ranks 23rd in science education.

        • And are you proposing that 7 billion people live in industrialized nations?
          And carbon emissions are more than just carbon dioxide. Quite a few compounds emitted by volcanoes have carbon in them, not just CO2. Does your USGS study talk about that? Link?

          • No, not all seven billion people live in industrialized nations. They’re contribution is deforestation and poor land use practices, which release significantly large amounts of carbon oxide and methane. Links for volcanic activity below.

            http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
            http://news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/volcanoes-co2-people-emissions-climate-110627.htm
            https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
            https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70016080

            • Deforestation is not as a big a problem as eco-nazis claim. See “The Skeptical Environmentalist” for in depth documentation.

              Furthermore, only about 3% of earth’s land mass is urbanized.

              Most Environmentalist claims are outright lies based on manufactured “facts”. The truth is that the earth and ALL of its inhabitants are better off today than in the past from a health and income perspective, and trend lines show continued improvement into the foreseeable future without drastic changes in any area of life.

              • Ah yes, a nearly twenty year-old publication that’s largely been considered scientifically dishonest due to the author’s lack of expertise. That’s not a compelling reference. Unless you have training in the field of climatology, I can only weigh your assertions accordingly. Yes, a good portion of the earth’s inhabitants are better off due to advances in medicine and technology. That in no way discounts the potential adverse effects of climate change. I invite you conduct research beyond this publication.

                As for deforestation, it can have an impact:

                “Industries such as coal, gas, and oil exploration are synonymous in the public mind with high greenhouse gas emissions, but not many people know that the animal agriculture industry is also a leading generator of methane. The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has estimated that this industry contributes 14.5 percent to the world’s total greenhouse gas footprint, while other groups such as The Worldwatch Institute have found that the true figure could be as high as 51 percent. At the same time, this industry’s widespread clearance of forested land around the globe has driven countless native species to the brink of extinction. Around 70 percent of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest has occurred in order to make way for commercial cattle ranches.”

                  • I have not read his book, but reviews of his work do compliment his expertise in statistical analysis. However, when considering the scope of the global warming phenomenon, I have to consider other sources and an overwhelming majority of scientists support the idea of man-made climate change. I’m not one given to conspiracy theory or any other charges of “manufactured” facts to assuage my uncertainty. And honestly, with an avatar of President Obama behind bars, it’s hard to take you seriously. Your opinions are politically motivated and your assertions compromised.

                    • Actually, an overwhelming majority of scientists do NOT support the idea of man-made climate change. The 97.3% claim is a bald-faced lie, and has been thoroughly debunked. The fact that climate alarmists still trot it out is evidence of how little support the data provides for their position. Check out this peer-reviewed paper for details: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/.

                      You see, we don’t VOTE on scientific truth; it’s either proven by analyzing the data, or it isn’t. Do you really imagine if there were indisputable evidence of the man-made global warming claim that it wouldn’t be made public? The data they CLAIM supports it was deleted to avoid disclosure under a FOIA request by the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University.

                      I have a firm personal policy against believing anyone who consistently lies to me. You should consider joining me.

                      Regarding the avatar, even climate alarmists should be in favor of putting Obama in prison for his serial offenses against the Constitution. After all, one day there will be a Republican president who will be tempted to violate the law in the same way for different purposes. And when that happens, I’ll advocate jailing him or her too.

              • You claim:

                Most Environmentalist claims are outright lies based on manufactured “facts”.

                How do you know this? Can you back that up with some evidence? And do define and explain your understanding of what constitutes evidence and how something (data, facts, information, concrete objects) are promoted to become evidence.

                More claims from you:

                The truth is that the earth and ALL of its inhabitants are better off today than in the past from a health and income perspective, and trend lines show continued improvement into the foreseeable future without drastic changes in any area of life.

                How do you know this? Can you back that up with some evidence?
                Or is this a case of: you accept assertion without question and expect others to do the same?

                • I read. In this case, I read “The Skeptical Environmentalist”, which presents a statistical analysis of data published by governments and NGOs across the globe. This analysis shows that environmental groups distort reality to generate emotional support for their cause, and often knowingly lie. These are the acts of a political movement that seeks to gain power and prestige, not the acts of humble servants of the people who merely want to do the right thing.

                  I suggest that anyone who’s interested in the dynamics of political propaganda in the modern world read this book, and then consider in how many other areas of life they’re being misled for someone else’s benefit.

