Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’

Climate Depot Exclusive

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-Winner for physics in 1973, declared his dissent on man-made global warming claims at a Nobel forum on July 1, 2015.

“I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Dr. Giaever announced during his speech titled “Global Warming Revisited.

Image result for ivar giaever

Giaever, a former professor at the School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, received the 1973 physics Nobel for his work on quantum tunneling. Giaever delivered his remarks at the 65th Nobel Laureate Conference in Lindau, Germany, which drew 65 recipients of the prize. Giaever is also featured in the new documentary “Climate Hustle”, set for release in Fall 2015.

Giaever was one of President Obama’s key scientific supporters in 2008 when he joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorsing Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. Giaever signed his name to the letter which read in part: “The country urgently needs a visionary leader…We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.”

But seven years after signing the letter, Giaever now mocks President Obama for warning that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change”. Giaever called it a “ridiculous statement.”

“That is what he said. That is a ridiculous statement,” Giaever explained.

“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said. (Watch Giaever’s full 30-minute July 1 speech here.)

“How can he say that? I think Obama is a clever person, but he gets bad advice. Global warming is all wet,” he added.

“Obama said last year that 2014 is hottest year ever. But it’s not true. It’s not the hottest,” Giaever noted. [Note: Other scientists have reversed themselves on climate change. See: Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming]

“When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever explained.

Global Warming ‘a new religion’

Giaever said his climate research was eye opening. “I was horrified by what I found” after researching the issue in 2012, he noted.

“Global warming really has become a new religion. Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”

Concern Over ‘Successful’ UN Climate Treaty

“I am worried very much about the [UN] conference in Paris in November. I really worry about that. Because the [2009 UN] conference was in Copenhagen and that almost became a disaster but nothing got decided. But now I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position,” Giaever said.

“The facts are that in the last 100 years we have measured the temperatures it has gone up .8 degrees and everything in the world has gotten better. So how can they say it’s going to get worse when we have the evidence? We live longer, better health, and better everything. But if it goes up another .8 degrees we are going to die I guess,” he noted.

“I would say that the global warming is basically a non-problem. Just leave it alone and it will take care of itself. It is almost very hard for me to understand why almost every government in Europe — except for Polish government — is worried about global warming. It must be politics.”

“So far we have left the world in better shape than when we arrived, and this will continue with one exception — we have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming. We have to do that or that may take us backwards. People think that is sustainable but it is not sustainable.

On Global Temperatures & CO2

Giaever noted that global temperatures have halted for the past 18 plus years. [Editor’s Note: Climate Depot is honored that Giaever used an exclusive Climate Depot graph showing the RSS satellite data of an 18 year plus standstill in temperatures at 8:48 min. into video.]

The Great Pause lengthens again: Global temperature update: The Pause is now 18 years 3 months (219 months)

Giaever accused NASA and federal scientists of “fiddling” with temperatures.

“They can fiddle with the data. That is what NASA does.”

“You cannot believe the people — the alarmists — who say CO2 is a terrible thing. Its not true, its absolutely not true,” Giaever continued while showing a slide asking: ‘Do you believe CO2 is a major climate gas?’

“I think the temperature has been amazingly stable. What is the optimum temperature of the earth? Is that the temperature we have right now? That would be a miracle. No one has told me what the optimal temperature of the earth should be,” he said.

“How can you possibly measure the average temperature for the whole earth and come up with a fraction of a degree. I think the average temperature of earth is equal to the emperor’s new clothes. How can you think it can measure this to a fraction of a degree? It’s ridiculous,” he added.

Ivar Giaever und König Carl Gustaf auf der Nobelpreisfeier in Stockholm im...

Ivar Giaever and King Carl Gustaf at the Nobel Prize ceremony in Stockholm in December 1973

Silencing Debate

Giaever accused Nature Magazine of “wanting to cash in on the [climate] fad.”

“My friends said I should not make fun of Nature because then they won’t publish my papers,” he explained.

“No one mentions how important CO2 is for plant growth. It’s a wonderful thing. Plants are really starving. They don’t talk about how good it is for agriculture that CO2 is increasing,” he added.

Ivar Giaever

Extreme Weather claims

“The other thing that amazes me is that when you talk about climate change it is always going to be the worst. It’s got to be better someplace for heaven’s sake. It can’t always be to the worse,” he said.

“Then comes the clincher. If climate change does not scare people we can scare people talking about the extreme weather,” Giaever said.

“For the last hundred years, the ocean has risen 20 cm — but for the previous hundred years the ocean also has risen 20 cm and for the last 300 years, the ocean has also risen 20 cm per 100 years. So there is no unusual rise in sea level. And to be sure you understand that I will repeat it. There is no unusual rise in sea level,” Giaever said.

“If anything we have entered period of low hurricanes. These are the facts,” he continued.

“You don’t’ have to even be a scientist to look at these figures and you understand what it says,” he added.

“Same thing is for tornadoes. We are in a low period on in U.S.” (See: Extreme weather failing to follow ‘global warming’ predictions: Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Droughts, Floods, Wildfires, all see no trend or declining trends)

“What people say is not true. I spoke to a journalist with [German newspaper Die Welt yesterday…and I asked how many articles he published that says global warming is a good thing. He said I probably don’t publish them at all. Its always a negative. Always,” Giever said.

Energy Poverty

“They say refugees are trying to cross the Mediterranean. These people are not fleeing global warming, they are fleeing poverty,” he noted.

“If you want to help Africa, help them out of poverty, do not try to build solar cells and windmills,” he added.

“Are you wasting money on solar cells and windmills rather than helping people? These people have been misled. It costs money in the end to that. Windmills cost money.”

“Cheap energy is what made us so rich and now suddenly people don’t want it anymore.”

“People say oil companies are the big bad people. I don’t understand why they are worse than the windmill companies. General Electric makes windmills. They don’t tell you that they are not economical because they make money on it. But nobody protests GE, but they protest Exxon who makes oil,” he noted.


Ivar Giaever (2008): "Seit 19 Jahren gab es keine Erwärmung mehr", sagt er....

Ivar Giaever in 2008

Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears.

In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming. See: Prominent Physicist Hal Lewis Resigns from APS: ‘Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen…Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science’

Other prominent scientists are speaking up skeptically about man-made global warming claims. See: Prominent Scientist Dissents: Renowned glaciologist declares global warming is ‘going to be a big plus’ – Fears ‘Frightening’ Cooling – Warns scientists are ‘prostituting their science’

Giaever was also one of more than 100 co-signers in a March 30, 2009 letter to President Obama that was critical of his stance on global warming. See: More than 100 scientists rebuke Obama as ‘simply incorrect’ on global warming: ‘We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated’

Giaever is featured on page 89 of the 321 page of Climate Depot’s more than 1000 dissenting scientist report (updated from U.S. Senate Report). Dr. Giaever was quoted declaring himself a man-made global warming dissenter. “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion,” Giaever declared.I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around,” Giaever explained. “Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don’t really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money,” he concluded.

Giaever also told the New York Times in 2010 that global warming “can’t be discussed — just like religion…there is NO unusual rise in the ocean level, so what where and what is the big problem?”

Related Links:

On Friday, 3 July, over 30 Nobel laureates assembled on Mainau Island on Lake Constance signed a declaration on climate change. Problem was, there were 65 attendees, and only 30 36 signed the declaration. As is typical of the suppression of the alternate views on climate, we never heard the opinion of the 35 who were in the [nearly equal] majority. Today, one of the Nobel laureates who was an attendee has spoken out.

In Lindau Giaever speaks to young researchers and other Nobel laureates. In the second row: Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy in Barack Obama’s first Cabinet, where he drew a lot of money in research into renewable energies. The Nobel Laureate in Physics sinks deeper and deeper into his purple armchair, runs his fingers through his hair, scratching her on the forehead, shaking her head.

Exclusive: Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Who Endorsed Obama Dissents! Resigns from American Physical Society Over Group’s Promotion of Man-Made Global Warming – Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘The temperature (of the Earth) has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.’

Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Ivar Giaever: ‘Is climate change pseudoscience?…the answer is: absolutely’ — Derides global warming as a ‘religion’

2012: Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Ivar Giaever: ‘Is climate change pseudoscience?…the answer is: absolutely’ — Derides global warming as a ‘religion’ – ‘He derided the Nobel committees for awarding Al Gore and R.K. Pachauri a peace prize, and called agreement with the evidence of climate change a ‘religion’… the measurement of the global average temperature rise of 0.8 degrees over 150 years remarkably unlikely to be accurate, because of the difficulties with precision for such measurements—and small enough not to matter in any case: “What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees? Probably nothing.”

When Science IS Fiction: Nobel Physics laureate Ivar Giaever has called global warming (aka. climate change) a ‘new religion’ -When scientists emulate spiritual prophets, they overstep all ethical bounds. In doing so, they forfeit our confidence’

American Physical Society Statement on Climate Change: No Longer ‘Incontrovertible,’ But Still Unacceptable – Because of the following statement from the American Physical Society: “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

Giaver: “I resigned from the society in 2011. First: nothing in science is incontrovertible. Second: the “measured” average temperature increase in 100 years or so, is 0.8 Kelvin. Third: since the Physical Society claim it has become warmer, why is everything better than before? Forth: the maximum average temperature ever measured was in 1998, 17 years ago. When will we stop wasting money on alternative energy?”


1,109 Responses

  1. AGW is a perfectly sound theory. It merely requires heat to flow the wrong way, from cooler (atmosphere) to warmer (surface). 97% of climate ‘scientists’ depend on this sophistry to pay their mortgages.

      1. And as _I_ learned at RPI, ‘if the graph is shaped like a hockey stick, you’ve chosen the wrong kind of graph paper.’
        That was my first reaction when Gore presented the First Hockey Stick.
        Graph 2^n versus n on linear-linear paper and you get a hockey stick.
        Graph it on semi-log paper and it comes out a straight line. Which one can be easily extrapolated?
        Math-phobic, math-illiterates believe Gore and the Warmites.

    1. I am sorry that you never had a science class. The troposphere is warmest at the bottom and coolest at the top. The sun heats up the surface of the earth, the air raises but cools as it expands in the upper atmosphere. According to you, sticking your hand out of an airplane it should be warm rather than instantly freezing at 50 below zero.
      It is OK that you do not know anything about science, but what is frightening is that you think you do.

      1. You are agreeing with me, Einstein. In a standard atmosphere, surface at +15C, tropopause at -56.5C, in which direction does heat flow?

        Clue: if you say heat flows from something at -56.5C to something at +15C, you’d be wrong, like those Nobel prize winners. You’re welcome.

    2. Idiot–The surface is heated both water and land–The CO2 just traps it. It doesn’t require any flow the wrong way. You denies learn a lot of terminology but basic principles seem to trip you up.

      1. Cretin. You can’t even parrot the IPCC’s back-radiation schtick properly. Heat isn’t trapped in nature – that’s why whatever is put in a Thermos ends up at ambient temperature.

        Learn some thermodynamics. The CO2 (what there is of it) re-radiates surface LWIR, but, it can only do this at the CO2’s local (cooler) temperature. The atmosphere can’t make the surface warmer than it started.

        H2O vapour, when it changes state to form clouds, can significantly reduce the rate of surface cooling, but even that can’t make the surface warmer than it started. I realise this is beyond your mental capacity. You could have a career as a climate ‘scientist’.

        1. Ok let me lay it out for you. Heat arrives at the earth surface as infrared radiation of all wavelength, as well as visible and ultraviolet. All this radiation heats up the surfaces which in turn heats up the air around it in the day time. At night the temp difference between the earth and outer space causes cooling as the heat in the form of longer wave infrared, radiates out into space. Greenhouse gases absorb and block this radiation, hence the earth doesn’t cool off as much the more greenhouse gases there are. This heat spreads by convection and conduction to the land and water mass of the earth. Exactly what law of thermodynamics does this violate? The Thermos analogy is totally irrelevant. I actually got A’s in physics but probably Al Gore got in time machine and paid my instructor off so that I would be a GW advocate 20 years later. This wasn’t general physics either but calculus based.

          1. Dear Mucho Clueless, the Thermos reference wasn’t an analogy. It is a fact, from which you could learn mucho. No insulator ever makes its heat source hotter than it started. If you insulate your house, it doesn’t make your central heating boiler burn hotter. Your rooms merely cool at a slower rate than they did before you applied the insulation. Heat can’t be trapped.

            You seem to indicate that the earth only cools by radiating to space at night. Hilarious. “GHGs” don’t “absorb and block” anything. They absorb and spontaneously re-radiate LWIR, but, at their local temperature. This, being cooler than the surface T, precludes any surface heating by such means.

            What, with all your sciencey and calculus training, you will have no difficulty in understanding the heat flow equation: Q ~ (TH^4 – TC^4). Note that Q is a vector, with directionality from H to C. (Where Q = heat flow, T = temperature, H = hot, C = cold (constants removed for simplicity))

            To match your apparent IQ, think of the laws of thermodynamics as follows:

            0. Temperature is a physical quantity in its own right.

            1. You can’t win, you can only break even.

            2. You can only break even if you can get to absolute zero (0K).

            3. You can never get to absolute zero.

            All that means is that any heat flow, which results from any objects being at different temperatures, is always from the hotter source to the cooler source, without exception, unless new work is done on the system. The atmosphere is not a source of new work.

            You’re welcome.

            1. What you are saying is correct but again ignores the overall picture and misses the point. The earth looses all of its heat to space by radiation because there is no media for conduction or convection, the other possibilities. In the case where there are few Greenhouse gas the atmosphere is more transparent to the radiation leaving the earth and cooling it. In the case where there is more Greenhouse gas some of radiation is reradiated back down to the earth. Regardless of the temperature of the gas when it reradiates the infrared back down, it is much hotter than the 4 degrees above absolute zero of space. Hence more of the total radiation coming in from the sun stays in the surface and the atmosphere, leading to a higher temperature than the first case. We are not talking about passive insulation but an active process. We are not talking about more work, we are talking about loosing less. If by work you mean the energy source of the heat.

              1. The “overall picture” is simply this: Q ~ (TH^4 – TC^4). Saying “Regardless of the temperature of the gas when it reradiates the infrared back down”, belies your cretinism. That statement is in direct contradiction to the heat flow equation, which describes a key element of the universal laws of thermodynamics. “Climate scientists” don’t get a freebie from the LOT. You speak pseudoscientific bollocks. You espouse a faith, which wouldn’t recognise standard physics if it bit it in the ass.

        2. I have learned some thermodynamics–an A in calculus based physics-You are just trying to throw in irrelevant info and mix in thermodynamics whenever it suits your arguments. Applying thermodynamics isn’t the test. Its the same as any other calculation–Garbage in — Garbage out.

          1. 5 months – and that’s the best reply you can muster. Pfffttt.

            If you’ve “learned some thermodynamics” you’d know which way heat flows. Stick to finger painting.

            1. The mistake I made was thinking there was really any kind of debate here. Al the site supporters here are only interested in put downs due to fact that they are paid shills. And the “I’ve learned some thermodynamics” was meant ironically, which you didn’t pick up on, nor did you discuss any qualifications you might be bringing besides experience as a troll.

              1. Dear God. The implied assertion that heat flows from hotter to cooler is “irrelevant”, tells me all I need to know about your intellect and motives.

                Watch energy prices rocket as a result of this madness. Yes, your energy prices. I’m sure you have some colouring in to get back to now.

                “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience”.

  2. Ivar Giæver probably could have been a much richer man, had he, like disappointing many others, joined “the other side”.
    He’s an honest man. So honest that mainstream media blocks him from saying the truth. There’s a consensus. Not about science. They agree to mislead People for political purposes. This is a sad time.

    1. If you get this before the comment is deleted. Of course you know that Climate Depot is funded by Climate Change deniers that are busy making money destroying the planet. You have been had. Look it up.

                1. Agreed. You know what I find most amusing here is this.
                  1. We are supposed to buy into the global warming because 9000 scientist state if to be a fact. We are supposed to swallow that fact
                  2. We supply over 31000 scientist who dont agree with the global warming and countless other articles to support that.
                  3. we are told our finding are garbage and easily proven wrong, yet their data is supposed to be solid.
                  4. these are the same people supporting this that scream of their freedoms and having their voice to be freely heard yet very few of those actually have served our country in any capacity, and rarely ever will
                  5. These are the same people that support taking away your second amendment rights calling them antiquated and not necessary.
                  These are the same people that support the illegal/unlawful supreme court rulings and base their decisions on political agenda rather than actual law. They have thus destroyed the first amendment on Government will not interfere with the Church. They make rulings on a marriage issue that has no right to be enforced by the Government, when the marriage act is a Church function. (stand by for the fallout on this)
                  These are the same people that will love Obama and Hillary, despite once again Obama’s pure hatred for this country and it’s system destroying the constitution and this country’s laws and regularly signing (unlawful) executive orders to support their pure leftist agenda.
                  6. These are the same people that brought you the next ice age theory of the 70’s and 80’s (that proved out well didn’t it) to the Ozone Hole garbage and banning of R12 to only replace it with a refrigerant that was more costly and a carcinogen, also the so called aerosol replacement with yet another propellant that was more costly and more harmful. (who profited from that?)
                  7. these are the same people that call me stupid and ignorant, yet they do not know me, they fail to realize I am a member of Mensa scoring far higher than most of them ever will, and I hold multiple degrees in theology and political sciences. yet it does not fit their agenda so I am a moron to them. I hold a very esteemed position at a leading University however.
                  8. These are the same people that deny the Creation of this world by God the father, they deny his existence yet put their trust and faith in man who cannot explain anything other than bring me the money. Lets see who is thinking they are so smart on the day you meet him.
                  9. these are the same people that scoff and call us conspiracy theorists, yet they believe in Big Foot, Yeti, UFO’s, Global Warming, Ozone Hole, Ice Age predictions, the Loch Ness Monster. Yet we are fringe lunatics to them.
                  10. Lastly, you can never convince them with all the data in the world to show that all this is garbage science because they are a hive collective mentality. They follow what is supposed to be the popular truth to them and provides avenues for many many people to Capitalize on the sale and manufacturing of further lies, more products to “save the earth” and in the meantime only profiting them. Yet we are the evil capitalists getting filthy rich on oil profits, natural gas drilling etc..(hmmm see a little bit of a conflicting). To them the 31000 scientist debunking this are absolutely merit-less in their statements and they are not qualified to make those statements. Yet these so called merit-less scientists are some of the leading minds in the world. Funny thing is they can believe a scientist that states he is a climatologist who created all his tables and formulas to support their theory. Kind of like supporting the Easter Bunny, Big Foot, and the tooth fairy. You can create a science, anyone can, and if you have popular names to buy into it then it is supposed to be credible.
                  I am most sure however I will get the same three people to attack me on this (they attack everyone..hmmm silly liberal tricks are for kids) and tell me how ignorant, silly and stupid I am.
                  All I can say is if they feel they have a big enough pair, identify yourself and I will gladly do so as well, then we can have a real debate. If however you decide to hide behind your moniker and say you are rocket scientists (one of them did) and that you are somehow a climatologist with actual knowledge, then you are nothing more than a blowhard and I cannot even honor what you say.

            1. I noticed that, too. Kinda takes the wind out of his sails when he uses such…uh, well, “scientific” sources. And, if I may add, so “un-biased.”

              1. The UCC is comprised mostly of non-scientists posing as scientists. They proved this by stating,”Global warming is a closed topic”. The only people to make such a statement are non-scientists. EVERY THEORY, including Einstein’s singularity, gravity, big bang, string, evolution and a creation by a GOD are in constant question by ALL real scientists.

                  1. I am assuming that you have much evidence (as do I) to support this theory.
                    However, if you have access to “The Encyclopedia of Physics, you will find several examples (or anomalies) that question its universality of the theory. I still believe that it is generally correct.