                    • Sure I did. I told you to read something that doesn’t simply confirm your misconceptions.

                    • You are now being a liar.

                      Your command is not an answer, it is a request to suspend my disbelief in your pseudo science. I asked you back up your claims with scientific sources, you chose not to do it.

                      I’ll give you as many opportunities to demonstrate your denial as you would like. One should have been sufficient, but you’re obviously a very slow learner.

                      Now, can you answer my questions?

                    • 1. It’s not a sport, and alarmist clowns should keep that in mind since their proposals will harm hundreds of millions of real human beings in order to line the pockets of a few billionaires.

                      2.I don’t think there are two sides; what you believe is a laughable parody of science and doesn’t count at all in a scientific sense. It’s 100% political.

                    • You contradicted yourself. Seems like you can’t decide.
                      The two sides, if you insist, is your pseudo-scientists vs accepted scientific knowledge.
                      But thank you for admitting that you refuse to debate the science, you underscored my point that there is a very strong correlation between global warming denial and belief in Laissez-Faire Capitalism. I for one do not believe that objective scientific facts depend on subjective political beliefs. Why do you?

                      Your two points makes no sense, I don’t understand what you’re saying. People say lots of things, and there’s no legal requirement to be a scientist to say them or even to speak the truth. Nor are scientists required to debunk every false argument; science is not a sport where one side wins by default if the other side doesn’t show up. Scientists are frequently presented with a conundrum: ignore pseudoscientific claims and risk being perceived as unable to refute them, or thoroughly debunk them and risk granting a veneer of legitimacy to an illegitimate position. This is quite common thanks in part to a news media that promotes controversy by assuming every issue always has two equal sides. Evolution and climate change deniers know this very well. It’s why they constantly challenge real scientists to public debates. The public does not realize that this is not how scientific issues are resolved. They are resolved, over time, through the pages of refereed journals and conference proceedings. They exploit this public misconception this to the hilt because their goal is not to change the scientific consensus (which they cannot do, thanks to the checks and balances of the scientific method) but to influence public opinion (of which scientists form a tiny minority). That in turn warps public policy in their favor, which is their ultimate goal. That’s why we’ve long had state legislators trying to ban the teaching of evolution and promoting creationism or “intelligent design”. And now some are trying to ban the teaching of mainstream climate science.

                      Become a credentialed and published climate scientist and your opinion about what is proper climate science will actually be worth considering. Until then, you’re just another of the many people who deny climate science because they don’t like its political and economic implications. If you were to say instead “Yeah, we’re warming the climate but I just don’t give a damn”, I’d disagree but at least I’d respect you for your opinion. But denying the science itself so you don’t have to admit your greed is just plain dishonest. I’m glad you’re doing something to reduce CO2 emissions, but the real answer will come from carbon-free (or at least very low carbon) sources. That includes wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and yes, nuclear. That’s what really mystifies me about climate change deniers. They all hold strongly right-wing and libertarian political views (I have yet to see an exception), and should therefore favor nuclear power just to annoy the liberals. But instead they deny the science and look ridiculous. Why?

                  • It has been found that the book employed scientific dishonesty. You need to read up on the pseudo science that you read.

                    There is a well known phenomenon called crank magnetism; cranks are attracted to cranky ideas just like magnets.
                    Is there a crank theory that you do not believe in?

                    • Now you want the conversation to be as meaningless as possible, to hide your vacuum of knowledge, to conceal your intellectual incapacity. You just gave away your exist strategy, your plan to admit how your reasoning failed.

                  • “The Skeptical Environmentalist” is a well know pseudo science fiction.

                    Most people would stop there and not read or adopt the crank theories. But not you.

                    That’s because you are in denial.

                    You are in the first stage of accepting scientific knowledge (anthropogenic climate change). The stages are:

                    1) Denial: You deny the science due to your ignorance of science, its method and your absurd greed.

                    2) Anger: It contradicts some scripture or your belief (your crank theories)

                    3) Acceptance: You always knew it was so, that ACC was not false.

                    Before you try and understand this, let me explain to you more detail regarding stage 1: denial.

                    Your denial will always take on 3 basic logical fallacies:

                    1.1. Appeal to authority.

                    You will always cite some scientific expert that claims anthropogenic climate change is false. You will never point to what the scientific community says, or what the leading scientific theories are, or point to peer review journals.

                    1.2. Appeal on consequences

                    You will also state how bad it will be if we accept the science and act. This is merely your outcry to the public and looking for support, hoping that you can spread your ignorance to them, and instill unsupported fear, rather than focusing on the science and trying to falsify it.

                    1.3. Circular Reasoning

                    You will offer one canard (false claim) after the other. When we rebut the first, you will not acknowledge that, you will just play the next canard. On and on we go, hey.

                    I can’t change you, only you can do that. All I can do is explain the facts and the stages of denial/acceptance you are in. It’s your job to understand it; I can’t do your homework for you.

                    What makes you think this is sport where there are 2 sides of equal authority? When I hear rubbish such as what you are preaching then I understand the conundrum: 1) Do I engage and debunk every single false claims from you? The risk with that is that it could be perceived that there is some legitimacy in his claims and that it’s worth my time. 2) Do I not engage to debunk every single false claim from you? The risk with that is that it could suggest that your claims can’t be debunked and is therefore not false. And here is the thing; scientists are also not required to debunk every false argument; science is not a sport where one side wins by default if the other side doesn’t show up. This is quite common thanks in part to people like you and news media that promotes controversy by assuming every issue always has two equal sides. I suspect people like you know this very well. It’s why they constantly challenge scientists to public debates. The public does not realize that this is not how scientific issues are resolved. They are resolved, over time, through the pages of refereed journals and conference proceedings. You will exploit this public misconception to the max because your goal is not to change the scientific consensus (which you cannot do, thanks to the scientific method) but to influence public opinion (of which scientists form a tiny minority). That in turn warps public policy in your favor, which is your ultimate goal. That’s why people like you are trying to ban the teaching of mainstream climate science.

                    How do you get yourself to stage 2: Anger?

                    Pathetic.

                  • I’m not interested in debunking your canards, because you will just play the next one without acknowledging it was refuted. That is too easy to do, and it will waste both our time. All that will do is change your label from climate misinformer to climate denier. Do you honestly want to increase entropy that much just to change labels? You can rather just supply your label now without decreasing useful energy, ok?

                    I’m after a challenge, and that is to help you accept scientific knowledge. Helping you move through the stages of acceptance: stage 1 (denial) to stage 2 (anger), and then to stage 3 (acceptance).

                    This will be hard work . You need to be willing to participate, promise that you will be honest, attentive and do your homework.

                    Deal?

        • The main reason the U.S. ranks 23rd in science education is that unionized leftist teachers force feed children liberal drivel. My kids were taught to “guess” the answers to math problems instead of solving then analytically, and tests were multiple choice to make heading easier. Common Core math is even worse.

          The secondary reason the US education system works so poorly is classroom disruption by undisciplined kids. My kids told us how entire class sessions were wasted when kids who should have been removed from the classroom prevented any teaching from occurring.

          The third problem is that most of our teachers come from the bottom 2/3 of their high school classes. (http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/Closing_the_talent_gap.pdf) Apparently some people really believe “those who can’t do, teach”.

      • This movie is just an attempt to lobby for fewer environmental regulations, when it is very clear that humans are very capable of harming the environment. If we can #$&^* the water for an entire city and region, its pretty safe to say we can #$&^* up other things too. Even if climate change theories aren’t entirely accurate, it is really not a good idea to ENCOURAGE people to be irresponsible by suggesting to them that it won’t have any effect.

        • There should be fewer environmental regulations, but there should also be better environmental initiative. People in Climate Comas who scream the sky (over every capitalist, free market, industrialized nation) is falling and the Earth is doomed don’t actually help make improvements to the way we sometimes mistreat the environment. The Dustbowl was caused environmental recklessness. Humans caused that! Did it end the world? No. Did anyone predict it would? No—we weren’t so stupid and gullible at that time.

          • Ummm, most observers agree drought plated a significant role in the Dust Bowl. And environmentalists played no role in correcting agricultural practices that made it worse. One man in the USDA figured it out by practicing real science and freely distributing his data and findings, in sharp contrast to the practices of climate alarmists who conceal their data and methods.

            • Nonsense. It is perfectly appropriate when objective of the movie is to reveal climate alarmists’ duplicity.

              Yeah, yeah, now you’re going to tell me objective reality is an illusion, etc, etc…. the standard liberal drivel when reality collides with your pipe dreams. The problem is that the course of action alarmists purpose will harm hundreds of millions of real human beings, not some abstraction. Worst of all, alarmists are the willing tools of the global corporations they whine about when they’re not using daddy’s credit card to buy aragula at Whole Foods or driving the Beamer to a protest against fossil fuels.