                1. No that’s not why they are called theories. Theories are frequently established science. The word is used differently in science then in everyday speech. Strange you don’t know that after all the huffing and puffing you do on this site about data and qualifications.

                  1. OK, YOU HACK. I will go by dictionary definition and you go by whatever cockamamie world you live in.
                    1The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.
                    2a belief, policy or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
                    3. A hypothesis
                    ON and ON and ON.

            2. Yes….

              “Back in 2007, a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report revealed that ExxonMobil — then the world’s largest publicly traded oil and gas company — had spent $16 million between 1998 and 2005 on a network of more than 40 front groups to try to discredit mainstream climate science. Billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, meanwhile, were outed by a 2010 Greenpeace report revealing they spent significantly more than ExxonMobil between 2005 and 2008 on virtually the same groups. Many of those groups and the scientists affiliated with them had previously shilled for the tobacco industry.”

              Do you deny the facts it contains? Or do you just like to cast dispersions?


              Think really hard about that…

          1. Not very familiar with making an argument are you? What does the fact that shared this have to do with the validity of the person who it is quoting? Nothing at all. Does it help you to know that many other news sources are sharing this article as well? It was not created by So, if you’d like to refute someone, how about you provide actual facts that discredit the Nobel scientist on whom this article is reporting? You ridicule others intellect, but then you’re just a dullard who has to copy and paste articles from Huffington post. No way they have a political slant, right? NASA, and NOAA have been caught multiple times, and have even admitted in the past to issuing fabricated, modified, or incorrect information, which the article noted if you had bothered to read it. You’re just a dumb monkey w/ a keyboard who just figured out how to copy and paste, nothing more.It’s comical that you believe you are part of any cause that will save anyone from anything, even if it were true, it’s quiet clear they don’t need you, you’re just along for the ride and the weakest link, parroting what other people say w/o an original thought of your own

            1. Metric Buttload is a very fitting name for you, pal. You can call us any names you want, but unlike you and that nerdball “scientist” with his pocket protector who probably hasn’t gone outside his basement for 30 years, we like to face facts. And to go with the opinion of the 99% of other scientists.

              1. What argument are you making other than you’re stupid and going along with other people who also don’t bother to think for themselves?” The fact you are quick to dismiss a distinguished scientist because his facts based argument differs from your completely uninformed, idiotic opinion is very telling. It seem s calling names is quite appropriate for you because you are showing it is completely accurate. 99% of other scientists don;t agree with you, and far from it, you’re just too dumb to know that has been long ago debunked, and even a very basic internet search could tell you that. BY all means, make your argument, even better, do it with facts you don;t have to copy and paste form another source and have someone much smarter than you think for you… Proceed.

              2. 99%? First, that’s a preselected group. Second, Consensus is NOT the same as Truth.
                At least that’s one thing _I_ learned at RPI.. (where he’s from.)
                Assertions are not Proofs. And Huffpost as a primary source of Truth or Accuracy?! Surely you jest!

              3. The fact is only Mann-ipulated surface temperature data shows warming.. satellites don’t… for 18 years… Why are you a denier?

              4. 99%….qualify that. You would have to survey every scientist on the planet to say that and that has never been done. Your statement is an unqualified and misleading one for the sheep.

                  1. There was a lawsuit launched against the UN Panel by over one thousand reputable scientists , some from the most highly regarded Universities from around the world , who see serious flaws in the alarmists theories. The UN panel itself has admitted to screw ups and fudging of numbers. these esteemed scientists have been completely shut out of the debate and harassed for wanting to debate the situation ,as they really should. The alarmists have become bullies. No, there is not a consensus on this subject.

                    1. they really are bullies. Have you seen the way those three gang up on everyone one in here that does not agree with their junk science? Amazing that they are cowards that hide and call us all stupid, silly and ignorant. I am quite sure however we are more intelligent that all three combined.
                      The rest on their agenda are bullies and cannot debate.

                  2. Sheep. I think not. I think we are the dragon slayers, the mighty the strong. And the week such as yourself, shall perish beneath our trodden feat. I can honestly say that because I can self sustain, I can survive, I am a leader and sheep are not leaders. I and my fellow brothers in here are of a mindset of truth and not theory. Got sell you B.S somewhere else and liberalize another country. I once took an oath to defend this nation against all enemies foreign and domestic, I and everyone else that took that oath still holds true to that. Did you?? You are my sheep now. say Baaahhh!

                    1. yup thank you. The voice to text application needs some work, I should have proof read though. Thank you.

              5. Another big lie “97% of scientists agree with global warming caused by humans”. Plus you make it 99%. Guess you can’t even check your phony facts correctly.
                By the way over 31,000 scientists 9000 of them PhD’s have signed a statement that human caused global warming is not a viable theory.
                Maybe your religion should be based on the Bible not Al Gore and the corrupt politicians.

                  1. That is an old article. Since then NASA has shown the temperature of the Oceans is not warmer on the surface as this article says, nor is it warmer in the depths as AGW make believers have tried to say before.
                    Please get a new religion, science and the weatherman say you are being deceived and are deceiving others.

                  2. hmmm…funny how the Bible said the earth was round “a blue sphere..” and the “scientists” said it was FLAT….”scientists” in the 80’s said butter bad, eggs bad, statins and margarine (one molecule away from being plastic and a trans-fat)=good…hmmm…seems that all changed back to butter and eggs good, statins and margarine bad…and what GOD provided was good. You pesky atheists still think the Earth was a random act, thus violating the Law of Non-Contradiction. “Religion without scince is blind;science without religion is lame”. Albert Einstein

                    1. You realize that Einstein refused to believe quantum theory because he didn’t believe God would play dice with the universe? That is his a priori beliefs prevented him from grasping the other bedrock theory of physics. Maybe if he hadn’t been religious he would have succeeded in his goal of a universal theory.

                    2. Space and Time

                      Prior to the discovery of quantum physics, most scientists believed that time and space only existed in a linear, continuous fashion. One scientist in particular, Albert Einstein, whom spent much time studying quantum physics, made a parallel discovery that time and space were relative, not absolute as they were believed before (the Theory of Relativity). After spending may years trying to refute his findings in quantum physics, Albert Einstein conceded to this phenomenon and was quoted as saying “For us physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion.” From that point on, scientists began to accept the truth they witnessed within the quanta particles and they acknowledged that even time and space contain the smallest possible values. It is by God’s design that our minds transcend space and time, “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” 2 Peter 3:8 NIV. We are reminded of His majesty in Job 36:26, “How great is God—beyond our understanding! The number of his years is past finding out.” NIV

                    3. Einstein was a brilliant man who was also a believer. But none of the bible quotes or idea of God itself has anything directly to do with his theory. The ones you quote at the end say nothing about the subject but seem to assume you have said something and now I’m supposed by awed or amazed–I’m not, and I have no idea why people still are so fixated on this ancient and increasingly irrelevant ignorance.

                    4. the problem is that no one is studying that material because of their fixation of rejecting GOD so they can live their lives as they please not realizing that their will be ultimate accountability. All the great scientists were Christians and studied through a Christian worldview. You might want to look that up.

                    5. You are wrong again. Einstein was not a believer, first off he was Jewish background and did not grasp Christianity at all. Christianity is equated as Believers. He believed in the pantheistic god of Baruch Spinoza but not in a personal god. Last I looked that is not Jesus the almighty son of God and therefore did not hold a foundation of belief in the God of our Bible. You state that you don’t know why people are so fixated on the ancient and irrelevant, yet you use an argument from the ancient Greeks. Ignorance I don’t think so. You cant disprove the Bible or the salvation teachings of Christ, you simply cant. Try as you might, you cannot prove the Bible wrong. So who is ignorant now?
                      Do some research before you blatantly come out and say someone was a believer before you post it. Or did you hear that on PBS too. You want to have a theology debate I can do that too.

                    6. Ok so now Jews are not believers. You should clarify because this sounds antisemetic.

                    7. I am going to respond to all your threads at the same time in this posting first off thank you for posting your credentials, much appreciated. Secondly AntiSemetic, no I am not. I have a profound love for the Jewish people, after all Christ was a Jew also. On that note you used the term believer in your statement that Einstein was a believer. Most practicing Jews are not believers as in equated to believers in Christ. There is a movement of messianic Jews that are believers in Christ as their savior. You state believer and that is what it equates to believers in the gift of salvation from God through his son Jesus Christ. Einstein did not believe in the Christian Judeo God Jehovah God or Abba God (meaning father) In fact practicing Jews (not messianic) are in the practice of not even stating God’s name and abbreviate id G_d and do not even say the word God in the strictest sense. I say Christian Judeo because Allah the Muslims worship is not our same God that Christians and Jews know. The difference is the Jews Christ was their messiah as they expected a King to be delivered to them much like David was. (although Christ was of the lineage of David)
                      Now to answer you further, to touch a raw nerve.. never.
                      Some of the hottest summers on record, that is odd as there are approximately 110 years of recorded weather however; throughout history people have written of extreme hot summers as well as cold winters, and going back to writtings even in the dead sea scrolls. Even accounts in the Old testament writtings which are of the dead sea scrolls.but the aproximately 110 years of recorded weather show those same patterns.
                      And lastly you state I am a liar, I am not a liar or spreading lies, I state the truth in facts that are recorded, or proven; If you however choose to not believe that it does not make me a liarust says you are entitled to your opinion and that is ok.

                    8. I’m not interested in theological hair splitting or advocating one religion over another. You go so far off topic, I have perversely grown to wanting to provoke you just to see what you will say next. You’re still wrong on GW of course, but interesting responsies.

                    9. I found your statement of “I’m not interested in theological hair splitting or advocating one religion over another” and stating I go so far off topic very amusing given that I too was not interested in a Theological debate given the topic is climate change, however; you made a statement that Albert Einstein was a believer, and I responded to you that he was not and provided the information as to why he was not. You then stated that I sounded antisemitic and said I needed to clarify. I did and now you take and turn it back on me stating I went so far off Topic.
                      However you actually have gotten to where I needed to be and where you have steered us towards. Funny thing is you didn’t realize you were doing it however I will point it out for you.
                      When you stated Einstein was a believer, you were wrong in that statement and I took the opportunity to steer you towards some truth here, and you walked right into it. Einstein was not a believer as I stated and pointed out the background of the term believer that you referenced. However you pointed out in your last thread about hair splitting of one religion over another, and I was most hopeful you would go there.
                      You see religion is man made. In an attempt for man to push his greatness on other men and women he has created various religious organizations, all of which are made up of bylaws, member laws, Church bylaws, what is taught as biblical or what they consider to be Gods laws and so on. However each can get to a point to where they steer people away from FAITH (which is God given) and try to steer their flocks to what man says is best and what they perceive in THEORY what God wants. Now there are many people like myself that have went to many years of seminary, went on to practical teachings, but always stay in the fundamentals of researching what is known, what is written, and what (if you will) God would have us to do. I study with people of many different faith backgrounds all of which are based on the teachings writings and information we have from God the father, fundamental Judaeo Christian God of Abraham.
                      I said all that to say this. When man gets involved in something relating to his understanding of this world and bases it on Theory and not any actual kind of solid evidence, no matter what it is the information and the following masses become corrupted. However to have faith (look up the Greek meaning of faith to give you a better definition to not relate to (HOPE) is a solid knowledge that what one is stating can be factually proven, and not involving a man made theory.
                      I and many others in this posting have said they decide to be on the side of the 31000 scientists who are brilliant men and women as well that simply do not believe the climate change theories. And in fact there has been a transition shift with an article put out on the 7th that now says we will be back to a full time forever winter because the Sun will wink out (their term) in the next 15 years. Does it make us wrong that we believe or have Faith in the information we have at hand? No it does not. However, in your statement and a few others in this string we are simply wrong and could not possibly be correct.
                      So this president has stated that the largest threat we are facing is Climate Change, yet all the rest of us can see that one of the biggest threats we are facing is religion based and it is called radical Islam. That is a fact and nothing can change that, Another threat is Russia and Korea, that is also a fact. Climate change in mine and obviously many others is nothing more than smoking mirrors and too much emphasis is placed on trying to prove it by in comparison is a very, very small percentage of followers, compared with people that have faith in facts, and FAITH in God the creator.
                      I pray that you come to some understanding and salvation through God, and not of men, they perish God does not.

                    10. Yes Jesus knew the world was round because the Greeks had discovered it’s shape and size previously. Old testament writers not likely they thought about it much. The flat Earth stuff was mainly due to the lack of learning, communication, and general civilization that occurred in the dark ages. The stuff about dietary recommendation is confusing however, it is because the causes of artheriosclerosis were refined as time went on. There is nothing wrong with the initial recommendations, in fact the rate of early heart disease did start coming down, but it turned out to be stricter than really necessary.

                    11. Well, you certainly show that you have never studied the Bible….Jesus never talked about the earth being round….all of it was in the OLD Testament….The Law of Non-Contradiction. LOOK it up… old are you, kid? Come back when you can make a cogent argument.

                    12. Jesus knew the World was round because of two things. His father in heaven created it so he knew it. Jesus existed in the trinity always. and two our Bible (old testament) tells us the World is a blue sphere. Long before the Greeks stated a thing. Now you are on my turf I have multiple degrees in theology, also political science. I am art of a major university and can tell you that your statement is absolutely incorrect. The earth was stated as flat because once again man (scientist of that time) stated it was. the dietary argument is with Merritt because he is correct that scientist back just over 30 years ago stated that eggs, butter, and dairy were bad for you, that cranberries caused cancer, that saccharin was good for you, that NutraSweet is good for you. Sugar is bad. And here is a good one that CFC’s created a hole in the Ozone and by 2020 we would be living in a desert wasteland, yet here we are 5 years away and nothing. The only thing all that junk did was sell products that were worse for the human body, and that were worse for the environment.
                      Jesus never ever said anything in scripture about a round earth however. I can most assuredly tell you that.

                      I am sure you will attack me on this however and tell me I am ignorant and stupid. And remember Religion is man made, Faith however, the word of God in the Bible, and the gift of salvation is all of God. Man has since the beginning of time tried to explain away God, everything from the Pharo’s magicians, and his so called astrologers, to now the left scientists. Funny thing is they are still pretty much the same now as they were back in the day trying slight of hand with a new twist.

                    13. Let
                      us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained
                      without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that
                      national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

                      George Washington
                      (Although I am sure ou know who will ague with me on that too.

                      Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company.

                      George Washington

                      is as necessary to reason as reason is to religion. The one cannot
                      exist without the other. A reasoning being would lose his reason, in
                      attempting to account for the great phenomena of nature, had he not a
                      Supreme Being to refer to; and well has it been said, that if there had
                      been no God, mankind would have been obliged to imagine one.

                      George Washington
                      and finally.

                      Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God.

                      George Washington
                      Did I copy and past? you are dang skippy I did.

                    14. What is the exact wording of the passage that contains the “a blue sphere” This could so easily be way out of context that you should know better than to just give that little bit. This is all you interpretation and nothing Bible at all.

                    15. why don’t you try looking it up and stop being so lazy…that is your biggest problem. LOOK IT UP

                  3. Don’t worry Oldtimered, Real MrTea, is like that to all of us. He can only insult and supply the left sposored results from copy and past the link. yet he will fault you for copy and past a link. Lol this is funny.

                1. The 30,000 Global Warming Petition is Easily-Debunked Propaganda


                  “An Unverifiable Mess

                  Time and time again, I have had emails from researchers who have taken random samples of names from the list and Google searched them for more information. I urge others to do the same. What you’ll quickly find is either no information, very little information or information substantiating the fact that the vast majority of signers are completely unqualified in the area of climate change science.”

                2. LOL. Their religion is the god of b.s. Abba God created this and they too will meet him one day and have to account for Why did they find it necessary to follow the deniers of God the creator of it all.

              6. no, 99percent of climate scientist FUNDED by global warming theorists FUNDED by the UN whose spokeswoman admitted that this was about wealth redistribution….Al Gore said we would be underwater by 2010…hmmmm….

                1. Just plain wrong Sandy, much of it came from university sources or US government sources that have no financial relationship with the UN.

                  1. Where do you think universities get their grant money for these studies? Are you really that naive that you believe there is a magical money tree or source that universities tap into. It is all Government funded and funding from UN.
                    Come on do some research before you spew junk from your mouth and write it.

                    1. I have been directly involved in medical research myself, but have been indirectly involved in many institutions that do research. It just doesn’t work like you suggest. What do you think–Siemens and GE paid off AL Gore to write Inconvienient Truth? Glaciers are melting and Spring comes earlier. What did they pay off mother nature also? No all money does not come from government or the UN. You tell lie after lie after lie and yet something in you fails to sense the absurdity of your assertions. The internet is somewhat to blame as it is a giant pile of information that is not sorted out in time or quality of its sources. For those with special axe to grind and those without special training anything can be made of anything. Degrees in Theology and Political Science give zero background to understand complex natural phenomena, so perhaps if the future consequences weren’t so serious you could be forgiven. But you are in fact a danger to your children and grandchildren.

                    2. I tell no lies. You obviously are way out of the loop. All the major universities doing Global warming and now called climate change studies are funded largely by our own Government, and side organizations funded through the UN.
                      Now Siemens and GE are doing this out of the kindness of their heart? No they look to profit from it. Look at all the products they can look to produce. And you place your faith in One Movie? the inconvenient truth. And your statement of paying off mother nature, well first of all if you believe there is a mother nature then we really need to talk, but if you imply paying off the climate, then of course not.
                      What I know to be true is this. I tell no lies, the absurdity of this is, there is a real small percentage of people on the far left screaming and kicking that all the people that differ in their findings are liars, and have absurd assumptions. Those same far left people are the same ones that will find fault with the articles presented stating all you did was copy and paste, when in fact every single time you all “copy and past ” a link for us to counter what we said. The further fact is the far left shoving this at us are far fewer than the rest of us who don’t believe it, however like all the far left junk you all get attention by screaming louder, trumpeting your own theories and stating it is fact, and further getting derogatory in your statements and writings calling people liars, and unintelligent.

                      You state degrees in Theology and Political science give zero background to understand a complex natural phenomena, so tell me how your medical research background works into complex natural phenomena regarding climate change. But see you don’t fit that same argument that you just presented on myself do you and you are somehow above that, and how could you possibly be misinformed, you are an expert in this becasue you follow to 9000 climatologist, and the 31000 scientist who refute that are simply as well in the zero background to understand complex phenomena. So please answer me what makes you special. Climatologist..medical research… hmmm sounds suspect to me.

                    3. I suggest that you should update your information. The glaciers are very little affected by ambient atmospheric conditions. Scientists have now measured the temperatures UNDER the ice and have found them to be rising. I wrote on this 35 years ago and urged mire research, but none was done at that time. Unlike the anthropogenic climate change nonsense, this is a SERIOUS problem. If it is caused by a thinning of the Earth’s mantle and a rising of magma, It is, most likely, also the cause of increased volcanic and earthquake activity. But you can’t make money off of it.

                    4. So 35yrs ago you discovered that the glaciers were melting because the mantle is thinning? Like everywhere at once? I suspect you are intelligent but live pretty much in your own world or maybe just paranoid schiz. Whatever it is, this is getting tedious. This ultimately will be solved politically, in the meantime I’ve got better things to do, and so should you.

                    5. You need to present your thesis better. A statement that appears to say the glaciers are melting all over the world because the mantel is thinning, needs clarification to avoid sound completely improbable. I’m giving you credit for being sincere and not just saying things to provoke responses that you can then make fun of. If you are bitter about not being influential in your field–the answer is not to go on a climate denier and make comments that could be taken any number of ways. But of course the fact that you here may mean that you don’t care what most people in your field think.

                    6. Very coherent. so I will respond.
                      1. In 1962, when I was running the Earth Orbiting Geophysical Observatory we found the world wide DATA to indicate a 6″ loss, in depth of glaciers in glaciers beyond the arctic and antarctic circles, in summer and a regain in depth, each winter. LOGICAL
                      2.What we couldn’t explain was the cause of about 1.5 inches per month movement downslope until one of my bright guys suggested that we measure substrate temperatures. We were able to take them for about a year. The data showed the temperature rose about .3 degree, F. per year. We could not do more due to funding being transferred to APOLLO.
                      3. To my best knowledge, no further data was taken until the recent confirming report.

                    7. -Dr. Singer has made many, many specious arguments, and they have been refuted.
                      -The quote is taken out of context; nothing said about global warming not being true.
                      -Dr. Curry is part of the <0.01% of scientist that question the science behind the conclusions of over 20,000 studies, that based on what I've read–and more important, scientists and science reporters who's lives are spent reading, studying and thinking about all this–overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real. Still, it's good to keep thinking, studying. That should not stop up from acting when necessary.

                    8. You make the same mistake the open borders people do. when you leave out the word ANTHROPOGENIC as they leave out the word, ILLEGAL. None disputes climate change. It has bee going on as long as there has been geologic age analysis. For example we now believe that there is a thinning of the Earth’s mantle, bringing magma closer to the surface, causing glacier movement an possible increased geologic (volcanic and earthquake. When I tried to bring this to the attention of the UN, years ago, they said it was PURE CONJECTURE, yet their stand on “Global Warming” is Led by,’ It is the OPINION of….. and that is not conjecture?
                      Incidentally, that “Skeptical Science” said about anything that Dr. Singer said, was, essentially, “No it Isn’t. NONSENSE.

                    9. That you actually have studied issues related to the earth and glaciers, is fascinating, and I respect that. That is something you have done, and I have not.

                      When you say, though, that ‘we now believe’, please exclude myself, and many others. If you have any references that this is a generally accepted theory, I would be interested in reading more, as I do feel it is important to read, comprehend, and discuss.

                      I referenced the ‘Skeptical Science’ because they had taken the time to gather together many well-researched counters to Fred Singer’s arguments. I did in fact, click through to the evidence (yet more reports), and to the best of my ability, try to keep reading until I came down to the point of data collection. Often, I reach my limits of being able to digest the data when it reaches matrix algebra/differential equations, as that was one of the last math classes I took (and I think the only one, every, that I got less than a B).

                      And no, i did not do all of this just to respond here; I had investigated this previously.

                    10. Please try the experiment thatI recommended to “forevergeeky” and please,advise me of your results

                    11. Let me suggest an easy experiment.
                      1. Freeze several ice cubes to a plate, in 2groups (or 2 plates)
                      2.Tilt the groups at a very shallow angle to level, representing 2 glaciers.
                      3. With a heat source (like a spark lighter, warm the top of one group for about 30 seconds. Note result.
                      4. With the lighter at the same flame height, warm the pan UNDER the second group for ½ the time, Note result.
                      5. Compare results and please advise me of your findings.

                    12. “Like everywhere at once?” You say you’ve done medical research so you must know that a boil or carbuncle does not appear over the entire body just like a volcano does not cover the entire Earth’s surface. Weaknesses in the Earth’s mantle do occur and there is an example of that phenomenon taking place right now in the north Atlantic Plate movement where a relatively new volcano is active just a few hundred miles from the Greenland ice sheet. Could it be the Earth’s mantle is thinner there and, thus, the melting of the ice sheet is coming from below the ground and not above the ground due to your AGW hypothesis? Just wondering.

                    13. And in 35 years, there haven’t been any scientists investigating, expanding, questioning your research? Must be a conspiracy…

                    14. Data is solid. Opinions change I produced data. My most recent was substantiated, LAST WEEK, by scientific MEASUREMENTS under the Antarctic ice cap. BUT, if your”green” religion, led by your deity, GORETHEWHORE, says we are wrong, we SCIENTISTS will demur.

            2. See my post re noble prize winners and credibility above–strangely you seemed like you were going to put forth a correct “argument” and then just go off on same old denier rant.

                1. By the way I am most curious and want to ask. What are your credentials that give you the knowledge and ability to stand on what you are saying? just curious?

            3. Except that the so-called quote they are sharing is not at all accurate. Is it really a quote when you alter it to suit your agenda? Or just another talking point like the phrases I see repeated here over and over that are right from the newsmisinformation channels? Climate science religion, excuse for economic redistribution, et al. Don’t you know these phrases are coined, tested, and marketed for you to redistribute? Or are you one of those paid to pass it along?

            4. LOL… Pretty funny coming right after a guy getting BLASTED in numerous posts simply for linking a story in the huffington post…

              Pot… Meet Kettle….

          2. i.m so sorry for you –sorry that you eat from the table of lies that the climate changers tell you—but if we was to look deeper maybe your into making money off these lies to- every day you lose more to our side—truth shall prevail on this lie you an your likes tell

            1. I never saw people cry for the Typewriter manufacturer, or the Horse and Buggy guy, why all the love and disinformation for the Oil industry. Funny to see people defending billionaire’s and the FF companies. If you don’t want the wealth to transfer from those that hold it right now get on board and invest in green tech, otherwise move out of the way.

              1. what about the evil windmill companies, the evil solar panel companies enslaving people to pay for other’s ele. bills. You are topped off with it!

                1. Mickey, have you noticed that places like Germany pay 3x as much for their ‘clean, green’ electricity than we do in the US, and people there are finally beginning to notice the unintended consequences of that decision?
                  What caused ALL of the Major Ice Ages? We’re more likely to encounter one of those in the future than thermal runaway. Check the Vostok Ice Core graphs. Or continue to follow your religion.

                  1. Green energy, solar and wind do not live up to their hype of being cheap and a lofty goal. As the truth comes out, fossil fuels, nuclear energy, thermal, water are far more efficient than the so called green energy that touts itself as the wave of the future. Mankind has been given the brains to improve the lifestyle for all people in the world, but the climate change group wants it their way or the highway and are willing to throw a monkey wrench into the gears and make the people pay for their misguided efforts to control the world.

                  1. Please, the earth isn’t frying and the real scientists think we are approaching another mini ice age. That may be why the hottest temperature in the last 2 decades was in 1997.
                    Oh well.
                    The fuel from corn industry expends more fuel than it makes and causes food prices to rise and kill a million poor people a year do to high unaffordable corn prices.
                    There is not anything good on the surface of this communist inspired profiteer motivated false science of AGW.

              2. What is wrong with wealth? Or is it that you don’t have it and you want it? Capitalism is what made this country. People investing their money to make more money. That principle is what made America unique in building this country. Then come along the socialist who really just wants no one to make money or to advance and to share the wealth. One of the biggest phonies on this, Al Gore. Look at all the money the man has, and the biggest supporter of the so called climate change. Yet he wastes energy flying the planet in comfort of a private jet wasting all that fuel and making a huge so called carbon foot print. And his massive estate which he reports himself as paying in excess of $10,000 a month light bill. (big carbon foot print) but yet he has all of you twisted into believing wealth is a bad thing when he swims in it. And good for him and anyone else that drives themself to make wealth. After all any of us can do it.

                1. There is nothing wrong with wealth, especially when you have it. Part of what made America great was innovation and development of new, better technology. However there has been a stagnation in certain industries due to the interests of a few, you are pushing their agenda.

                  Al Gore is a great punching bag for you, I get it. He is not my god, but he certainly is your boogy man.

                  1. man you are really stupid. He is not my boogey man. However I can see King Obama is your savior with his made up Nobel peace prize. Does that make him an expert in anything?
                    Wealth is attainable by all who wish to pursue it. tell me Liberal do you see any of your libtards giving away their fortunes to better your silly way of life. Answer is no they earned it they can keep it and profit from their work. Grow up and do some real studies. If you want to have a debate I can handle that as well as I am quite confident I am smarter than you, and can handle myself well in any debate so bring it.

                    1. Am I a liberal? One can be into conservation and a conservative, more folks are understanding that every day.

                      Are you smarter than me, who knows. For all you know I am Stephen Hawking just trolling you. Perhaps I am a 9 yo girl playing with my lego’s. That’s the funny thing about the internet.

                      I will say this calling a person stupid, attempting to bully them with claims of superiority and labels really does not help you appear intelligent. Well except on FOX news, they seem to think it is a good form of “debate”.

                    2. Stephen Hawking I seriously doubt it. And as you pointed out before about stating that the article stating Nobel Price Winning scientist does not know what he is talking about because he is not a climate scientist, the same goes for Hawking as he is a cosmologist. Where is the relevance? I see it suits you to use names when you think it suits your cause, but everyone else is incorrect in their statements. Only the Liberals are ever correct. very much like “We are Borg, Resistance is futile”. Liberals for as long as I can remember buy into the fantasy science and shove it down the rest of our throats. You must have a real hard on for Fox news because you insinuate I watch Fox. Well here is a shocker for you, I don’t watch Fox. I get my news from many media outlets. I research them and go from there. I can believe the 9 year old playing with LEGO’s though as children are easily mislead, and Naive.
                      You see I am willing to bet that you have never served your country, never done a thing to stand up for it. However grasping on to the freedoms like I and others fought for. I say that because most military people are out of the box kind of thinkers, they take command and roll with it. So while you live in your fantasy world of the sky is falling mentality and failure to really prove anything at all. I am growing tired of your conversation without providing any substantive evidence.

                    3. As stated the renewables are starving 1 million people a year in increased food prices. Fuel that is less efficient and costs more in energy to make than it delivers.
                      If the civilian government is idiotic communist socialists and sends the military a few gallons of “renewable”
                      fuel to use compared to the rest of the usage of gas and diesel, then that is the civilian government forcing the use., not the military choosing it.

                    4. Um, no.

                      From a tactical standpoint it makes total sense and is being driven by top brass not the President.

                    5. Is that the top brass that has replaced the 200 or so generals and admirals that Obama got rid of or quit in disgust at the liar in Chief.

                    6. Not at all, it is some forward thinking individuals that recognize the need to reduce their costs shipping fuel and having power in case of a blackout to name two ideas that are part of the plan.



                      What is this story about renewables starving a million people?

                    7. yes – you the taxpayer are paying for JP-4, jet fuel and fuel for gas turbine engines on all the new ships at 58 dollars a gallon. Well done…Obama.

                    8. You are ignoring the whole scope of the projects for forward deployed troops and domestic Military bases just to single out that?

                    9. 12 million dollars a day for three ships and a squadron of aircraft for this biofuel crap….yeah, I’m singling it out.

                    10. …and your Naval experience, is….what? Dec. 5 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. Navy will spend $12 million to buy 450,000 gallons of alternative fuel for aircraft, ships and unmanned vehicles, the biggest government purchase of advanced biofuels, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said.” Back to your XBOX, troll….

                    11. It’s troll e troll, thank you very much.

                      Why are you afraid of the future? A clean environment is what we should all strive for. God would agree.

                    12. Really? HE put coal here for us to use, not to live like Afghanis do – ever been to Kabul in the winter? It was like Pittsburgh in the 60s. Nope…….go ahead and live somewhere else….GOD Bless America

                    13. You are crazy.

                      Coal, no matter how clean, is still a toxin.

                      God wants us to be stewards of the earth, not rape it.

                    14. so are synthetic fuels, as I said, at 4 times the cost….go ahead, write the check….oh, forgot, you want to use other people’s money….

                    15. You use my money everyday by promoting your desires. Healthcare costs are up, military costs are up, fuel cost are up. You are the one writing a check none of us should have to cash.

                    16. depends on which biomass you use….algae, switchgrases, or calimena….all far too expensive.

                    17. Using Afghanistan as a comparison shows just how perverted you will get in order to attempt to make a weak point.

                      So sad, especially so because you actually think you are smart.

                    18. You have no point so I am trying to educate you, sorry if that is tough on you.

                    19. sonny, you are in need of experience and an education….citing National Geographic…LOL….I gave the stats, and you deny…

                    20. Sonny, hilarious.

                      You have no idea what my background is, and I assure you it is wide and far superior to you. I exist to taunt you and drive you mad.

                      My side is winning, all you can do is spout off nonsence from your handlers. Sad really, drinking the Kool aid while the world moves along.

                    21. you have no background. So tell us your military background and Master’s degrees? Once again, you provide no should not get your education from the back of a Hillary poster…..back to your XBOX…..

                    22. There you go again with the Xbox, I gave up video games decades ago.

                      My education is relevant to the discussion and background would tick off the boxes you desire.

                      You guys are like the flat earth society, it is cute.

                      I will run circles around you. You have no background in relevant topics, for if you did you would not argue with what you know is right. I am no Democrat, this I can assure you so leave that by the wayside. I am a real conservative who understands the folly of the New Morality that is stuck in last century and the dangers they present. Advocating for the holders of the old way of thinking will be your downfall.

                    23. sure sonny, sure…we are arguing because you are wrong, and you are no conservative if you are for total green and against coal…you have no understanding of basic economics…. back to your mirror and impress yourself. You libs are a hoot… you want to present some facts, come back….BTW…”science” said the earth was flat….GOD said it was round….try reading Genesis….

                    24. One does not need to be a liberal to understand a future free of FF. Your shrinking way of thinking is diminishing, thank heavens.

                      Name calling does your argument no favors, in fact it diminishes it.

                      I am the real conservative. Good has no place in DC, as your god does not speak for all religions.

                    25. well, we agree DC is an evil place now…but Jesus is a live Saviour…all other religions worship dead prophets. Define your “conservatism.

                    26. In Genesis 1:6-8 God created a firmament (which he named “Heaven”) to divide the water on earth and the water in the sky. Do we really have a solid sky holding water over us? How the heck did we get to the moon? Does the space shuttle have a “firmament opener” on the front of it? This would explain why every time it rained in the Bible, that God had to “open the windows of heaven” (Gen. 7:1 and Isa. 24:18 are examples). These openings allowed all the water above the solid sky to leak out. Maybe we broke a window on our first space mission, and have flown out the broken window every time since.

                      Snow and hail are mentioned in the Bible. It is also mentioned that they are stored for future use by God. In Job 38:22 God asks “Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail”. I can’t believe that we are so naive as to think snow and hail are formed by freezing water vapor. Someone should inform these radical meteorologists that it’s all in God’s storage areas, and that he throws him down when he sees fit.

                    27. actually that hail and snow to which you refer to are in a hypothesis for a book that a scientist has found that series of comets not seen before have been used by GOD for past and future judgements. I am hopefully getting that book today.

                    28. Proverbs 8:27- When he prepared the heavens, I was there, When he drew a circle on the face of the deep

                      Isaiah 40:22- It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And it’s inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

                      But anyone with a basic grasp of geometry knows what a circle is. It’s a flat, two dimensional object. According to these scriptures, the earth is shaped like a CD. Again, as much as many people want to believe this proves that the world is a sphere, they are only proving the Bible talks of a flat earth. There are many who say “it says circle, it got the shape right”. But this was also a common mistake of the day. People thought the earth was shaped like a plate. They got this belief because if they pointed at the horizon and they spin while tracing the horizon, it appears that they live on a flat circle. And they could travel 1000 miles and do the same thing and they got the same result. It made sense.

                    29. Sandy you gave no “stats” at all, and the above shows your attitude but is totally irrelevant.

                    30. this is proof for Ramakrishna’s claim that ” there can be as many Hindu gods as there are devotees “

                    31. So does the Pope for what that’s worth. But I’m sure someone paid him off too.

                    32. Ha Ha Sandy why call out someone about “Naval experience” when one, it doesn’t really matter, and two, you probably don’t either.

                    33. HAHAHA…yah, I did 20 in the Navy and 9 as a contractor. and your experience is…..what…..besides picking up a welfare check?

                    34. Dude the military is taking global warming seriously. They do not publically take sides but they are preparing for it — so why would they be doing that if they didn’t believe the data. Oh let guess Al Gore somehow scammed the military also. Let me tell you that reading over your remarks, they are obnoxious and hypocritical, you demand facts but don’t provide any yourself.

                    35. the military is not political? Who are you trying to kid? the military is all political, so this is an obvious over reach on your part. this also shows you have never served because if you had you would not make such a silly statement. I have provided several examples of proof, you however call me obnoxious. real good argument there. lol.

                    36. Name calling, I am surprise that you can dish it out all day long with the names and the assaults, yet when someone throws some back at you then you decide to call someone “over 12” Again I have asked you cordially in links here. What credentials do you have that make you able to stand on your authoritative stance on global warming. Also I wanted to “past this in”

                      10 Most Controversial Nobel Peace Prize Winners.

                      again I am quite sure you will find fault with that too. Oh wait a minute I see from your multiple responses to people that this is largely your response to all that have a differing opinion from your way of thinking. You continually berate and bully people in here in an attempt to give the illusion of superior intellect.. So liberal what way do you think you or your other liberal friend (libtards) think you can scam out of real work, live off the Govt tit, and shove some more “THEORY” down our throats. I am waiting for your answer and have been.

                    1. yah…when you can’t make an argument, just call someone a liar, acis, etc…libs are so predictable.

                    2. When you reallize you are beat you resort to cherry picked notes from your task masters. So predictable.

                    3. were beaten…get over it. Five years ago at a UN Conference on Climate Change, Al Gore predicted that, global warming having reached such an unbridled pitch, the North Pole might be completely ice-free during the summer of 2014. This climate change crusader had made the same claim when he accepted the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Was he right? Let’s take a look.
                      The Danish Meteorological Institute’s (DMI) Centre for Ocean and Ice closely monitors Arctic sea ice extent and publishes a monthly plot on its website. According to DMI, 2014 is the second summer in a row that the ice cap has expanded. Data from the U.S. National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) agrees, showing 2014’s summer ice well within the average range for the years 1961-2010. In fact, NSIDC’s website points out an ice extent decline rate of “slightly less than the average” for the month of August.
                      This year’s sea ice surge is no trifle. The U.K.’s Daily Mail notes that NSIDC’s numbers indicate a 43 percent increase of 1.71 million square kilometers of ice over the course of the last two summers. DMI’s statistics are even more dramatic because of a different measuring system that agency uses. It reports a 63 percent rise — from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometers — over the same time period.”

                    4. And?

                      Don’t you want to leave the world better than you found it, do you not like your kids?

                    5. yes…that’ why we need to get rid of you socialists….Gore and Obama especially.

                  2. Five years ago at a UN Conference on Climate Change, Al Gore predicted that, global warming having reached such an unbridled pitch, the North Pole might be completely ice-free during the summer of 2014. This climate change crusader had made the same claim when he accepted the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Was he right? Let’s take a look.
                    The Danish Meteorological Institute’s (DMI) Centre for Ocean and Ice closely monitors Arctic sea ice extent and publishes a monthly plot on its website. According to DMI, 2014 is the second summer in a row that the ice cap has expanded. Data from the U.S. National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) agrees, showing 2014’s summer ice well within the average range for the years 1961-2010. In fact, NSIDC’s website points out an ice extent decline rate of “slightly less than the average” for the month of August.
                    This year’s sea ice surge is no trifle. The U.K.’s Daily Mail notes that NSIDC’s numbers indicate a 43 percent increase of 1.71 million square kilometers of ice over the course of the last two summers. DMI’s statistics are even more dramatic because of a different measuring system that agency uses. It reports a 63 percent rise — from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometers — over the same time period.

                    1. wow…that was a really interesting and cogent argument… along, now. The candles on your Gore Obama altars are about to go out.

                  1. not sure what you are getting at but here is the definition.

                    conditions characterized by severity, sternness, or asceticism.
                    plural noun: austerities”a simple life of prayer and personal austerity” so if you are saying am I stern then yes. No taxer? I am not sure what that means, however; I pay more than my fair share of taxes and am about sick of watching others sick back while all the rest of us work. Lazy libtards.