              • I wasn’t going to tell you any of those things. I’m neither a “climate alarmist,” as you call them, or a disbeliever. Frankly, I don’t believe anyone knows the whole truth and I think it’s silly to argue that anyone does.

                But, continue going on thinking what you want to think. I certainly don’t want to interfere with that. I think that both groups, those trying to instill panic over the possibility of climate change, and those denying it could possibly be a thing are dangerous groups. Whatever happened to level-headed thinking?

                It is just as irresponsible for somebody that hasn’t even done research into whether or not climate change may be possible to make a movie telling people it’s horse*(&$, as it is for scientists to jump to conclusions and tell everybody to panic and we’re all gonna die because climate change.

                Both of these things are bad, and hopefully one day you’ll see that.

      • 100%. Not to mention the fact that the entire plant kingdom requires carbon dioxide in order to exist! The animal kingdom and the plant kingdom are in a symbiotic relationship (which anyone who studied biology 101 should know). We exhale carbon dioxide which the plants inhale and plants exhale oxygen which we inhale. Wow, who knew?!! So, yeah, the more people there are exhaling carbon dioxide, the more carbon dioxide there is. Well, until the plants inhale it. So hold on, that means that if all of us evil human beings, especially white males, didn’t exhale carbon dioxide, the plant kingdom would, let me think about this for a minute . . . . cease to exist. So the whole carbon dioxide poisoning thing is an argument that only a completely uninformed, uneducated moron would buy. It is beyond comprehension to me that people can be so stupid. What are they teaching in the schools these days? Seriously.

      • And? Does that somehow give him some greater degree of credibility regarding Climate Science? Or anything for that matter? I have worked professionally with many Mechanical Engineers over the years and believe me, that is not a boon to his credibility.

          • Credentials are meaningless anymore… information is readily available to everyone, anyone can educate themselves and develop informed opinions. The problem is, most people don’t and then mistakenly rely on the Credentialed experts who have sold out to forces with agendas…

          • I think his “climatologist” credentials are not even worth discussing.

            He styles himself “The Science Guy” and leads people to believe he is a bonafide scientist, but he is not. That is disingenuous right there. He’s just an actor and a presenter (e.g. a mouth). He didn’t need a Mechanical Engineering degree to do that.

        • The point is that Nye passes himself off as a scientist and climate braniac when he is not. He studied engineering, and while it may not be out of his reach to grasp concepts like biochemistry and meteorology and atmospheric chemistry, it’s very much a stretch to give him any credit for being an expert in these fields.

          • Then we agree. I find it is usually only people who have absolutely no scientific background or understanding who make such claims “well he is a Mechanical Engineer” as if that carries some weight, because they have no basis themselves to discern otherwise.

          • I’ll add that an engineer and a scientist are two entirely different things. An engineer takes already established scientific principles and applies them to things like technology. A scientist is a person who works with science theory to either prove or disprove it which is the process that establishes those scientific principles that engineers use. Bill Nye is not a scientist.

            • I see you did not notice that I specifically worded my comment to shore it against this criticism.

              Understanding it is one thing. He’s completely entitled to his own opinions, however wrong they may be. Preaching those opinions and passing those opinions off as expert testimony is quite another thing!

        • Not to defend Nye, because I think he’s nuts… but I never got a science or engineering degree and over 20+ years I have learned enough in my field (IT) to keep up with any engineer. The engineers that work for me are surprised daily…

          If you are smart, you can read about thermodynamics, meteorology, astrophysics, and learn all about the factors that impact our weather and climate and form informed opinions… the problem for Nye is, he hasn’t.

        • I certainly gives him more credibility than the guy whose only degree is in journalism; Not even meteorology.

          Jones calling Nye a pretender is rich, considering Jones is the one who is completely full of it.

      • Yeah, I read that years ago. But apparently in his leftist mind, that degree (which is likely largely unused) qualifies him to speak on the subject of climate. I’d say he should go back to making kiddie TV, but since he knows nothing about real science, I can’t advocate that since the schools won’t correct the BS he teaches them.

      • Agree 100%. I didn’t mean that I believe CO2 is pollution, it is idiotic to say CO2 is pollution when it is a critical nutrient for plants upon which animal life depends. It has been shown that plants grow larger and faster and produce more when CO2 levels are higher.