                2. Yup Al Gore suckered the suckers and now has 200 million dollars and still expends energy as you said.
                  His obvious fraud should mean jail, no?

                  1. you are so right my friend. But here is the difference. If you or I had done a deception such as that we would be sitting in a prison cell rotting away. Think of all the money he literally scammed people of, and in addition all the companies that bought into it, and now the federal government buying into it. However Gore the liar he is is nothing more than a con man. Look at the company he is in though. You have a friend of his Hilary running for president. She and Obama are literally guilty of murder for not providing the aid needed and requested by our embassy, or her lies on the email server, or the lies yesterday on never receiving a subpoena, or Obama’s lies on the IRS.
                    It absolutely sickens me that people like Gore and other liberals live outside the bubbles they create and yet make made up junk science to scam money from people, I truly feel sorry for all the libtards that bought into this but that is not a new deal either they have been doing that for a long long time. It is all the rest of us that pay for their ignorance and hive collective mentality.

                    1. What about the Republican congressional investigation into the Bengazi incident that has gone on for years now and been unable to come up with anything. What about the 13 embassy attacks and 60 deaths that occurred under President Bush? You are just another right wing Obama basher whose only criteria for truth is that it can made to be look like something bad that can be stuck onto “liberals.” You don’t care about scientific truth and wouldn’t know it if you tripped over it.

                    2. oooh, ouch, I am so wounded. lol. I am an Obama basher his record speaks for itself. oh and the George bush bashing, yeah he sucked as a president, however excelled compared to old Obama. and that is the only argument you libtards can do when you get backed into a corner. the congressional investigation of Benghazi has produced tons of information that point back to Obama and old Hilary (remember that illegal email server) that emails were just pulled out on that incident. ill give you this congress is a joke and the republicans need fired as there is no reason to drag this out for years when the evidence spoke for itself on Benghazi. I don’t care about scientific truth? I certainly care about scientific truth and what can be proven and not a theory or junk science.

                    3. They still have made no conclusions and Obama and Hillary are not blamed. Obama made the mistake of speaking up immediately In the aftermath when nobody knew what had happened, but he corrected himself later. This is one report from PBS. In case you want report from Fox they have been silent since this came out

                      “A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.

                      Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria” The fact that you think “the evidence spoke for itself” means that you buy in as soon as it can me made out to be some liberal or Obama thing and then don’t care about an exhaustive review by people who would only be too glad to lay it at Obamas feet. Now that’s what I call willful ignorance.

                    4. No… No you don;t care about scientiic truth…

                      Climate change has been proven dozens of times, by numererous science groups, and various ways…


                      Including (again) just recently


                      Every science agency in the world knows this….


                      And almost every 2nd year physics student in the world does variations of this experiment…


                      The fact that you don’t know any of this just shows you don’t want to know the truth…. And instead, you spend your time listening to the output of this despicable cabal of scum…


                    5. You know what I think, how? You are an expert in this how? and what are your credentials that make you an expert on what people think? Bottom line, you cannot produce anything other than completely liberal biased media outlets or studies that are subject to interpretation. So liberal, leftist, socialist or borderline communist, why is it that if people don’t agree with your liberal way of thinking that there is this belief that you know me?
                      Read my threads to give you some background on what I have been saying. If you care to have a realistic CIVIL debate than let’s go. Otherwise go cry me a river over your..climate change theories.

              3. “I discovered, to my amazement, that all through history there had been resistance … and bitter, exaggerated, last-stitch resistance … to every significant technological change that had taken place on earth. Usually the resistance came from those groups who stood to lose influence, status, money…as a result of the change. Although they never advanced this as their reason for resisting it. It was always the good of humanity that rested upon their hearts.”

                ISAAC ASIMOV, lecture at Newark College of Engineering, Nov. 8, 1974

                Very prophetic when it comes to the fossil fuel companies….

                And they are behaving VERY predictably…


                1. That wasn’t any kind of high-level wisdom, just a basic knowledge of human nature. It may have been an epiphany to Asimov, and you may see it as a superior knowledge of some future fossil fuel debate masked by idiotic environmental sky-is-falling hyperbole, or…it could be, and this is just a thought now, that the sky isn’t falling, and your theories of oil-induced Armageddon are just…wrong.

              4. oh, you mean like give taxpayers money that was supposed to go to “our crumbling infrastructure” but given to companies like now-bankrupted Solyndra who kicked it back to Democrats…you mean like that?

                1. LOL Solyndra. How about the 1.1 Billion wasted on Clean Coal in Illinois. That is more than 2x the money. Or the 2.7 billion in cost overruns, so far, at the Southern Plant on the Mississippi river. All to develop a technology that is a failure. The only up and running one is in Canada and that will operate at a loss.

                  BTW the overall fund that gave money to Solyndra is making money for the Federal Government.

                  1. “the overall fund that gave money to Solyndra is making money for the Federal Government.”…LOL…it’s only making money for Obama and his cronies….our coal is clean enough already…Obama lied about that too – he wants to destroy the coal industry.

                    1. it is very “clean” now, as clean as you can me it without going to “gasification”. So prove it wrong.

                    2. As clean as you can get it, I agree. But not clean enough to keep relying on it. It pollutes the environment and kills people. Prove me wrong, you can’t.

                    3. it kills people? ROTFLMAO….yep, if you throw a piece of coal at someone’s head, yes. Where do you think the electricity comes from for your XBOX? COAL. Wind dies, the sun goes down. GREEN fuels also pollute, or maybe you’d like to take a swig of ethanol? No coal, and you can’t text your little buddies….go on now, back to your XBOX…

                    4. Please do some reading, outside of Marc’s thought pieces, to educate yourself.

                      Oh and the Xbox comments, hilarious. Implying that I spend time playing video game is quaint, just like your thinking.

                      Environmental impacts of coal power: air pollution

                      Even Fox news gets it. .. Why mining and burning coal could slowly be killing us

                      Coal-Burning Shortens Lives in China, New Study Shows

                    5. coal in China…last I looked, Communists didn’t have controls..ya see, they don’t care. National Geographic….ah..yah….back to your Weekly Reader, sonny.

                    6. So, Commie Coal = Bad / American Coal = Good?

                      You can not reasonably make that claim.

                      “Fossil fuel combustion harms air quality and human health. A 2010 study by the Clean Air Task Force estimated that air pollution from coal-fired power plants accounts for more than 13,000 premature deaths, 20,000 heart attacks, and 1.6 million lost workdays in the U.S. each year. The total monetary cost of these health impacts is over $100 billion annually.”


                    7. Commie coal plants don’t conform to any standards – start with them first instead of us as we have extremely effective cleaning measures in coal-fired plants – electro-static precipitators, et alia. The Clean Air Task force is a socialist joke created by Obama.

                    8. Destroy Coal, or is Coal relegating itself to the proverbial Historical Dust Bin?

                      “Energy poverty is a pressing issue for billions of people. Despite the efforts of a range of organisations and improving technology, energy poverty will remain a problem for years to come.

                      While coal will be a significant component of world electricity generation for some years, coal-fired power has little to contribute to energy poverty alleviation. The up-front costs of coal-fired generation are prohibitive for most developing country governments and where grid
                      connections are not immediately available cheaper off-grid and mini-grid solutions are already available.

                      This reality is demonstrated by the fact that not even coal companies use coal in the energy poverty projects they support. We could not find a single example of a coal company supporting an energy poverty alleviation project that uses coal-fired power, despite extensive
                      searching and contact with companies and industry associations.

                      This shows that coal industry public relations materials relating to energy poverty are just that – public relations spin. The claims that coal is vital to economic growth, quality of life and environmental improvement are not supported by data or analysis, but are designed to
                      influence public opinion and government policy.”


                    9. we have n energy poverty in the US…in other countrie, yes, because they don’t have the moneyto lay electric lines – same with land-line phones. Cells have been a boon to Africa because it is easier to install a tower. BTW….conservatives were all about nuke energy, and so was Obama in his election – another lie. France has developed nuke power and recovering/reusing spent fuel rods – libs blocked all of this. We haven’t built a nuke power plant in three decades.

                    10. Well I don’t believe it. Something I have to agree with. Yes nuclear should also be part of the mix. The new designs are much better. Chernobyl was just pile of uranium bricks, and should not be compared with proper technology.

                    11. we have n energy poverty in the US…in other countrie, yes, because they don’t have the moneyto lay electric lines – same with land-line phones. Cells have been a boon to Africa because it is easier to install a tower. BTW….conservatives were all about nuke energy, and so was Obama in his election – another lie. France has developed nuke power and recovering/reusing spent fuel rods – libs blocked all of this. We haven’t built a nuke power plant in three decades. Build more nukes…

                    12. DEMS and their lobbies like the Sierra Cla blocked nukes at every turn.GREENs, especially GREENPEACE, has ALWAYS blocked nukes. Solar cells for the outback are good, but expensive, and they are very environmentally poor for disposal, unfortunately…many heavy metals.

                    13. Coal is clean enough? Ok now we know that you go beyond climate denial. You are in la la land.

                    14. yes, coal-fired plants in America are….plants in Mexico City, for example, and in Communist countries, such as China. are not.

                2. So help me with this…. You don’t like the prescription for the illness, so you deny you have the illness?

                  That makes ZERO sense….

                  You may not like chemotherapy, but our climate very demonstrably…. through mountains of science…… Undoubtedly has cancer….

                  1. “Five years ago at a UN Conference on Climate Change, Al Gore predicted that, global warming having reached such an unbridled pitch, the North Pole might be completely ice-free during the summer of 2014. This climate change crusader had made the same claim when he accepted the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Was he right? Let’s take a look.
                    The Danish Meteorological Institute’s (DMI) Centre for Ocean and Ice closely monitors Arctic sea ice extent and publishes a monthly plot on its website. According to DMI, 2014 is the second summer in a row that the ice cap has expanded. Data from the U.S. National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) agrees, showing 2014’s summer ice well within the average range for the years 1961-2010. In fact, NSIDC’s website points out an ice extent decline rate of “slightly less than the average” for the month of August.
                    This year’s sea ice surge is no trifle. The U.K.’s Daily Mail notes that NSIDC’s numbers indicate a 43 percent increase of 1.71 million square kilometers of ice over the course of the last two summers. DMI’s statistics are even more dramatic because of a different measuring system that agency uses. It reports a 63 percent rise — from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometers — over the same time period.”
                    >>>> You libs better wake up and smell the coffee – you are being duped – Al Gore learned to be a crook from the Clintons….and he is getting his PhD in being one because of you all. Why do you think his wife of 40 years, who was a pretty good person, split? Al “married up” to the dark side….

                    1. Satellite data has found that the mean global temperature has been sitting on a plateau for more than 18 years now, which is in stark contrast to official government numbers. Just this week, NOAA reported that, at 1.33°F (0.74°C) above average, last month was the fourth warmest April recorded globally, and 2015 so far is the hottest on record. But as we’ve documented, the agency is currently mired in allegations of misconduct after it was discovered that historical data was manipulated to make post 1970s/1980s warming appear more alarming. And more and more foreign government agencies are engaging in the practice. Last year, “The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (ABM) was … forced to admit it alters the temperatures recorded at almost all the official weather stations in Australia,” H. Sterling Burnett with The Heartland Institute wrote in September. Now, “Switzerland joins a growing list of countries whose temperature measurements have been adjusted to show greater warming than actually measured by its temperature instrument,” Burnett revealed this week. Interestingly, he notes, “Even with fudged data, governments have been unable to hide the fact winters in Switzerland and in Central Europe have become colder over the past 20 years, defying predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists.” Ironically, even data tampering can’t hide one inconvenient fact: Temperature trends are defying the science community’s predictions.

                    2. The statements you make amount to flat-out ‘mis-truths’, or downright lies.
                      The Heartland Group has zero standing when it comes to the truth; its lies have been discounted numerous times. Repeating a lie, over and over again, may give it credence in some people’s minds, but I prefer to cross-check both the sources, and the data. I have taken the time to do so, and either everybody in the world except The Heartland Group is lying, or THG is.

                  2. Wrong again. Although chemo therapy for cancer is the “settled” therapy, it is used 10 times the necessary dose by doctors and pharmaceutical companies that make huge profits on killing the whole body rather than just defeating the cancer and building the bodies health. The second method is done by the challengers of the settled science and are curing people of cancer and building bodies back up rather than destroying them with chemotherapy at the doses the AMA and the pharmaceutical companies mandate.
                    In cancer treatment for decades we can follow the money of “settled” science to the greed causing the huge suffering of chemo and the high percentage of deaths from it.
                    In AGW we can follow the money to the pockets of expensive treatments and rich politicians and other criminals in the cash line from taking our wealth and distributing it through the politicians and crooks to the dictators of third world countries.
                    So since you use cancer as your same theory for global warming we can know you are wrong on both.

                3. Very selective Sandy. Lets calculate the cost to the taxpayers of all the indirect support for oil exploration, drilling, refining, transport, and cleanup. Solendra was bad news, but ultimately has nothing to do with anything

                  1. Solyndra was a fraud – it has to do with the corruption of the Obama administration…nice rationalization. It produced nothing but money for Democrat coffers. The drilling currently is being done on PRIVATE lands, costing the gov NOTHING.

          3. James the naysayer: Just because you say something doesn’t make it true. LIberals think that what ever they feel makes it true, there’s science at work….

              1. the IPCC?? come on that is like having a used car salesman saying “honestly you can trust me this car was driven by a little old lady once a week to Church”

                  1. it says nothing about me. YOu give some facts out here to make yourself try to appear more superior.

                    31,000 scientists say “no convincing evidence”.

                    Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming


                    Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis


                    The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics


                    How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming


                    The 97% consensus on global warming


                    There is no consensus
                    The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere …”.

                    So you see I can provide proof too. Problem is you will refuse to accept this evidence as again it does not meet your silly agenda.

                    I will pray for you that you can read this and accept that God is and always has been in control and that I hope you will come to know him, it is obvious you dont as you place your trust in man.

                    1. “An Unverifiable Mess

                      Time and time again, I have had emails from researchers who have taken random samples of names from the list and Google searched them for more information. I urge others to do the same. What you’ll quickly find is either no information, very little information or information substantiating the fact that the vast majority of signers are completely unqualified in the area of climate change science.”


                      Easily Debunked.

            1. Ummm… You know they make satellites right? That measure climate?

              Because you are a science denier, you obviously denounce scientists… The people at NASA have more brains in their pinky’s than you do in yiour family

              1. lets use your NASA argument for a minute here. First off NASA subcontracts satellite construction to outside contractors, so don’t kid yourself into thinking they do it. Secondly using your NASA argument NASA scientist debunked the whole OZONE hole depletion scheme years ago and called it a Naturally occurring even and that as it approached the poles the hole got smaller, but key point they made was that the so called ever expanding ozone hole (do you remember that it was supposed to cause the earth to be a desert wasteland) never got any bigger. They also went on the say that Cows and Volcanoes give off more chlorofloro carbons than anything man created by a long shot. Just like the Ozone Hole junk science (which you hear nothing about anymore) so is the Climate change, global warming etc. Yes climate changes, there are seasons, and there are patterns of bad weather. I have heard you all state that the storms are worse and oh no the super cell hurricanes. however do some research look at the hurricanes from 1893, 1896, and 1898, they literally wiped out entire regions on the east coast from Florida to North Carolina. Let’s try the horrible heat patterns from the early 1900’s, or go back to the severe drought that hit California in the 1870’s. You all cant stand it when someone can counter you on some credible FACTS, versus junk science, made up numbers, lack of controls, and theories. BRING IT BUDDY!!!!

                1. You don’t hear about the ozone hole anymore because the problem has been fixed by banning CFCs, fortunately an early public consensus was obtained and regulations adopted. Also you are confused between methane and chloroflourocarbons. I suggest you are talking too much and revealing that you really can’t keep things straight that you have read but instead buy into the denier arguments because they are simplistic. Unfortunately for global warming it is complex and mixed up in right wing politics.

                2. 1. You have ZERO real information. NASA subcotracts parts, just like a home contractor subcontracts windows….

                  2. I know NASA satellites exceedingly well…. including specifically


                  3. Again, you are worse than ignorant on the facts including Ozone… (funny that you picked that one)


                  4. If you knew anything at all about science, you wouldn’t be trying to use anecdotal weather instances as “evidence” of anything….

                  The thousands of examples of climate data however is incontrovertable….





                  Lets not get down your rabbit hole though…. Lets start by detailing your accusation about NASA.

                  The measurements taken by NASA, and documented by NOAA are excedingly clear… NASA’s position on climate change (based on the science) is also exceedingly clear…


                  As is the position of EVERY major science agency in the WORLD


                  PLEASE explain to me what specific fraud you are actually accusing NASA of, and how that is being perpetrated.

                  When you are done there, you can explain why teams of scientists from over 1000 universities and science agencies from AROUND THE WORLD independently come up with the same detailed results…. and why EVERY science agancy on the planet agrees

                  Face it…. the Jig is up…. You are just a science denier at this point. You can’t get to where you are any other way…

                  1. there is no jig to be up. and read what I sent you on the other thread you attacked me on.
                    Oh and now you are a rocket scientist? You have nothing, Rocket man.

          4. actually, up until certain points in time, cigarettes were thought to be desirable and critics of them were actually the loony minority

            similar for:

            (i) the “food pyramid” which places grains as at the prominence in our diets – who were the idiots who dared challenge that in the last 40 years?

            (ii) why should women have the vote, they belong in the kitchen to serve man

            (iii) blacks need to segregated in their own schools. *you* were a commie if you disagreed

            (iv) the earth is at the center of the universe. what insignificant minority would possibly challenge that? oh yeah, Galileo. He was gay so he really did not count at all, right?

            1. And why were cigarettes thought to be desirable? Scientists?


              The scientists were clear on this LONG before that…

              It was lobbyists… PAID by tobacco companies, to create disinformation, bribing people to lie about cigarettes and cancer, creating fake protest groups, fake reports, etc. etc. ….

              And guess who the Oil companies pay TWO BILLION a year to create disinformation, create fake groups, and fake blogs, and fake reports?

              The SAME scumbag lobbyists


              And there are dozens of them, which in turn create 100’s of fake groups, a thousand fake pundits, pay the politicians, create fake reports etc. etc…


              Only THIS time they have the Internet… and 100X more money than the tobacco companies doled out..

              It is sickening to watch…

          5. And you apparently believe the UAH and RSS temperatures sets or rigged? And you believe all the adustments made to the historical temp record every year are legitimate? BAAHHHAA

            1. Yes the temps and results are rigged. Let me give you a history lesson.
              All the liberals screamed in the 70’s and 80’s that the next ice age would hit us by 2015 and we would be plunged into what can be equated to nuclear winter. This all was working for them at the time and people were screaming the ice age is coming the ice age is coming. Then nothing supported their made up sciences, and so they needed to gravitate away from that myth, and started with the Ozone Depletion (which was proven to be a false statement as well as the ozone hole does not and did not get any bigger it gets smaller as it approaches the poles) and we would be an arid desert (the whole planet) by 2018. Then came the goof balls who wanted to sell their crap to us and said oh global warming is affecting the whole planet and that we have seen unprecedented storms and global warming is the cause..(yet 1893, 1896, and 1898 provided super storms that devastated the eastern sea board from Florida to North Carolina) and that these storms would cause us to have the polar caps melt (yet there is evidence that supports that this has happened in the past in cycles). Bottom line you cannot measure a carbon foot print from Ice core shafts and have an accurate measure. The rate of nuclear decay differs in different places all over the world, and you must have a known control sample from that area to measure carbon measurements. To date I know of no one that can say definitively that the control they are using is x amount of years old in order to make a base line for that particular area.
              You have to have fact to make a statement and all the junk so far I have stated on the next ice age of the 70’s and 80’s to the ozone myth, to the global warming is nothing more than fabricated science. Furthermore the Record snow falls and record cold temperatures blew the myth of global warming out of the water and to further support their misguided attempt to prove the earth was warming the name was changed to climate change, and you use the record cold and snow falls as an attempt to say well yes, because of climate change this is what we have. Climate change is the biggest B.S lie along with many others fabricated by liberal professors and so called mythical scientist to explain away something to bring about global change. You all want a place like the federation of planets on star trek where everyone shares in everything, no one advances for gain, and everyone is a base socialist. Remember the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. Wrath of Khan start trek.

              1. Dude you are so confused. Maybe if would help some if you didn’t pre- catigorize people into groups but tell us who actually said what and didn’t believe everything you read on the internet as “science.” One thing I’m sure of is that you have no science background and therefore should not be arrogantly putting down the science community. I’ve been around for a while and am familiar with some of conclusions you cite except they were never made in the manner you present. Instead you set them up for your straw man arguments. I mean talk about hysterical.

                1. Man you are so misaligned I am not sure you can debate ANYTHING! You cite me for what you believe I read on the internet, yet what credentials do you have? where do you get your information. I am as much a man of science as Al Gore.

                  You state ” you are sure I have no science background, and should not put down the science community. I am a man of a science background and it is of theology which translates down to “the science of things divine”. I also carry a degree in Political Sciences as well. however; I am quite sure that is not good enough for you and you don’t or wont recognize that at all.

                  You further state in your conversations back with me that I have to offer proof to you, to which I say that I have offered plenty of scientific FACT (proof) to you throughout my strings here to which you reply that information is not good enough.

                  You and others however are trying to sell this climate change junk science, to which I say; you have the opportunity to provide your proof to which you are trying to debate, you have to sell me and others on this on this. I don’t have to sell you anything, I supplied examples of scientific fact.
                  The only thing I am stating is that there is nothing that has changed or anything that will change that God does not allow. You state man is having an impact on the climate. I say that God is much bigger than all that and man is not changing a thing. That climate does change itr is called seasons. You simply come back at me with your maligned ignorance and follow the puppet strings of junk science and cannot provide proof of any change. So I say this to you sir, it is your responsibility to provide that proof which you and your socialist (leftist) group shove or attempt to shove down the rest of our throats.

                  You state in one of your threads that there are no conclusions that Obama and Hillary are at fault for Benghazi, you cite your news source as PBS. nice move there using a publicly funded media outlet who will always side with the Government. You are misinformed to state there is nothing that has been found on them. Just last week many many emails were discovered and made public with regards to Hillary knowing about the attack and doing nothing, and the white house (Obama) knowing as well and doing nothing. There is a complete disregard for the fact that we left our people to die in the fight of their life, and the fact that Hillary and Obama knew of the attack and did nothing and in fact ordered down our military from responding. There is evidence that came to light two years ago that intelligence warned of the increased possibility of attack several days prior and yet did nothing. Also look up 13 hours in Benghazi. I am quite sure you wont even look at that as you wont believe that either. You also stated the Military is not political. I have walked the walk there as well and can tell you that it is ALL Political. You have never served otherwise you would not say that

                  Obama is pure socialist (borderline communism) Hillary is all right in lock step with him. There is no secret there it is well documented. yet you will argue that too as not being true and you wont believe.
                  I have no straw man arguments, I cite what has been proven as fact. You have yet to cite one thing as fact only some misaligned theories. I look at reports and data from many outlets, not just one. I look at Government data as well, however they have a single agenda and that is to push another round of climate change down everyone’s throat.

                  You are allowed to have your opinion, that is completely OK and acceptable, I fought and served for people like you to have your voice. You are welcome.
                  As far as a two year investigation, Ill give you this (as I stated before) it is ridiculous to have taken so long for them to investigate this when the evidence is overwhelming as to Obama and Hillary’s dereliction of duties, and blatant refusal to supply military help when needed and had the carrier group stand down for supplying aid, as well as air forces to supply aid. In mine and many other veteran service members opinion, they were simply knowingly left to perish which amounts to manslaughter. you can nay say all you want. There is TONS of damning evidence (look it up) against those two. I can only surmise that prosecution is withheld because of the high potential for riots that would ensue because going after Obama would bring that. After all look at what happened every time he chimed in on the past big riots. Had he been a white man he would have been impeached and prosecution trials would have been started long ago for multiple violations of law. Benghazi is just one. (oh and don’t call me racist as you don’t know if I am black or white, Hispanic, or Asian.)

                  So in the meantime I will offer this The almighty creator Jehovah God is in control of this world, not man. Man has taken steps to remove God from everything in an attempt to prove that man is in better control than God. We founded a nation (a republic) one Nation under God. Yet we removed him from everything. We have justices who have made law based upon a political agenda and not basing anything on law.
                  I am not confused on anything contrary to your statement. I will pray for you that when someday when you meet God that you are on the side of salvation and not different. I pray that you will be enlightened with some level of knowledge that allows you to accept fact, and not theory.

          6. So tell us, o wise one, what ended the last major ice age? And whatever it was, why should anyone doubt that it could do it again, without any help from homo sapiens?

            p.s. or was that last ice age something you forgot to put on your list?

          7. Save us from ourselves? that is the problem with you libtards. You all think that this is one big happy socialistic domain, and we need saving. And as far as missing a day in school? I missed no days in school and have a far greater intelligence than you. I have been educated and advanced through the system with many degrees. So wake.
            Now there are known scientific facts, such as gravity, why the sky is blue, what water is composed of, effects of the sun on exposed skin. Yet the climate change. aka Global warming, aka, the ozone hole myth (debunked) and the next ice age coming are all THEORIES not supported by any factual data. You can take any data and adjust it to give you what you want. Hence we get the THEORIES on climate change, global warming etc. It is pretty moronic to believe that MAN can have that much of an impact to change the weather patterns and cause the seas to rise (yet they are not rising) and the surface temp of the earth to rise which is reported to be anywhere from .3 degrees to 1.2 degrees (depending on which so called scientist wishes to claim that) yet recorded temps in the 110 years of documented weather do not support that claim. You call us all freaks because we don’t support your fake science, and we believe that Obama is pushing a global agenda needlessly and call us conspiracy theorists. Yet you do the same thing stating the sky is falling and that the seas will rise, and the earth will be an overheated greenhouse and the atmosphere will ignite into flames (and so on). So where is your solid PROOF and do not provide a theory as you cannot support a theory.

            1. Neither can you Cheyenne? Do something don’t just sit there arguing a fool’s errand! Study LENR for a solution to our energy problem only if you can? What is the Hot E-Cat series being developed?

          8. Scientists make predictions (hypotheses) and then conduct experiments to prove or disprove their theories. When the observed data don’t support the theory, which is wrong? Gravity is a theory that’s been tested and proven. The same with cigarettes and cancer. Moon landings and 9/11 are historical facts, not scientific theories. Same with the Holocaust. Denying or twisting history is different from continuing to believe a hypothesis that’s not supported by the date. The AGW crowd has stated a hypothesis, obtained data relevant to the hypothesis, found that the data doesn’t support the hypothesis, and yet continues to insist the theory is right, that it’s the data that are wrong. That isn’t science. It’s a belief that its adherents stubbornly refuse to let go. Why? Follow the money. Al Gore has gotten very rich with this scam, and I’m sure he’s not the only one. All the researchers who feed at the public trough have a strong incentive to perpetuate the lie. And how may times do we have to hear “internationalists” demand that “rich” countries have to pay for “poor” countries’ compliance before we begin to understand the shakedown that’s going on? And who’s going to say how much, and handle the huge wealth transfer? Naturally it’s the very people who are making the demands. Money again. Do you really think none of it will detour into their pockets? Maybe you’re that naive. I’m not.

            1. Yopu started off correctly…. and I am sure you impress your “buds”. but climate chnage is a proven fact…. Not jusyt the physics of it in the lab…but in situ…..

              Actually beginning long ago


              And repeatedly since, by various science teams, in various ways…


              The experiments showing the physics is actually repeated year;y in labs by THOUSANDS of second year physics students around the world…. And has even been repeated on TV LOL!!


              And the details from thousands of climate scientists running studoes are collected periodically by the IPCC and put into a report….


              So what were you saying about discarding a hypothesis if the data does not support it? CLEARLY you need to discard your denier hypothesis

              ROFL!! Nice try though…..

              1. well for every experiment you have to have a static control. and based on your statement of this was beginning a long time ago is a false statement. Based on the numbers the climatologists state with their phony junk science, if this started a “long time ago” then if it were true the planet would be a wasteland and life would not exist. And mythbusters?? that is a joke and there is no real controlled lab environment there. So if your scientific data is from mythbuster tv program I feel sorry for you. I have some choice prime land in mountainous Louisiana that is also ocean front for you.

                1. (shaking my head)…

                  What I “said” was that the proof started a long time ago. If you had read the link I provided, it is of a study over 17 years, where they used satellites to measure all incoming and outgoing energy of the earth.

                  They found that the earth had an energy inbalance, where it was retaining more energy than it was re-radiating, and documented what frequesncies the raditions was being kept at. Notable was the known greenhouse gases, CO, CO2, and CH4.

                  The performed the SAME expoeriemnt over a decade later, and found that the enrgy inbalance had increased… AND that the additional retained heat was specifically at the wavelengths of CO, CO2. and CH4.

                  These findings including sensitivities, math, etc. were all blind peer reviewed by people not knowing what the premis of the study was or why. All of this is published in the Journal Nature, and has been there a LONG time…

                  It is quite simply…. Proof…

                  The recent study I linked was performed by a completel;y different group, using completely different methods, from ground stations on earth… and found the SAME thing with acontinuation of the energy inbalance, and the cause… Almost two decades later

                  Again… Proof….

                  I showed Mythbusters as an example of controlled experiments run by every physics student on the planet (they copied UC Berkleys experiments) . The fact that you don’t know that bnearly every physics student performs these is hillarious…

                  You continually avoid the science…. Though REAL scientists don’t.


                  And the VAST majority of the climate scientists of the world also agree, which is also documented and published in the Institute of Physics journal….


                  As well as a thousand other places…



                  In short, the “proof” has been there for the last 20 years. Scientists know it, and now most intelligent people do as well…

                  Just not you….

                  1. shaking my heat now at you.
                    I have stated before on this site and will do so again. My credentials speak for them self and of my intelligence. I need not prove anything to you, as once again you have not provided me with any professional background about you. 20 years of so called studies as you have pointed out do not make a case. again what you provided as results is not actual science but more of a so called study open to interpretation. You can call me not intelligent, I really don’t care as I am not alone in my thought process of there is no climate change as you people portray it, and if I don’t agree with you does not make me not intelligent. The fact that I can look beyond the liberal crap shoveled out for generations about the next ice age, then the ozone hole, then global warming, then climate change all of which have been debunked by major climatologists as well. It is unfortunate you wont believe in them though, and only believe the results that fit your agenda.
                    you sir are no better, but fully entitled to your opinion.

                    I could be your neighbor, I could be the man at the supermarket next to you in the isle, I could even be employed by a major university in this great nation. But one thing I full understand is the left’s agenda to control items based on theory, furthermore it amazes me how you all state big business is making all this money on destroying the environment. Yet your cause if successful will generate all kinds of (evil money as you all put it) to further your controls placed on this planet. In other words your cause generates the profits you are all seemingly against.
                    If you truly had an understanding of this planets creator, God, you would realize that we as humans have no control over this planet and he is in control. Only he can save you, not the junk science interpretive experiment or theories you keep stating. I feel sorry for you that you place your faith in man and not in God or his plan he could have for you. I am most sure though you feel you are too educated for God and his salvation plan. You could not believe in him and put faith in these theories.
                    so at the end of the day, wake up and look at the real data that has been provided by leading climatologists out there that you can look at and see that over the period of recorded weather patters and climate, that the earth has always went through periods of climate change (using that loosely). Again, after all how can man even think to understand this planets design and effects that man himself cannot truly explain and God is in control.
                    Peace out.

              2. You had me until you started LOLing and ROFLing. Seriously? You cite the IPCC as a serious source? The prediction is ceaseless warming due to ever higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. That’s what’s not happening. So the infamous CRU at East Anglia cooked the inconvenient data. Still there has been essentially no warming in the last, what now, 18 years? Talk about an inconvenient truth. The “global warming is a proven fact so let’s stop talking about it and do what we say” crowd plows ahead, with or without observable-in-nature evidence. But because we know that CO2 can cause warming we ignore the fact that it’s not. The Earth’s climate is evidently far too complex to reduce to simplistic formulas, no matter how insistently they’re propounded.

                1. Laughing out loud at ridiculous things is quite normal. When they are proven numerous times to be ridiculous, I sometimes roll on the floor (figuratively speaking).

                  The IPCC. Yes. The IPCC represents the VAST majority of the worlds credentialed climate scientists. The fact that you reject this and the IPCC only shows your ignorance, and bias toward corportae controlled interests over real science…

                  The “prediction” is nothing of the kind… Again, your ignorance and bias is blatantly showing. The “projection(s)” are an array of potential possibilities, based on various factors, much including variables such as CO2 emissions, but also including natural variablity such as El Nino/La Nina.


                  And you continually show your low information and incredibale bias, this time by trying (erroneously) to indicate fraud on the part of climate scientists including those at CRU. The FACT is that while climate scientists have endured a never ending barage of accusations, hacks, etc. from corporate interests. They have NEVER been found to have doctored data to support climate change. NEVER…. Rather, they have absolutely been exonerated, inclusing the case you just LIED about…


                  “Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct”

                  Who exactly are you “quoting” when you quote imaginary assertions?? ROFL!! I am sorry…That is really funny, as apparently you don’t understand what quotes mean… Or possibly you have someone talking in your head that you are quoting?

                  And OBVIOUSLY… you failed to even look at the “proof” I provided…. and yet choose to blather on, further demonstrating your ignorance, your bias, and unwillingness to change either.

                  “plows ahead, with or without observable-in-nature evidence. But because we know that CO2 can cause warming we ignore the fact that it’s not”

                  I showed you articles with links to peer reviewed and published science, and the actual reports themselves.. Here they are again…



                  BOTH of which prove climate change IN nature…. NOT in the lab.

                  The first study looked at incoming and outgoing energy from the sun, and compared the two, showing that the earth has an energy, inbalance (it is retaining more heat than it is emitting) That the heat is being retained specifically at the wavelengths of CO, CO2, and CH4…… AND that more than a decade later when the experiemnt was repeated, that energfy inbalance is higher, and at the same wavelengths…. That is PROOF….

                  The second study was performed by a different team, and did essentially the same thing from ground stations. PROOF…

                  The reality is that climate change is being reliably observed now in several hundred measures…. From sea level, to ocean heat content, and many dozens more..



                  The unfortunate reality is that climate change is so scientifically obvious to anyone trained in any almost any science, and the scientific process, that EVERY major science agency on the entire planet has now agreed (officially) that climate change is a reality, is caused by humans, and is very dangerous…


                  FYI: The individual science agencies of the world typically also have stronger statements of their own… And they vote on them. The vote on at least these four were nearly unanimous…

                  American Association for the Advancement of Science
                  “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.”

                  American Geophysical Union
                  “Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.”

                  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.”

                  American Physical Society
                  “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

                  The evidence is exceedingly clear… So yes, your ignorance combined with brashness is funny. You would be downright hillarious, if the consequences weren’t so dire…

                  1. Realmr. tead off still thinks that starting with a jab, tossing in a bunch more, screaming about the usual boogyman, (Koch bros), five page copy and paste dump he gives out every week will mean something.
                    Uhhhhh…Mr tead off….Your first chart… the “predictions”
                    Yes the predictions that you seem so proud of…
                    A chart that ends in 2007, that was made in……drumroll here….2007
                    is not a PRE….ANYTHING.
                    AR4 —-the IPCC report was in 2007, and that’s where the chart ends.

                    1. Funny… you demand evidence… I give it… You complain….

                      The AR5 report was released less than a year ago, so I gave you the previous report. I could give you the new report and the associated projections, but you will still just complain about something… ANYTHING…..


                      You are like a bad defense attorney…. No morals, and no logic… just try to find something to pick at and cast doubt…. ANYTHING…

                      Here the projections are discussed by NOAA

                      And the Union of Concerned Scientists


                      And National Geographic


                      And NASA


                      Again… The REALITY is that science is so obvious at this point that EVERY science agency in the WORLD is ON RECORD that they agree that climate change is a reality, is dangerous, and is caused by humans…


                      I post verifiable science, and links to it. You continually post lies and misinformation. I have therefore concluded that you are VERY likely part of this…


                      regardless of whether you are, or are just incredibly ignorant and dtermined to stay that way, while also excedingly prolific…

                      You are very demonstrably wrong…

                    2. THANK YOU FOR BEING YOU!!!
                      I love you mannn!
                      I explained to you that a chart ending in the year it was made is not a prediction.
                      So, what do you do?
                      The same thing … if?
                      You then go off on many other talking points……all while calling me immoral.
                      MrTeadoff…. This is why I don’t go down the rabbit hole with you.
                      If you can’t understand (even after I explain it to you), that the past is not the future, and you then go off on five different subjects, nothing positive will ever happen.
                      Your angst is having its way with you.

                2. Oh look…..You are the lucky one this week. You get the real mr tead off, and running off the rails, five pages of crap dump for the week.

            2. So your really just mad because climate change has gotten caught up in global politics, and then some people make something out of it to demand money. Far as I know no ones gotten much of anything. I can’t blame you for that but you have to be able to sort things out. These results have nothing necessarily to do with the research or the scientists. The science is good and getting better and eventually its going to be established if not already.

      1. It’s all part of the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’, the tri-lateral commission, the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, etc. Yeah, yeah, sure, you betcha. That’s why manbearpig Al Gore is now worth over $200 million, up from less than $2 million when serving as VPOTUS. Great, great sandwich. Why delete something which so profoundly and eloquently makes our point? Go preach your fakakta religion somewhere else before you accidentally learn an actual fact…

        1. Listen asshole, why don’t you go back to your job cleaning toilet bowls at Wal-Mart. I have good news for you — your boss is offering you a $1 bonus if you clean his toilet bowl extra good by licking it.

          1. “We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the
            number is not important: only whether they are correct is important” Giaever said. Shows how little you understand about science. Politruks care about swaying public opinion as the primary goal, not if the science is correct..

          2. no one funds us. We have a mind that is capable of thinking and exploring unlike the Borg (hive) Collective mindset you all share as liberals.

              1. My credibility Zero?? typical liberal. You want me to believe your junk science, but discredit EVERYTHING outside of what you will consider as being anything other than what fits your agenda. So rocket man where to now since all you can do is say I have no credibility and you are the worlds source on credible people and facts. All hail Mr. Tea. What a joke. Give us some more liberal euphemisms.

      2. The “Climate Change” cult is plain, old fashioned racket: extortion of public and private monies under false pretenses. Huge sums are involved, powerful companies, like General Electric and Siemens that make killing on peddling wind turbines–who cares that it’s all tax payers money down the drain; it’s money in the bank for them. It’s good money for oil companies too. The killing of the coal industry is all gain for them, as coal, which they don’t produce, is being replaced with natural gas. Is it an accident that Sierra Club has received $25 million from the gas industry, that BP is “business partner” of Nature Conservancy and that America’s Wetland Foundation is supported by Shell, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Exxon Mobil and BP?

        1. It’s getting frightening to see how rampantly false information is spread by those such as yourself who are most likely nice, intelligent people. I doubt you can help it, when surrounded by powerful mechanisms whose only job is to disseminate false information from those with no ethics at all – the power in what they put out to you is nearly irresistible. It feels a bit like Nazi Germany, the way they’ve sucked you all in. And yes, they may have even bought out some former good guys like NC and Sierra Club. What a coup. How scary.