        You are 100% correct in evaluating leftists as the pollution. This climate change nonsense is nothing more than fear mongering so that people will vote in leftist that will control their lives and confiscate their meager wages in higher and higher taxes – all for our benefit. (sheesh).

    • American Meteorological Society

      “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.”

      Global Warming: The Weather Channel Position Statement

      More than a century’s worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists.

        • These are the credentials used by Mr. John Coleman. Both the Weather Channel and the American Meteorological Society are in agreement that humans are driving the current warming.

          Thousands of published papers offer a lot more than conjecture.

            • Showing the greenhouse effect of co2 is a simple and repeatable lab experiment. Identify co2 from burning fossil fuels compared to natural occurring co2 is possible because of the makeup of carbon-14. It’s proven that humans have almost doubled the amount of atmospheric CO2. It’s proven that the temperature has increased in proportion to the amount of CO2 humans have added.

              • Do you know what those lab experiments have actually shown? Do you know how much CO₂ Mars has? Do you know what its surface temperature is like?

                CO₂ has doubled?? HA! Give me a break.

                Temperature changes cannot be verified because the temperature data is not reliable. What data hasn’t been outright tampered with is still suspect from the start because it’s not established in a scientifically-neutral ethos. You can’t put weather stations next to heat sources and expect accurate temperature data.

                • Are you denying the greenhouse effect of CO2? Yes, I know what the experiments show, that’s why I believe the science.

                  280 ppm for millions of years and about 400 ppm now. That’s an increase of 70%.

                  What you call tampering are adjustments that account for what you say are temperature stations near heat sources. If a tree that was blocking the sun gets cut down then the temperature is going to go way up. So far, the net effect of adjustments has brought down the amount of warming compared to if no adjustments had been made.

                  • CO₂ is capable of imparting a greenhouse effect. But it is pretty feeble compared to other gasses, and it only plays a role with limited wavelengths of thermal energy.

                    The data I’ve seen has put CO₂ levels rising and falling periodically every 100,000 years or so, with peaks in the 300ppm range. 300ppm to 380ppm is not a 100% increase, or even a 70% increase.

                    The temperature stations have no business being near heat sources. If the conditions around existing stations change the integrity of their data, then they should be moved. They can usually be moved a few hundred feet away and they will be fine, without inducing any historic ambiguity. New stations are even installed in precarious locations that is completely disingenuous to scientific neutrality.

                    Next, who is overseeing and controlling the “adjusting” of this data? The exact people who need grant money to study “climate change” further. I, too, have read that the “net adjustments” have brought down more temperatures than they’ve raised, but I don’t trust the people doing it any more because of that claim.

                    Finally, why has satellite data been adjusted at all?

                • You know Mars is not only further from the sun, but it’s atmosphere is too thin to hold the same amount of heat as earth’s. Like when you are on top of a mountain and it’s 20 degrees colder. If Mars’ atmosphere was pure methane, a higher thermal capacity gas, it would still not be as warm. Warmer, but not as warm as earth’s.

                  • I was more alluding to the percentage of Mars’s atmosphere that is CO₂ and where it came from. And, also, Mars is a lot smaller (and as you said, farther from the sun) than Earth, so it receives a lot less solar radiation. But being smaller also means that impact goes further.

                    • Before life on earth, it was also largely CO2. I’m not sure where you were trying to go with this. Are you saying CO2 doesn’t warm planets because Mars is cold?

      • Their agenda has been apparent for decades. They even say openly that they’re looking to eliminate “national sovereignty.” Compelling countries to impose a “carbon tax” on their populations to fund world government is a transparent ploy.

          • “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”..,……..!wc26ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !wc26:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsMediaGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!wc26……….

      • “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”..,……..!wc20ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !wc20:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsMediaGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!wc20……..

  1. GLOBAL = Everywhere on Earth
    WARMING = Rising Temperatures

    So HOW are record cold temps possible anywhere, if it’s TEMPS ARE RISING EVERYWHERE?

    How can these lying “scientists” say “The Science is settled, when they are having such difficulties with 7th grade vocabulary words?

  2. WHICH Law of Thermodynamics allows “HEAT TO HIDE IN THE OCEAN DEPTHS”?

    It’s pretty clear that BILL LIE has never taken a course in Thermodynamics, and probably does not even know what the word means!

    • Yep. I had graduate courses in thermodynamics and in physical chemistry. What I am hearing now was not taught back in “the day.” Meaning, when data was evaluated critically and statistical analysis was employed in data analysis, and fudging data and conclusions were unheard of.