        2. Although there are subsities involved they are not enough nor do they last forever. The change to alternate energy is driven by technological change and other environmental changes besides climate. Of course you probably thing anything environmental is some kind of liberal plot.

      3. …he says, not addressing a single point made by Dr. Giaever.

        If I might paraphrase your argument; “OIL IS EVIL!!!! PROFITS ARE EVIL!!!!…unless those profits are made by someone on our side of the argument, like Al Gore.”

        1. You aren’t paraphrasing… You are quoting…. And the only person saying that is the strawman in your head…

          Here is the reality….

          “I discovered, to my amazement, that all through history there had been resistance … and bitter, exaggerated, last-stitch resistance … to every significant technological change that had taken place on earth. Usually the resistance came from those groups who stood to lose influence, status, money…as a result of the change. Although they never advanced this as their reason for resisting it. It was always the good of humanity that rested upon their hearts.”

          ISAAC ASIMOV, lecture at Newark College of Engineering, Nov. 8, 1974

          It describes the observed behavior of the fossil fuel companies PERFECTLY!!

      4. Yes. destroying the planet is a viable business model that makes everyone rich. I personally do my part to destroy the planet. I take every opportunity to run over animals that stray into the roadway.

        1. I hunt animals and put their flesh in my freezer. I do more to maintain the environment than any liberal ever will. My parents were some of the first hippie types liberal save the planet, and I was sick of it with their junk back in the 70’s of we are facing a new ice age and we will have nuclear winters by 2015. No proof no statistics to back it up only made up crap. Then the scientists realized the rouse was not working so they changed strategy it is warming our planet and we are experiencing global climate change; Yet we experience some of the coldest winters in a long time and record snow falls. I haer the freaks say well that is because of climate change. They try to have it both ways and cannot even back up anything with a shred of evidence. Yet we can look up the recorded weather patterns and see that this is a cycle and there is nothing different. This is only a sad attepmt from this president and leftists to maintain control and power, and try to stay in power by doing magician tricks with numbers. We are smart enough to research and see what they say is purely B.S.

          1. How can you say there is no proof no data? Where are you all getting this from? There is TONS of proof, TONS of data dating back thousands of years. I’m sure you’re very nice, open your mind to some new ways of looking at things – research the real data!!

            1. I have 18 straight years of satellite data showing no warming at all. Put that in your pipe… And I can clearly see that the surface temperature record is continually manipulated to make it look worse and worse.

                    1. LOL, Surface temperatures not playing along so you go looking for it elsewhere… inventing new ways to find warming… Sorry. your instruments aren’t that precise. Your talking about changes in the .0x C range… And your sampling base is very limited. FAIL. Do you have ocean heat data from the MWP so we can compare it?

          2. The coldest winters have happened only on the East Coast – Great Lakes region. You are pulling unrelated issues out of the past and confusing them together. You are also suffering from a personal viewpoint problem – somehow this denier, conspiracy stuff helps you make sense of your personal history and unable to appreciate anything outside of it.

            1. I guess you forgot to mention Oregon, and Washington State as having extreme cold weather also Montana and Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota (last I looked they are not great lake region) Also Russia, Belgium, Germany, Canada and Alaska and several others if you want me to point out more. Your data and information is extremely flawed

      5. How refreshing to see one informed person here who hasn’t drunk the Koch brothers’ right-wing Kool-Aid. Interesting how they managed to find one “scientist” to support their views, probably after paying him a hefty sum under the table. May I shake hands with you, sir?

      6. Then the Nobel Committee where he spoke is a “Climate Change denier” on the take for Big Oil? You didn’t see how illogical your assertion is? Just a boiler-plate PC statement?

      7. James, you are right. It is really hard to come up with solid arguments against what Climate Depot posts, because it is so darn factual. It is really awful that none of the predictions by climate researchers have ever come true and that their models have failed their validation tests. It is a good thing people have short memories and don’t remember that what the researchers predicted before, so they don’t know it didn’t happen. If people started using their brains instead of their emotions, a whole lot fewer people would believe that human emitted CO2 has become the dominate driver of the climate. Bringing up funding sources for the skeptics, and not mentioning funding sources for the believers, is a good way to keep emotion in the debate and logic and reason out of it. A lot of people distrust big companies, so use that emotion so they don’t take the time to actually look at the arguments, because that would be a losing proposition.

        1. What a surprise!

          The PhD quoted in this dishonest propaganda piece doesn’t actually study the subject he’s voicing his opinion on:

          “According to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, the University of Oslo, and Google Scholar, Ivar Giaever has not published any work in the area of climate science.”

          1. “CB” … you spend countless hours every day “voicing your opinion” on global warming.

            What are YOUR credentials to discuss the subject?

            How many peer-reviewed/published articles do YOU have?

            Or are you simply a mindless internet blowhard who spends your days quoting faux science and repeating dishonest and dishonorable AGW propaganda/talking points?

            If your credentials couldn’t hold a candle to those of this honorable and respected PhD, why are you attempting to belittle him while hiding behind your anonymity?

            Pumping up your own ego to slime someone better than you … what a pitiful existence.

            Still crazy after all these years.

            1. “What are YOUR credentials to discuss the subject?”

              I would suggest a person doesn’t need one if her citations are valid and verifiable.

              Do you have any such citations, Geezer?

              “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”


              1. I’m not the one dismissing a PhD from ‘voicing an opinion’ on climate because he hasn’t published on climate … YOU ARE!

                If a PhD is ‘unqualified’ to voice his opinion, then how do YOU ‘qualify?’

                Nobel prize-winning PhD
                – – – – – versus – – – – –
                Dishonest internet science wannabee blowhard

                No contest … zip, zilch, nada.

                Of course you use a faux non-scientific alarmist survey to bolster your faux non-scientific alarmist ‘science.’

                Still crazy after all these years.

                1. …so no?

                  Not a single scientific source to back up your deranged claims?

                  If you’re going to make it so obvious you’re a liar, what’s the point of posting anything at all?

                  Who’s going to take you seriously?

                  Who’s going to pay a propagandist so incompetent?

                  “Without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a frozen -18 degrees Celsius (0 degrees Fahrenheit).”


                  1. I have linked to numerous scientific sources, over the years … which you always ignore. You’ve never tried to refute them … you simply refuse to acknowledge them. It’s another sign of your basic dishonesty.

                    Why are you changing the subject, then demanding that I answer YOUR question? Not going to happen.

                    Answer MY question …

                    YOU dismissed Giaever … a PhD and recipient of a Nobel prize … as unqualified to voice his opinion.

                    What qualifies YOU to voice an opinion?

                    Is it because you are …

                    Still crazy after all these years?

                    1. “YOU dismissed Giaever … a PhD and recipient of a Nobel prize … as unqualified to voice his opinion.”

                      On climate science?

                      Of course!

                      He’s not a climate scientist.

                      …now why would Marc Morano be quoting him on a subject he has absolutely no experience in?

                      If the Climate Denial propaganda machine hasn’t purchased another unscrupulous PhD to lie about the dangerous nature of fossil fuels, what explains Dr. Giaever’s comments?

                      “Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the “greenhouse effect” “


                    2. If you weren’t still crazy after all these years, why would you pretend to be more qualified to understand, let alone voice an opinion, on climate science than is a PhD with a Nobel in physics?

                      YOU are not a climate scientist. By your own criteria, you are unqualified to voice an opinion.

                      Climate science is considered a joke by most scientists in the hard sciences. You, too, are a joke. A coincidence … I think not.

                      Still crazy after all these years.

                    3. YOU ALL have missed that in a thermodynm. vessel a reduction of vol. = a increase of temp. earth is a vessel in the solar system. stored compressed atmos./and many other ways we do , have reduced the atmos. by ten miles (NASA). when used by industry and construction it re-enters Free atmos&.=’s increased weather response! we put more&more heat/entropy/energy into the atmos.,greenhouse if you please, so its exponential response. This the missing piece of the puzzle NOAA asked for in “05”. OR the bigger primary cause!?
                      “Yahoo search”- compressed atmos. or wunderblog,122100 entry-honey we shrunk the world- Anyone bold enough to reply Thanks tim r. ([email protected])

                    4. Hay, CB, if I wanted to go to school to become a “climate scientist”, what would I study?

                    5. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours …

                      Why do I need a PhD? I’m not the one who claimed that PhD Giaever is unqualified to voice an opinion on climate science … “CB” made that claim.

                      OMG, you’re linking to MSNBC for yet another faux survey on global warming?!? And you expect to be taken seriously?

                      Get serious.

                    6. It was not a ‘faux survey’; it was a well-documented, peer-reviewed research into the opinions of 10,000+ scientists. But no, I do not expect you to take anyone serious who disagrees with your faith.

                      As far as Giaever, he is entitled to ‘an opinion’. Given that there are over 10,000 opinions of people–scientists at that–who are more qualified than him who disagree with him (given that their field of study is climate), either one man with a PhD in a different field is wrong, or 10,000 people with degrees relevant to the topic are.

                      As to why I asked you where your PhD was, it’s because you claim to know more than 10,000 (really more than that) people who do, in fact, have degrees.

                    7. “It was not a ‘faux survey’; it was a well-documented, peer-reviewed research …

                      Well, no, not so much. It’s an article described as a ‘draft,’ and says nothing about it being either well-documented or peer-reviewed.

                      Interesting methodology, too. If the author(s) stated neither explicit acceptance, nor explicit rejection, of AGW, he counted them as explicitly accepting. Not very scientific … or honest, Geeky. But considering his obvious bias, and the fact that he is a well known AGW alarmist/extremist, it’s what we would expect from him.

                      MSNBC demonstrates their gullibility (or disingenuousness) by publishing this crap without asking any questions … and yours, by linking to it. I knew that article was going to be a complete waste of my time.

                      As for the rest of your rant, is it your contention that those who accept the theory of AGW are, by definition, smarter than those who question and/or reject it? I notice that most of you alarmists seem incapable of discussing the actual issues … you’re satisfied with smearing dissenters by calling them names or implying that they’re just not quite as smart as you are.

                      Not very scientific … or convincing.

                    8. BTW, Powell is not a climate scientist, either.

                      He’s a mere geologist and geochemist.

                    9. You hit the nail on the head. The IPCDC did NOT draw their conclusions from data (as I did) but OPINIONS. Let me give you some random widely held opinions that I have heard or witnessed in my lifetime.
                      1. The TITANIC is UNSINKABLE–London times early 1912.
                      2.The stock market is SOUND— N.Y TIMES 2 DAYS BEFORE THE 1929 CRASH.
                      4. Dewey will defeat Truman in a landslide. New york World-Telegram—1 week before thew election
                      5. New york will be UNDERWATER by 2010–Al Gore— 1992
                      You can probably come up with many more. OPINO)N is NOT DATA or FACT.
                      Also, please see my responses to CB and others to draw YOUR OWN conclusions

                    10. Let me tell you something that you may, or may not accept. When NACA became NASA in 1958, I was asked to join as an experimental aerodynamicist. A close study of the new charter (which was very broad), the stress shift from A/C to space and the huge new hierarchy dissuaded me. I knew many of the principals and, even then, there was a fear of political takeover. It has taken many years but that is what has happened. Examine the budget content and the current leadership and you just might not be as trustful of their statements. The bureaucracy has overwhelmed the scientists. Incidentally, my daughter is an administrator of one of their departments.

                    11. I do. The problem lies (appropriate words) in the juggling of the data. I operated 3 orbital geophysical observatories (OGO, Polar OGO and Earth OGO. back in the 60s. UNCORRECTED, their data belies the current B.S. AT 88, I have little to profit from, except the hope that people will resist the sheep (I wanna belong) syndrome and analyze inputs independently and impartially.

                    12. I personally know a scientist who quit NASA about 2 months ago because of the reasons you talked about in your comment.

                    13. WOW. at last a cogent and coherent poster. I went back and reviewed all of his comments that I could find and I’m convinced. All of you youngsters better review your opinions.

                    14. Well ,Well ! If msnbc reports it , it must be true . Their totally unbiased reporting is the benchmark for journalistic standards . (!)

                    15. Since you are using a low level source such as msnbc shows that you are susceptible to political propaganda.

                    16. lol USING MSNBC as a source are you kidding me??? Using a poll from them is even better. Wow Yet you know more than the phd scientist who has no skin in the game. ivE WASTED enough of my time reading your regurgitation.

                  2. THATS MY DATA you are quoting, obtained by MY OGO, POGO, and EOGO satellites. It has nothing to do with ANTHROPOGENIC causes. PLEASE read my other posts and revisit the chart in the article.

                2. Yes dear, but this man with the phd is not qualified to give scientific mandates on climate change. His field of study was physics, not climatology. Yes he is a brilliant man, but he admints publically that he doesn’t really know much about climate change. Sure he can give his opinion, but the weight carried with that opinion really falls far short from people who actually have dedicated their lives to studying climate.

                  1. Utter nonsense. A physicist is fully qualified to research the science and to understand it … and to determine whether or not proper scientific methodology has been followed.

                    Did you disqualify the pope as ‘not a climate scientist’ when he came out with his encyclical? A very great deal of weight is being given to him … even though he has NO background in science, let alone climate science.

                    If the study of the effects of gases in the atmosphere isn’t based on physics, what is it based on?

                    Sheesh. Stop parroting “CB” and Desmogblog!

                    1. A physicist is certainly qualified to do actual research and understand it – but that’s not what this scientist has done, by his own admission he spent some hours on google before speaking at the panel that these stories have spawned from, and that is how he based his opinions. Speaking of research, you might want to do some on the background and context of where the information is coming from. And more importantly, regardless of how you feel about climate change being a hoax, it doesn’t matter – change is coming. Our cities are becoming more and more renewable and we are shifting away from fossil fuels, slowly but surely. And we won’t stop.

                    2. Blah-blah-blah … and we won’t stop.

                      The ‘truthiness’ of the matter means nothing to you? You and your type plan to force additional $trillions of wasted expenditures on the world, while limiting individual choice … and damaging the environment in the process … based solely on your ideological fanaticism? The truth be damned … we believe!

                      How tyrannical of you.

                    3. You mix up tne good with the bad. No thinking person would denigrate the improvement of any system. The problem is NATURE is PERVERSE. If you try to push too hard you get a SOLYNDRA. If you work within limits you get Niagara Falls Power generation. All Feasible sources of energy have their advantages and disadvantages. For example;
                      2. SOLAR -plus, FREE POWER INPUT. -minus, Limited photoelectric substances, intermittent availability-HUGE CONVERTERS
                      3. TIDAL CHANGE- plus, FREE POWER INPUT, minus, Only coastal availability, Vulnerable equipment
                      4. GEOTHERMAL-plus, FREE POWER INPUT, omni present availability—-minus very expensive conversion equipment
                      5. WIND–plus, Free power input, locatable, minus, intermittent operation, large installations, High maintenance,
                      6. FOSSIL plus, Convenient, locatable, established, minus, pollution, waste, finite sources
                      ALL have Power transmission shortfalls, including fossil
                      FORTUNATELY, we have sufficient available fossil fuel energy to bridge the gap that MUST be solved, but with a rational approach. Polution can be minimized by S extraction, precipitators, exhaust condensers.
                      I hope this helps.

                    4. The question is . . . IS the Scientific Method . . . which they USED to teach us in school . . . THE method?!

                3. Nobel prize in what? Anything to do with climate? Oh right. Quantum mechanics. How, exactly, does that qualify him as an expert on climate? Oh right. It does not.

                  1. When did I claim Giaever was an “expert” on climate?

                    “Oh right.” I didn’t.

                    As a physicist, however, he does have a sufficient body of knowledge to be able to understand the principles of AGW science. After all, climate science does have a basis in physics, does it not?

                    “Oh right.” It does.

                    Do the laws of physics change when applied to climate science?

                    “Oh right.” They don’t.

                    Did I insert enough “oh rights” in my comment to give it proper gravitas?

                    No? How about one more?

                    Is Naomi Oreskes a climate scientist?
                    David Appell?
                    Dana Nuccitelli?
                    Bill Nye?
                    John Cook?
                    Stephan Lewandowsky?
                    Barack Obama?
                    Pope Francis?
                    Al Gore?

                    “Oh right.” They’re not.

                    Apparently, you DON’T have to be an expert in climate science in order to qualify to “voice an opinion.” All you have to do is AGREE with you and “CB!”

                    1. Too bad the average Joe can read the data and figure out the truth. Once has to be an academic (neigh on a specific kind of academic) to see the TRUTH ? ! …and the administration wants to take guns from Social Security recipients because they can’t balance their check book? What kind of world is this?

                      Think we are getting close to the end!

                    2. I’m assuming your are not talking about the ASTER (Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer) . . . LOL . . . but the other definition . . . LOL!!!

                    3. The Bible study note this morning (which is randomly selected by my phone) was for 2 Peter: 3. Let us hope that is not immediately prescient, but prophetic in general.

                    4. Still waiting to see how you are more qualified….Since you seem to imply that anyone without a PhD should shut up, maybe you should take your own advice.

                      Not my opinion, I welcome logical discourse, just reflecting back your thoughts

                    5. Either you have not followed the conversation, or you have a serious reading comprehension deficit.

                      My replies are in response to the empty-headed numskulls who mindlessly quote Desmogblog that a PhD in Physics is unqualified to ‘voice an opinion’ on climate science.

                      If Giaever, of all people, is unqualified to voice an opinion on the validity of climate science, then “CB” and “plawler” are certainly unqualified to voice their opinions … by their own standards.

                      I didn’t set the standard … they did!

                  2. Respectfully, you are probably not a physicist, but you must realize that physics is a lot more wide ranging than simply F=Ma. It covers ALL aspects of physical activity. Quantum mechanics (look it up) is particularly applicable to climate.

            2. Please see my comment to “CB”. The 97% he quotes, is a spurious number. Just made up I have a petition signed by over 30,000 scientists that refute ANTHROPOGENIC (man-caused) global warming. If they represent the 3% contrarians, that would say that there are ~970,000 proponents. The subject would disappear if the biased grant funding went.

              1. The OISM study that you are citing has been debunked and is not made up of scientists. FOX news reports signed that petition. There is ample evidence and consensus in the scientific community, but people who still deny that man-made pollution and decades of destruction have any impact on the earth or the climate. Your grasping for straws with this comment man.

                1. You guys don’t seem to ‘get it’. Theres plenty of pollution to fight, think of Chemtrails using heavy metals and oil spills caused by idiot managers that don’t follow safety guildlines or take proper precautions. Even the EPA created a spill of toxic water into a river by ignoring warnings by others. But besides that… there will ALWAYS be climate change, ..with or without mankind adding or subtracting from it. Find out WHY the Farmer’s Almanac is so accurate, it has to do with solar cycles, Astronomical alignments and orbits and other things factored in that they don’t exactly tell us about but that enables them to be pretty reliable.
                  We are still coming out of an ice age.
                  Retreating glaciers are uncovering fresh frozen vegetation.
                  Once the Earth was warmer than it is right now. Once Dinosaurs roamed a tropical Antartica, and early navagator’s maps also showed an ice free south pole. The North pole supposedly had a ice free area though it , and early explores from Europe looked for what they called the ‘North-West passage, some ending up rather disasterously part of the icy scenery.
                  Perhaps we would be better served finding out what caused these non man-made climate change incidents in the past rather than trying to pass legislation that burdens us and actually might be down right disasterous.
                  We do not need legislation that turns a part of the population into ‘useless breathers’ as a modern equilivant to old Nazi Germany’s ‘Useless Eaters’.
                  Warmer can be survived a lot more than colder.
                  If anything , we should wonder WHY there was an ice age.

                  1. “there will ALWAYS be climate change” This one is a no-brainer, but you you’re not accounting for Rate-of-change. For adaptation and survival, this is a much greater factor. Your stories, opinions, and false analogies don’t replace science.

              2. “I have a petition signed by over 30,000 scientists that refute ANTHROPOGENIC (man-caused) global warming.”

                The fact that humans warm the planet when we produce CO₂ was first proven by someone named John Tyndall in 1859.

                His findings have remained the undefeated scientific understanding ever since.

                If one scientist had overturned this understanding, she would immediately be given a Nobel prize.

                …so why hasn’t that happened?

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


                1. Rational argument, EXCEPT. Tyndall’s experiment showed that water vapor absorbed ~10,000,000 X /MOL than ANY other elemental or compound gas. That means a cloudy day equals about 50 years of a 120% rise in CO2. He did nit have chloro-flouro-carbons (CFC( freon.

                  1. “Tyndall’s experiment showed that water vapor absorbed ~10,000,000 X /MOL than ANY other elemental or compound gas.”

                    It’s true that water vapour is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO₂!

                    …it’s also a multiplier of the warming effect of CO₂:

                    “Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.”


                    What’s your point?

                    1. What they neglected to tell you (or you missed it) iOS that the transition from water (clouds( to vapor requires 80 calories per gram, a tremendous heat absorber. This FACT counters any other statement regarding vapor.

                    2. “the transition from water (clouds( to vapor requires 80 calories per gram… This FACT counters any other statement regarding vapor.”


                      Well, no, pumpkin. The fact that it takes a lot of energy to generate water vapour from liquid water is not the only attribute water vapour has.

                      It also absorbs infrared radiation, which means it insulates the planet and keeps it from cooling down.

                      We can actually see water vapour slowing the rate at which Earth cools from space.

                      If you really did work at NASA, why don’t you know this?


                    3. AH c’mon, your contorted argument makes no sense at all. The rotation is NOT slowing. If it was we could use it fir our weight gain. But even if it were, how in hell could you assign it to the microscopic increase of ONE gas.

                    4. “your contorted argument makes no sense at all. The rotation is NOT slowing.”

                      Didn’t say anything about rotation, pumpkin.

                      Whose argument doesn’t make sense, again?

                      “While the dominant gases of the atmosphere (nitrogen and oxygen) are transparent to infrared, the so-called greenhouse gasses, primarily water vapor (H2O), CO2, and methane (CH4), absorb some of the infrared radiation. They collect this heat energy and hold it in the atmosphere, delaying its passage back out of the atmosphere.”


                    5. I quit. There is an old adage, that goes,”Don’t try to teach a pig to sing. It provides no music and annoys the piog.” GOODBYE, HAPPY OINKING.

                    6. “Don’t try to teach a pig to sing.”


                      You aren’t a pig, and I’m not asking you to sing.

                      I’m asking you to think.

                      Why is that giving you such difficulty?

                      Why are you having difficulty with concepts children can figure out?

                      “During the day, the Sun shines through the atmosphere. Earth’s surface warms up in the sunlight. At night, Earth’s surface cools, releasing the heat back into the air. But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That’s what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 59 degrees Fahrenheit, on average.”


                    7. Another pig saying… don’t wrestle a pig in dung, you will both get dirty and the pig WILL like it. Don’t wrestle with Pig CB (you could try to put lipstick on him to make him look better though [grins]). Melting snowflakes…

                    8. Please,,, tell me that you’re a troll and you’re doing this for fun, because this idiocy is on another level…

                    9. 80 calories PER GRAM!!! HAH! Are you kidding me??? The idiocy of that statement.

                      “This FACT counters any other statement regarding vapor.”
                      So ‘nothing’ absolutely ‘nothing’ else can be said about water vapor, that doesn’t counter that ‘fact’??? That’s an absolutist fallacy, verifiably wrong, and laughable…

                2. Sigh….
                  You’re describing CO2 in an isolated experiment to test the infrared forcing. As a trace gas in a massively complex H20 dominated system it’s completely different.

                  Really, this is basic stuff…

                3. CB developing and measauring properties of various gasses has nothing to with proving AGW. Tyndall was a just doing experiments typical of the time. He had no interest in nor even thought of AGW. This is another of your may strawman arguments or down right lies you always try to pass off as the truth.

              3. Don’t try citing the OISM Petition as it carries signatures of both fictitious characters, and people long dead. Even if it were accurate it would represent 0.3% of the people in the US with the determined ‘qualifications’ for what they call ‘Scientitsts’ (an extremely small percentage of which actually study climate…)

                Do us a favor and don’t believe everything Fox news and the radio tells you.

                Read into things before you believe them…

            3. I have looked at peer reviewed papers on climate science for 40 years, written by scientists at U. Mich, Harvard, U. Fla, Georgia Tech, among others. Thousands of scientists around the world study climate change and publish their research. There is enormous consensus among them that it’s real. And It’s not secret – you are free to
              read the literature,too. (P.S. It’s just science. Politics has nothing to do with it.)

              1. This thread is a year old. You’re a little late to the party.

                “Peer review” is broken. It is now referred to, by people in-the-know, as pal review.

                The “consensus” is phony. It has no meaning and it never did … science is not governed by democracy. And as Einstein said, it doesn’t matter how many agree or disagree, it only takes one to prove a theory wrong.

                You called “it” climate change, so I assume you are referring to the theory of anthropogenic global warming. If you think politics has nothing to do with “it,” you need to broaden your horizons. Pick up a newspaper … “it” has EVERYTHING to do with politics. The PhD in this article figured that out after a very perfunctory glance at the so-called “science.”
                Why are you virtually non-existent in Disqus? What are you hiding?

              2. Yeah, like Dr. Judith Curry of GA Tech who has turned against global cooling, er, global warming, er, climate change. Yeah, the truth is now being told!

            4. For those of you unfamiliar with debates or logic, ‘TeaPartyGeazer’s ‘argument’ is what’s known as an Ad Hominem (it carries no weight). Ref:

              “a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.”

              1. For you who are unfamiliar with “CB,” “CB” is a troll who scours the web, daily, for articles on/by climate skeptics, and engages in character assassination, usually by copying and pasting smears from websites that specialize in lies and innuendo.

                He then links to a totally unrelated topic on some climate alarmist website.

                He does this dozens of times, for hours on end, every single day. He’s been doing it for years.

                He basically calls climate skeptics suicidal and homicidal maniacs. You can look on his profile to get a picture of what this troll does … look at the tenor of his comments, at the number of his comments.

                Pointing out this troll’s disgusting behavior is NOT an Ad Hominem attack. It is a response to his Ad Hominem attacks.

            1. You do not have to have a PhD to be able to analyse scientific data and argument. But it helps.

              I have examined Giaever’s argument (above) and consider it hand waving, cherry picking of data, and a failure to recognise the limitations of conclusions drawn from data with large error margins. And I do have a PhD.

              1. I agree. But he is the one seeing the hand waving… He’s the one seeing satellite data ignored. He’s the one who’s seen the MWP wiped out of the Climastrology history books. He’s the one that sees how much the temperature trend just from 1880 to 1980 has evolved to make the warming look worse. HE’s seen the .5 to .7C cooling from 1940-1975 also vanish from the record.

              2. And then (speaking of large error margins), there’s the latest “ocean heat” craze… trying to detect .01C changes across the whole depth of the ocean… LOL.

          2. Only an idiot would question a man of his stature. I have been in the science game for over 60 years, published over 30 papers, all classified (except my graduate thesis). I retired as the NAVY’s Director of Science and Technology and can tell you that Dr. Giaever is as solid a scientist as you will find in ANY subject that he cares to comment on.
            I am an AeE and have Worked three orbiting geophysical observatories (OGO, EOGO, and POGO) and agree with him 100%.

            1. Quote from the man: ”

              “I am not really terribly interested in
              global warming. Like most physicists I don’t think much about it. But
              in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn
              something about it. And I spent a day or so — half a day maybe on
              Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I’m going to try to
              explain to you why that was the case.

              Question EVERYONE and EVERYTHING. As a scientist, you should know that.

              1. “Question EVERYONE and EVERYTHING.”

                That includesSnopes.

       is a mom-and-pop operation that was started by two people who have absolutely no formal background or experience in investigative research.

                1. The only question is, is that quote accurate or not. No the qualifications of You climate deniers are very good at throwing distractors out there.

                  1. (You’re missing part of a sentence …)

                    Climate deniers are very good at throwing ‘distractors’ out there?

                    Really? And what do you think this entire thread is?

                    It’s one long litany of “Oh, he’s not a climate scientist, so he’s not qualified to voice an opinion.” Not one of you has attempted to dispute anything he actually said … all you’ve done is imply he’s not smart enough to understand what’s going on.

                    As I noted elsewhere on this thread, climate science is based on physics. Unless the laws of physics change when they’re applied to climate, Giaever is fully qualified to understand it and to have an opinion.

                    Your quote from him is only a partial quote, as demonstrated by the last sentence: “And I’m going to try to explain to you why that was the case.” Then you, and Snopes, just stop right there.

                    Snopes devotes a large portion of that article to the petition that was signed by 36 of the Nobel Laureates at the conference. What they failed to mention (as are many other alarmist pundits) was that there were 65 attendees … which means 29 dissented. That’s 47%.

                    The failure to put that number into full context is typical of the kind of incomplete and outright disingenuous information that is put out there by alarmists, including scientists, that we skeptics have to wade through on a daily basis.

                    Snopes also expressed outrage that Giaever insulted climate scientists by saying that AGW resembles a ‘religion.’ Well, what else would you call it when it’s declared by alarmists that “the debate is over, the science is settled?” It certainly isn’t science!

                    1. Like I told the other guy, you are becoming very tedious and no longer entertaining. In the end this will be solved politically. In the meantime, take your meds and try not to bust an eye ball vessel over this gigantic conspiracy and find something more productive to do. I’m sure you have other things to do. I sure do.

                    2. There, there, little man. Wipe those tears.

                      YOU decided to insert yourself into this conversation. Nobody’s fault but your own if you can’t keep up.

                      It is interesting, though, how the alarmist camp is divided into two different camps. One, like you, who don’t give a damn about the science … only the political solutions drive your ideology. Two, the camp that pretends to focus strictly on the science, and claims that the political side has no bearing on the issue.

                      Kinda schizophrenic, if you ask me.

          3. I call it “The Galileo Effect”. Zealots, like you will cling to your argument despite facts, often citing OPTNION, lie it was data. I would like to hear your ravings over this FACTUAL global temperature chart, It is peer-reviewed and published in the “Journal of Physics,”

            The Great Pause lengthens again: Global temperature update: The Pause is now 18 years 3 months (219 months)

          4. Something tells me that if he were instead raving about the dangers of global warming … oops, climate change … you wouldn’t have any problem at all with his credentials.

          5. I see this argument all the time.

            If a layman says they are skepitcal about AGW, then they are told they don’t understand science.

            If a scientist says they are skeptical about AGW, then they are told their opinion isn’t valid because they aren’t a Climate Scientist.

            If a climate scientist says they are skeptical about AGW, then they are labeled a crackpot.

            See how that works? It’s called a chilling effect (ironic), and it is used to stifle debate and keep scientists in line. Why would a modern climate scientist want to risk their career over it? Why would other scientists want to risk being labeled a “denier” or “unscientific” when it isn’t even their field? The few that do are either so well established or old that they simply don’t care what others will say about them.

            Now, it does help if a person is a scientist or at least well educated in the sciences, regardless of their specific field of study. Someone like Giaever has the ability to read a technical paper and understand it and be able to point out what might be questionable in it. The average person might have difficulty doing that because technical papers aren’t something most people read outside of school if ever.

            I’d also point out that he is a physicist, and that the very mechanics of AGW are explained by physics. I am sure Dr. Giaver knows enough about molecular bond energies and absorption of electromagnetic radiation to have a rather educated discussion about it.

          6. Scumbag troll shills like you always commit the argumentum ad vercundiam logical fallacy, and misuse it at that. As physics incorporates all key aspects common to the vast majority of sciences, i.e. systems anlaysis, physical properties of elements, mathematics etc then he as a Noble prize-winning genius is extremely able to see through the political scam that is global warming.

          7. For those of you unfamiliar with debates or logic, ‘CB’s ‘argument’ is what’s known as an Ad Hominem (it carries no weight). Ref:

            “a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.”

        2. I agree. Probably where the brokers would come from.
          Incidentally, have you noticed that oil prices are plummeting, while gasoline prices are skyrocketing?

        3. Wrong.

          The funding for alarmism via governments and their banking owners are billions of times the skeptical side.

          All the science supports the skeptics.

          You lose.

          1. Quite the contrary. The obvious is true. Oil/Coal/Gas companies have many billions to lose grime the tradition to energy that won’t cook us. They therefore spend billions a year to maintain profits. Meanwhile the entire s identification community (much including scientists that get ZERO in funding from any grants) agree on the reality of climate change. this alone proves your baseless statement wrong. These science agencies also don’t just have “opinions” as you do. They look at the mountains of scientific data available from hundreds of sources (around the world) that have been collected (for decades) by thousands of science teams. Your meme of scientists (all of a sudden) becoming massively corrupt and (somehow) in collusion is not only unsubstantiated. It is laughable.

            1. “Big Oil” is behind the climate change hoax. The Rockefellers can offload their fossil fuel portfolio, but they are still “Big Oil” in my book. They would be nobodies if it weren’t for their stake in Big Oil.

            2. The way the climate thing is going is just the way the FDA was led into the food pyramid with grains and carbohydrates as the large foundation of the recommended diet. In the late 1960’s there were a couple of studies that said heart disease was caused by too much meat and saturated fats. Scientists at the time disputed the findings with just as many studies that concluded the opposite. BUT, that was the dawn of the naturalist and vegetarian movement. So liberals in Congressional subcommittees (and a couple in particular working for Senator George McGovern) forced through new FDA guidelines telling us to reduce meat consumption and avoid animal fats. And instead eat more grains and carbohydrates. Scientists who were doing work that disputed this “settled science” were ostracized, lost their teaching posts, their careers, etc. 40 years later we have an epidemic of diabetes because our bodies can no longer turn all the sugar into energy; we have heart disease because our bodies no longer make good cholesterol to overcome the bad cholesterol. A vast proportion of our kids are suffering from ADD and ADHD because they don’t have enough of the types of fat in their food that a human brain needs for its development, and finally, FINALLY, scientists can once again question the mantra of eating most of our calories from carbohydrates. I guess we only have about twenty years to go on this climate change nonsense.

            3. Every one of your so called logical conclusions come from Man Made Modules. Man Made Modules is not the recipe for any true Scientific Experiment, certainly not fact or even logical conclusions. This though will come to a strong personal opinion which is only valued when you add salesmanship.
              In conclusion: RealMrTea has been sold a very expensive pocket of Hot Air. When these 1000’s of collaborators are defunded you will find their true thoughts and you will be stuck holding worthless carbon credits.

          2. The oil companies have more than enough money to fund any kind of study they want… What’s the problem then and why are there no good counter-studies? Because we’re familiar with the tactics of the cigarette industry, and blatant attempts to distort data, and because very few climate scientists (in good conscious) could sell themselves out in such a way.

            “All the science supports the skeptics.” Absolutism anybody? I’m sorry, but the logic is poor with this one…

        4. That’s just silly, oil/gas spends about 110mil per year in GW research and funding. The US Gov ALONE spends 3.5 Billion. That doesn’t include the other 160 countries with their own research programs.

      1. Here’s how it would work.
        1. A UN panel allots carbon quotas to all countries, based on population.
        2. The industrialized countries will exceed their quotas.
        3.The “Third world” counties will have have a surplus allotment.
        4. Brokers will transfer these credits to deficit countries, FOR A BIG FEE.
        5, You Are right, there is NO difference in the amount of carbon released.
        6. There is NO incentive to reduce the emissions.
        7. Fortunately, the whole anthropogenic effect is B.S. and there is NO data to the contrary.
        so the only result is more rich crooks, like GORE.

          1. Tsk, tsk, just how I’d imagine an immature pre-pubescent type would react to being proven less capable than his opponent; throw an insult or a rock and hope for a direct hit.

            You lose.

        1. I really think you shouldn’t use big words you don’t understand. Gore’s father was very rich. Gore has not made a cent from any of this. He’s spend more of his own personal wealth, and received none from donations. You are so far off base. Do you just arbitrarily throw facts out in the air and expect fools like you to believe them? Obviously you do, and they do. Gore’s father made money from tobacco, which he is ashamed of. Cancer killed his sister. So stop spouting facts you know nothing about.

                1. What has HUSSEIN O done for you John Screed? I know what HUSSEIN has done TO me and millions of others. Get off the tracks, because the Trump Train is coming, and there are millions on it.

            1. So John Steed, I guess you are a professional wrestler. If so you are a bad one because I have never heard of you. Oh, wait, you live by picking up your welfare check and picking pockets at starbucks.

          1. You should check your data better
            Gores fatherwas a high school teacher when Armand Hammer offered to finance his run for the Senate. After that he was a shill for him and any other group that would pay,. He was the model for the crooked Senator in “Born Yesterday.”. Al is the force behind :cap and trade” A real whore. Check it out.

            1. I don’t know where you get your facts from. Perhaps Rush Slimebaugh and Faux News. So Armand Hammer just arbitrarily walked up to some unknown school teacher and offered to run his senate campaign. That’s logical and makes so much sense. His father was a tobacco farmer you stupid fool, and made plenty of his own money. Fact check you simpleton.

              1. Gore was challenged by Republican congresswoman, Marsha Blackburn, over his investments.

                She said: “The legislation that we are discussing here today, is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?”

                Mr Gore said: “I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it.” He added that he had put “every penny” he has made from his investments into Climate Protection.

                You do understand that he has a lot to gain by pushing the climate warming charade, right?

                1. So AGW doesn’t exist becuase Al Gore may of profited from it? Does that also mean that God doesn’t exist cause Joel Osteen has made alot of money preaching the gospel?

              2. Gore left office with 2 million dollars. That is verifiable fact. He is now worth in excess of 120 million. This can also be verified. Care to explain that? Seeing that he exclusively involved in Carbon/climate related work.

                1. You’re kidding right? Gore was already worth 10’s of millions before he took office, as was his father. 2 million is peanuts, it’s not even worth his time. You can’t even buy a decent apt. in N.Y.C. for that amount of money you stupid fool. Where do you live, Alabama, in a trailer that cost you your life savings of $10,000.00? You want to talk about crooks you naive, gullible idiot, let’s talk about dumb dumb W. A coward who avoided Vietnam, a failed businessman that wrecked every thing in private life he ever touched. Daddy and the Saudis had to bail him out of his failed oil businesses before he became the worst president in recent times. W. started a fictitious war and he Cheney and their cronies walked away with 100’s of millions of dollars because of Halliburton (I know, I bought a ton of Halliburton stock when dumb dumb W. started beating the war drums) so shut your mouth and stop using big words you don’t understand. And check your facts from a reputable source, not Faux News or that fat tub of guts Flush Slimebuagh, the queen of oxycontin, before opening you misinformed trap again. “It is far easier to convince people of a lie than it is to convince people of the truth.” Mark Twain.

                  1. Alex, your reaction here is the exact reason why the liberal left is in the hole they have dug. They (and you) speak down to and insult people that you feel are inferior because they do not agree with you, make less money, are less book educated than you, ect. The insults and anger do nothing to promote your point or position, they only make people turn themselves off to your argument. It doesn’t matter what Gore’s father did, what matters is what Al himself has reported as his net worth. According to Forbes, when Gore ran for president in 2000, he had less than $2 million in assets to his name. I’ve seen reports that he is now worth anywhere between $200-$300 million. With this being the case your argument is flawed and needs some truthful realization on your part that he is definitely worth a substantial amount more now than he was 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago.

                    On Gore’s environmental hypocrisy, in 2007, public records revealed that the energy
                    consumption at Gore’s Nashville home was 20 times the national average. 20 times!!!! Really, if that doesn’t scream hypocrisy I don’t know what does.