      • In addition, the scientific method would have included the demand side of CO2 – that is the trees and other plants, not just the supply side – burning hydrocarbons. Also, these Al Gore types don’t mention what affect the increased CO2 will have a food production. HINT !! As greenhouse owners why they pump CO2 into their greenhouses 🙂

          • And your point? It’s a closed environment idiot. Of course it raises the temperature. The Earth, per say, isn’t a purely closed environment, there are other dynamics going on that can diffuse and negate most of the heat increases. Unless most of the morons who claim man made global climate change have forgotten or never learned, there is such a thing as the carbon dioxide cycle.

          • A greenhouse operates on an entirely different principle. The greenhouse warms up because the sun’s warming rays are allowed in while the convection currents which would normally cool that area down are blocked by the transparent walls and roof of the greenhouse. * The carbon dioxide is pumped into the greenhouse because it’s needed for the plants’ photosynthesis.

            * The same idea as leaving your car’s windows rolled up on a warm sunny day.

  3. HOW is it possible that HEATING DEGREE DAYS are up 54% this April compared to last April IF “TEMPS ARE RISING EVERYWHERE ON EARTH”

    So you clowns don’t even know what a heating degree day is? I wonder why the greedy, lying, racist socialist jew run media is hiding that from you?

    WHY EXACTLY IS IT TAKING MORE ENERGY TO HEAT YOUR HOME THIS SPRING IF IT IS GETTING WARMER ALL OVER THE ENTIRE WORLD?

    Are Democrats really to stupid to know what GLOBAL and WARMING mean?

    Who would like to debate “Global warming” with someone who has taken multiple Thermodynamics classes, and also KNOWS THE MEANING OF 7TH GRADE VOCABULARY WORDS LIKE CLIMATE, WARMING, AND GLOBAL!!!!

    face it, Democrats are cowardly sniveling liars.

  4. I’m going to start referring to myself as an expert in theoretical physics, so everyone better believe everything I say or else they’ll be deniers. Oh yeah, and I need some honorary doctorates in that field of which I have no experience or education so it’s all “legit.”

  5. Bill Lie is no scientist.

    Real Scientists do not use HISTORICAL TEMPERATURE DATA THAT HAS BEEN FUDGED DOWN TWO DEGREES, then compare it to today’s data and declare it’s getting warmer……

    THE SOCIALIST JEW MEDIA IS LYING TO YOU DUMMIES!

    btw, has anyone actually saved $2500 on their Obamacare like they said?……Fools

  6. Which LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS explains the frozen shipload of Global Warming liars studying “SHRINKING ANTARCTIC SEA ICE” in the RECORD SUMMER ANTARCTIC SEA ICE a few years ago, causing an international effort to SAVE THEIR LYING BUTTS FROZEN IN THE SEA ICE?????

    So ‘RECORD SHRINKING ANTARCTIC SEA ICE CAUSE RECORD ANTARCTIC SEA ICE DURING THE ANTARCTIC SUMMER??????

    Funny how the greedy, lying, socialist jew run media never explains that when they lie about their fairy tale “Global Warming”……

    AMERICANS ARE SUCH GULLIBLE MORONS….

  7. Why are the Governments of the world joining together to perpetuate this hoax?
    Well, I don’t think it’s to do anything good for the Civilized Society.
    Oh, right, they need to redistribute wealth to those who never worked for it…I got it now!
    If Bill Nye is so worried about C02, then he should prove it by holding his breath, for eternity!

        • Allllllll of that death and cyclical life was caused by natural events and interaction. Our effect on Earth is not natural. The dinosaurs didn’t use technology to create complex compounds that won’t break down for thousands of years. There was no Styrofoam back then. If you think that these substances don’t have a deleterious effect on us, and all living things, then enjoy your painful future.

          • Pathetic.
            When you become literate in the age of the Earth, and the numbers of great extinctions which have happened over billions of years, then come back and have a conversation
            As if thousands of years is some sort of yardstick. It isn’t a blip on mother natures radar.
            As someone old enough to remember things, and actually had an education which counted for something, I can laugh loud and long at your analysis.
            I suspect you don’t remember life before plastic bags, started by the Green Nuts who were concerned we were cutting down forests for paper, even though that was a renewable resource. Then the plastic bottle, because you know glass was not good for the environment.
            LOL..you people are hilarious, each iteration of what to do for mother earth just screws things up even more.
            Regards