                    In a May 1, 2013 interview with Bloomberg Television, Gore said American
                    democracy has been “hacked” by the influence of money in politics. Lol, Al Gore, the Clinton’s and your own party are the poster children of your own statement.

                    The American political scene has been corrupt for a long time on both sides, so both sides need to wake up.

                    1. Thank you for your collaboration. I remembered the dollar amounts but forgot the citation.

                  2. First you could actually verify those facts if you tried. Second, I probably make more money retired than you do working. Third, I live in Alaska and I retired from one of those “evil” petroleum companies (retired senior scientist) you doubtless vilify but you still use products from every day. As for education and IQ, walk away before you really get embarrassed. I read German, Russian, and Hebrew and get my news from a wide number of sources. Let me guess, your sources are CNN, MSNBC, and the NY times (or the Boston Globe). And it is always the mark of intellect to slavishly use liberal labels for people or groups you don’t agree with, how 3rd grade of you. And, I really believe you bought Halliburton, Honest I do (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). A ton is more than 3 shares. I’ve earned graduate degrees, taught and earned tenure at the university level, done environmental research, worked for a great Oil company and now retired in a great area. Have a great day in fantasy land while us adults will continue to live to a place called reality.


                1. Blow it out your ass Stevietees. (how original) You’re such a loser you have to use caps to scream at people because no one you know will listen to your silly nonsense, lies and diatribe. Get your facts straight loser, Gore never said that. You’re just arbitrarily tossing out facts you’ve made up or heard from Flush Slimebaugh or Faux News. More snow in one winter means nothing more than weather you dumb simpleton with no foresight. Climate change happens in terms of years. Now you can move on to more misinformation you stupid fool.

            2. Whether cap and trade is a good idea or not does not prove or disprove global warming. It’s basically the same as deciding whether of not blue fin tuna are over fished or not based upon how they taste.

          2. I operated 3 satellites for 10 years OGO, POGO AND EOGO. Stands for Orbital Geophysical Observatory, Polar OGO and Earth OGO. You. typify the ignorant. Assault the writer when you have no data. We found NO anthropogenic ( man caused ) effect .What are your qualifications?

                1. did you see that? he named satellites. what i would really like to know is what you saw in your data and what you would have needed to see to reach a conclusion of anthropogenic (man caused) effect?

                  so i’m reading on and it says ogo 1 had a boom fail to deploy. was that your fault? did you personally run all of the ogos and pogos and the others or just one of each? oddly, although the cite appears very detailed, it does not indicate that any of the ogos collected any data that contributes to a firm conclusion on climate change. no, i think you are lying just like the rest of your people.

                  1. Reasonable argument. I am 89 years old, WW2 vet and retired in the 90s as the Navy’s Dir, S and T development. Had an incredible career (by luck). Data we gathered was interpolated into existing tree ring. glacial tap and oceanogralhic records. There are many things we can do to LESSEN the effects like no rainfall forest cutting, reduce ocean pollution and Cut SO2 EMISSIONS, BUT CO2 IS PASSIVE. Plants use all we put into the atmosphere.


                    2. did you see that? he says i’m reasonable. shows what you know. but you avoided the question. how does interpolating atmospheric measurements into existing biologic and ice core samples show that people are not having an impact? and, what would you have needed to see in that data to conclude that humans are having an impact? by the way, congrats on achieving great age and success. hey, it just occurred to me. maybe you did give the information needed to reach an answer. you collected atmospheric data, then measured the tree rings that grew during the time of the atmospheric data collection, then compared it to past tree ring data and showed that increased carbon did not increase tree rings. which, of course, defeats the whole ‘plants think its yummy’ thing.


                2. That’s an interesting word, I’m actually quite surprised, given your silly, made up job title, that’s it’s a part of your daily lexicon. I think the term is more applicable to you and your very important job operating satellites. PHD in physics I’m guessing. LOL.

                  1. Village idiot, how original, you should host your own talk show you’re so clever and funny. You could talk about your made up titles and tell everyone you worked at NASA with a PHD in physics operating the big satellites in the sky. Appears to me no one else seems to believe your silly fairy tales about satellites either you sad, pathetic loser.

                  1. Pull your head out of your ASS! What he has told you is correct….all three are what he said! Guess you and Alex are not quite as bright as you think!

            1. Impressive, old guy. Please provide the data. By the way, did you have 3 separate satellite controllers? What is your LOGO? Did you get OGO and POGO, BOGO?

            2. His qualifications were authorized by his Liberal friends and something he heard on CNN.
              What more does he need?
              Oh yeah, Obama said it, so it has to be true. Right?

            3. Whoopee, did you act in the same capacity as Bart Simpsons dad in the nuclear power plant. Push a button, watch the satellite orbit Mr. PHD of physics! What type of degree do you have Mr. Big Shot, if you have any degree at all? LMAO.

          3. Gore was challenged by Republican congresswoman, Marsha Blackburn, over his investments.

            She said: “The legislation that we are discussing here today, is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?”

            Mr Gore said: “I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it.” He added that he had put “every penny” he has made from his investments into Climate Protection.

          4. Alex, you are the un-credentialed fool, who could not pass the calculus, which is the basis of all human understanding of Science and Nature. God Bless Ivar and President Trump. Molon Labe, you parasite.

        2. And Exxon Mobil payed off charlatan scientists for 20 years to lie about AGW being false and then stopped when the Union of Concerned Scientists pressured them to stop the propaganda. So who is making ALL this money? The Fossil Fuel industry. And what is wrong with solar and wind which is renewable? Nothing except for the fact that it will cut into the control of big oil and make individuals more independent and able to create power off the grid. All while average CO2 levels have crossed over the 400ppm level which has blown away anything in the last 1 million years of ice core air bubble data that ranged between 180 and 270 ppm during that entire time. And yet in the last 100 years or 1/8000th of that time period the level increased by over 30% and all scine the industrial age. It’s not Milankovitch cycles, solar minimums or maximums, volcanoes or anything else but CO2 and industrialized cattle farming with an average cattle population of over 1.2 Billion pumping out CH4 with fracking added into the mix. But you will die believing a LIE instead of facing reality.

        3. Third world countries will need to control their populations as Mao had to do in China. But doing that with any religious sheep is just about impossible. This one factor requires women to have rights and be educated so they don’t have to depend on men to survive. Lower birth rates come from the most secular and liberal countries in the world not the most conservative and regressive one’s. Until then, there has to be a give and take as the citizens in the USA have used fossil fuels like heroin junkies in need of a fix.

        4. And AL GORE does not represent the millions of people working on changing our planet for the better. He was a terrible choice for the movie ‘The Inconvenient Truth’ as he does not practice what he preaches. The right wing just doesn’t want to accept the truth about humans in industrialized nations increasing CO2 above 400ppm for the first time in over 1 Million years which is the anomaly you just can’t hide. Along with the other industrialized problem of CH4 form over 1.2 BILLION cattle being fed food that makes them fart incessantly and the frackers and other Nat Gas folk who are spewing out CH4 all over the place now.

          1. Or, you know, instead of panicking we could do some science. Like create some artificial biospherers with 400ppm, 600ppm, 800ppm, and see what that does to the plants, animals, insects, and atmosphere inside them. You know, science?

        5. Use your brains, this guy Giaever shared the Nobel Prize for physic with Leo Esakis for their discovery of electron tunnelling in superconductors, THAT is NOT a field o Climatology.This guys credentials, should make the next administration eager to hire him as Climate change advisor note ” I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most
          physicists I don’t think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel
          here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I SPENT A DAY OR SO – HALF A DAY MAYBE ON Google, and I was horrified by
          what I learned. And I’m going to try to explain to you why that was the
          case.” Can you imagine that, a half-a day wonder Climatologist, when others spend decades.

          1. When that old guy is 100x smarter than you are, ya maybe you should listen to him. See, unlike your false prophets, he’s not claiming to have all the answers, he’s saying, I looked at what these guys have been doing, and it’s not science. Wake up.

          2. Hmm, there’s a flaw to your argument. If 97+% of ALL scientists believe in climate change/global warming, how many of those are actually Climatologists.? 1% of all scientists? 2%? Using this “logic”, only a small minority of “qualified” scientists believe climate change is caused by humans.

            1. The 97% number has been discredited so many times. I won’t go through the full explanation but let to suffice to say that a lie repeated enough times becomes a fact. Again, find the basis for this number. It is in fact more than misrepresentation, it is an out and out lie.

        6. “(SEE THE CHART IN THE ARTICLE)” Obviously, you’re going through second childhood. Were that not true, you’d know that this chart is a joke meant to appeal to morons like yourself. It is a joke for a variety of reasons. First, it is a lie – the temps are wrong. Anyone can verify that by going to a site like NASA and seeing global temps. Second, it just happens to choose 1998 as a starting point. 1998 was a HUGE temperature anomaly. Here, let me put it to you in terms even an imbecile like you can understand. Remember when your teacher in 6th grade (obviously your last) threw out your lowest and highest grades to get your average? Well, it’s the same with temps. Starting at a huge warm anomaly makes it seem as if climate has not increased since 1998. Here, you bloody imbecile, is a real temp chart . If you get a 7th grader to help you, you’ll see that we have already exceeded 1998’s record temp. I only wish presumptuous assholes like you were a tiny minority, but unfortunately I live in a country filled with them.

      2. Please expound on your expertise. You really think 99% of the recognized scientific community is selling out. If so, then you must also believe the earth is flat and Noah herded every animal and sea creature in existence on his Ark. Did you graduate from college? Take any science courses did you? I thought not.

    2. Climate Demanders are nashing their teeth. You’re not supposed to point out opposing data and facts. I will give them political credit for changing the movement from Global Warming to “Climate Change”. Now they can argue any day of the year as evidence. i.e. Any given day is record hot SOMEWHERE, Climate change!. (granted, last record was 80 years ago) No records? Make one up. “Hottest 3rd Tuesday of a Month ending in letter J EVER!” I’m tired of it. Climate Demanders…..Now that’s a religion.

        1. Are you denying that there are websites dedicated to climate alarmism? And that they don’t engage in propaganda?

          Your issue isn’t the use of propaganda so much as whose side is using it and how effective they are.

          The fact that Morano disputes climate hysteria, and is very effective at using satire in combatting it, seems to drive you to distraction. All I can say is … HOORAY!

            1. So?

              Irrelevant … unless you are denying that the pro-AGW side engages in propaganda.

              ‘yfdgjr’ came on this website and complained that “it’s complete propaganda.” Do you think that propaganda on this issue has been, heretofore, completely unheard of … and/or used only by skeptics?

              If not, what’s your point?

    3. Peer revbiewed science… Published in the Institute of Physics Journal.

      Showing 97% of the actual published science agrees…..

      Anecdotal information is not evidence, which anyone actually involved in science would instantly recognize….

      There is never 100% concensus, and 97% is a phenomenally large, almost unheard of percentage.

      And every science agency in the world agrees on this….

      Science is simply not on your side…… So whos side are YOU on?


      1. There should be a 100% agreement about climate change. The climate has always been changing. It is changing, and it will change in the future. Get used to it.
        Another question is if the change we have vitnessed the past 100 years or so is the effect of humang activities, and if this change is fatal for the globe.
        Numbers (which are the only thing to trust in science) show there’s no cause for alarm. Only the output from the IPCC models are predicting catastrophy. All measurment show the models are wrong.

        1. Which measurements are you referring to? The thermometer outside your window? The models have gotten better as more powerful computers and better modeling software have become available. They all show the same thing global warming with melting ice, changes of ocean temperatures and currents, rising sea levels, melting permafrost, destruction of habitat, etc . All corresponding to the accelerating concentrations of CO2 among other gasses since the industrial revolution. So maybe if you have bought a lot of land in the foothills anticipating it becoming sea front property, it’s not catastrophic.

          1. If you really seek the truth about climate change and temperature, I’m sure you find data which the internet offers on may be thousand sites.
            E.G. NIPCC and climate4you.

      2. The “97% of climate scientists agree”, is an outright lie or deliberate ignorance repeated by the useful idiots.
        To quote Richard Tol:
        “The 97 percent claim was taken from a study paper by Australian John Cook. There are hundreds of papers on the causes of climate change, and thousands of papers on the impacts of climate change and climate policy. Cook focused on the latter. A paper on the impact of a carbon tax on emissions was taken as evidence that the world is warming. A paper on the impact of climate change on the Red Panda was taken as evidence that humans caused this warming. And even a paper on the television coverage of climate change was seen by Cook as proof that carbon dioxide is to blame.
        Cook and Co. analyzed somewhere between 11,944 and 12,876 papers – they can’t get their story straight on the sample size – but only 64 of these explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. A reexamination of their data brought that number down to 41. That is half a per cent or less of the total, rather than 97 percent.”

    4. Dr. Giaever, a multi-millionaire, shared his 1973 Nobel Prize with two other scientists for experimental discoveries regarding tunnelling phenomena in superconductors. This has nothing to do with weather and climate. Shock media is reporting this as if it were a standalone news item. What is not being reported is that at the same meeting, 36 other Nobel laureates signed the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change, an emphatic appeal for climate protection, stating that “the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015
      to take decisive action to limit future global emissions.”

      1. Global co2 emissions should not be limitted.
        Co2 make the globe greener, and increases agriculture yields.
        Co2 optimum for most plants is probably around 2000 ppm.
        Co2 is no pollution. It’s beneficial for life.

        1. And don’t forget CO2 rises after temperatures rise and if the temperature rises too high CO2 naturally helps lower it.
          Check that science out and forget making Al Gore rich.

        2. Yes lets go back to CO2 levels of the late Paleozoic about 1500 ppm and the temperatures which were over 12 degrees warmer. Interestingly enough as the plant life bound CO2 and it was buried to turn into oil later, the temperatures came down to todays levels. By burning that oil we are putting that CO2 back into the atmosphere.

    5. When Al gore left the white House as vice President he was worth about $8 Million. Within less than a decade he was worth $100 Million. The topic of this article (mostly Carbon Credits) is what made him rich when the Europeans bought the argument, and they have been paying for it ever since, and going broke doing it with the ever increasing regulations.

    6. This article puts a lot of emphasis on his Nobel prize. What it doesn’t say however, is that Giaever’s shared his Nobel prize, specifically for his *experimental* discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. Scientists are human beings : many of them count on funding for putting a steak on their table. Since researchers are more and more dependent on private funding, even in Universities, it became quite easy to break a scientist integrity. Some even get their “recognition” solely after agreeing to publish stuff that are complying to business or lobbying agendas.

    7. @Ramstad – Totally well put – I could not agree more. Political Correctness on all fronts, but especially the sciences are insidious creatures – Simply put, it’s easier to dismiss people than have a dialogue and let people make up their own minds. But like most globalists they believe they know what’s best for us.

    8. Please explain in great detail just how this would have happened. Citied with proven facts mind you. Are you familiar with the term “fact.” Perhaps you might want to google it Einstein.

    9. Ivar Giæver is one old near senile man. The American Physical Society represents 53,096 members as of July 2016. Their statement is “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no
      mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s
      physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human
      health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases
      beginning now.”

      I believe the credibility of 53,000 is greater.

    10. that is not at all what i got from this article. it appears to me that this learned scientist is smart enough to know on which side his bread is buttered. in ’73, he discovered climate change, when obama is going to be president, he’s a terrific agent for change and when trump the climate denier is about to be president it’s ‘global warming is a non issue’. see, all he needs to do is agree with the present administration to get his next research grant. and that is why he’s a great scientist and you and me are not

      1. You realize this article was written in July 2015 … long before anyone even IMAGINED that Trump would be the future president?

        Your other ‘timelines’ seem to be correspondingly out of whack. Giaever predicted that Obama would be president in ’73 … when Obama wasn’t quite 12 years old???

        Are you drunk … or just nuts?

    11. Most deniers are sponsored by Big Oil, many by Exxon Mobil, Koch Brothers, Duke Energy, El Paso and by other greedy scumbags worldwide, such and Shell, BP, Valero, the Saudi kingdom, Iran etc. For this denier to discourage building wind and solar systems in poor countries is not a good idea is ludicrous. Barefoot School in India is empowering women who had almost no education and are teaching them how to understand basic electronic components, solder circuit boards, and build solar panels. Without creating financially independent women there will be no population control as ignorant men in these countries marry off their female children in their early teens and they become breeders for more ignorance and overpopulation continues. Letting rural communities be independent of Big Oil, Big Coal etc is the biggest threat to the caveman combustion dinosaurs. These fire burning fools and their control over energy distribution is threatened by off the grid renewable clean energy and they continue to spew out misinformation to keep the status quo within their ranks from actually taking this global threat seriously.

    12. ‘They agree to mislead People” Doesn’t People have it’s own editors?

      You bloody moron, “people” is not a proper noun. You don’t know second grade shit and you want to make pronouncements about climate?? GET A GRIP.

  3. A simple, elegant paper by Chilingar et al [1] (three of the paper’s four authors wrote a classic book on climate [2]) disproves the whole CAGW baloney in just a few equations and a couple of graphs. Brilliant. Every climate “scientist” should read it.
    [1] 10.4236/acs.2014.45072 (ACS, 2014, 4, 819-827)
    [2] ISBN-13: 978-0444528155, ISBN-10: 0444528156


  5. When the UN itself admits that ‘climate change’ is not about the environment, but rather is a smokescreen for economic redistribution, you really have to wonder why anybody buys into it: IPCC official, Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth by climate policy. … one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth…” And more recently: At a news conference [22Jan2015] in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said. Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

    1. It’s easy to understand why they buy into it – ‘economic redistribution’ is seen as a positive good.

      And that they seek to ‘transform the economic development model for the first time in human history’ shows they’re a lot more interested in forcing others to believe as THEY do, than actually having something that works.

    2. Perhaps we should start with their wealth–but that will never happen. It’s not just wealth they’re interested in, it’s power.

        1. No ones ever seriously proposed paying for health care with “global warming taxes” whatever those are. Since you don’t give any context, I’m guessing that the senator made some off the cuff speculations in response to some question and since it lit up two right wing hot buttons, national health care, and some kind of tax associated with global warming, the s—-t began to fly and the truth will never be known. I mean talk about fear mongering.

    3. Senator Nelson of Florida said that too. He was in Tallahassee Florida at a democrat meeting, he did not know he was being filmed. He also said that global warming taxes will pay for national health insurance.
      Well Nelson and the other communists lost that tax,. So what are they doing to pay for the socialized medicine of the USA. They are taking over $600 billion from Medicare. So all of the elderly and about to be 65 kiss your ass goodbye if you are depending on the promise of Medicare. You don’t matter. The unemployed and lazy will get the money you paid in to Medicare in your taxes.
      Don’t we just love the democrat politicians and there superior attitude. BS.
      Pray for the USA and the world.

  6. GW is used to coin a CO2 tax. Enough said. Al Gore can stick that platform that he uses to make his chart more important up where the sun never shines.

    What I find most worrisome is the fact people are effectively, day in day out, being brainwashed into being afraid of weather. “Heat strokes, red alert, purple alert, stay in your homes, whatever you do don’t get out” kind of bullcrap can be heard about every 5 minutes from various weather “forecasts.” Hey man, you’re forecasting weather, I don’t need to hear how today, tomorrow and 6 more days during the following week will be the warmest days since your “scientists” started forging data. I don’t need you tell me what I should be doing and how should I be conducting my daily affairs. Give me the forecast, that is your best guess based on the weather during the last 5 minutes, and shut the hell up.

  7. The most disappointing aspect of this are the so called ‘scientists’ who support Man Made Global Warming and use absurd phrases like – the science is settled, or all the polls support our view…any ‘scientist’ that puts his ego above their search for facts should lose any scientific credentials they possess.

    1. They support themselves. If global warming is proven to be a farce, like I know it is, they would be out of a job!