Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit ‘Irrational’ – ‘Based On Nonsense’ – ‘Leading us down a false path’

Note: CFACT’s new skeptical documentary, Climate Hustle, is set to rock the UN climate summit with red carpet’world premiere in Paris. 


Embedded image permalink

From Left to Right: Dr. Will Happer, Dr. Richard Lindzen & Dr. Patrick Moore

AUSTIN, Texas – A team of prominent scientists gathered in Texas today at a climate summit to declare that fears of man-made global warming were “irrational” and “based on nonsense” that “had nothing to do with science.” They warned that “we are being led down a false path” by the upcoming UN climate summit in Paris.

The scientists appeared at a climate summit sponsored by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The summit in Austin was titled: “At the Crossroads: Energy & Climate Policy Summit.”

Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, derided what he termed climate “catastrophism.”

“Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial,” Lindzen said.

Lindzen cautioned: “The most important thing to keep in mind is – when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc.  — is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point.”

Embedded image permalink

Lindzen also challenged the oft-repeated UN IPCC claim that most of warming over past 50 years was due to mankind.

“People get excited over this. Is this statement alarming? No,” Lindzen stated.

“We are speaking of small changes 0.25 Celsius would be about 51% of the recent warming and that strongly suggests a low and inconsequential climate sensitivity – meaning no problem at all,” Lindzen explained.

“I urge you when looking at a graph, check the scales! The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree,” he noted.

“When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period. And they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree,” Lindzen said.

“And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made. If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree,” he said. (Also See: Scientists balk at ‘hottest year’ claims: Ignores Satellites showing 18 Year ‘Pause’ – ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’ – The ‘Pause’ continues)

“The UN IPCC wisely avoided making the claim that 51% of a small change in temperature constitutes a problem. They left this to the politicians and anyone who took the bait,” he said.

Lindzen noted that National Academy of Sciences president Dr. Ralph Cicerone has even admitted that there is no evidence for catastrophic claims of man-made global warming. See: Backing away from climate alarm? NAS Pres. Ralph Cicerone says ‘we don’t have that kind of evidence’ to claim we are ‘going to fry’ from AGW

Lindzen also featured 2006 quotes from Scientist Dr. Miike Hulme, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, admitting that claims of a climate catastrophe were not the “language of science.”

“The discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device,” Hulme wrote to the BBC in 2006. “The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science,” Hulme wrote.

“Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe?” Hulme continued.

Lindzen singled out Secretary of State John Kerry for his ‘ignorance’ on science.

“John Kerry stands alone,” Lindzen said. “Kerry expresses his ignorance of what science is,” he added.

Lindzen also criticized EPA Chief Gina McCarthy’s education: “I don’t want to be snobbish, but U Mass Boston is not a very good school,” he said to laughter.

Lindzen concluded his talk by saying: “Learn how to identify claims that have no alarming implications and free to say ‘So what?’”

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who has authored over 200 peer-reviewed papers, called policies to reduce CO2 “based on nonsense.”

“Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. They are all based on computer models that do not work. We are being led down a false path.

“Our breath is not that different from a power plant,” he continued.

“To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?” he asked.

“Coal, formed from ancient CO2, is a benefit to the world. Coal is CO2 from ancient atmospheres. We are simply returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it came when you burn coal. And it’s a good thing since it is at very low levels in the atmosphere. We are in a CO2 famine. It is very, very low,” Happer explained.

Happer continued: “CO2 will be beneficial and crop yields will increase.” “More CO2 will be a very significant benefit to agriculture,” he added.

Happer then showed a picture of polluted air in China with the caption: “Real pollution in Shanghai.”

“If you can see it, it’s not CO2,” Happer said.

“If plants could vote, they would vote for coal,” Happer declared.

Happer also rebutted the alleged 97% consensus.

“97% of scientists have often been wrong on many things,” he said.

Ecologist and Greenpeace founding member Dr. Patrick Moore discussed the benefits of rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

“Let’s celebrate CO2!” Moore declared.

Embedded image permalink

“We know for absolute certain that carbon dioxide is the stuff of life, the foundation for life on earth,” Moore said.

“We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science,” he continued.

“The deserts are greening from rising CO2,” he added.

“Co2 has provided the basis of life for at least 3.5 billion years,” Moore said.




2,855 Responses

        1. “CO2 is invisible”

          That’s true! In its gaseous form, anyhow.

          CO₂ also warms planets, a fact that has been known for over a century.

          If any “prominent scientist” had overthrown this scientific understanding, she would immediately be given a Nobel prize.

          Has that happened?

          “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

      1. Climate change IS caused by whites. Black skin absorbs heat and doesn’t go anywhere, but white skin reflects heat back into the earth’s atmosphere, releasing more CO2 which increases the Greenhouse Effect which causes Global Warming. We’re all gonna die and it’s all the whites’ fault! /s

        1. So the climate change drones can claim that the cooling trend they can’t deny is caused by black people hiding the heat in their bodies? don’t give them ideas Bruce, they make take that and run with it they are getting that desperate.

    1. For most of these climate change drones its not science and never has been. They are indoctrinated religionists that have been fed with 12-16 years or more of chicken little stories in state institutions called schools. For the politcals, its about control, wealth and power acquisition.

      1. This why the debate is over strategy was put in place in an attempt to get legislation through before the bottom dropped out on their lie. IT’S TOO LATE NOW look for back peddling politicians to start claiming they were duped by scientist and scientist to come out and claim they were paid to lie.

        1. That’d be true if this story were actually picked up and spread around, but my guess is that it stays right here, so only Drudgers and those that read Climate Depot will see it… Ever. Lindzen is my hero, so I hope I’m wrong.

          1. Thank you! It’s delightful to receive validation for all of my “backward thinking” and failure to believe “settled scientific fact”. The Lib personality, in my opinion, is akin to the 3rd Grade bully or the Mean girl in Middle School.

                  1. The non-believers will be dealt with by their creator. As long as they resist the temptation to persecute the believers, it’s all good. Jesus said they will hate us, they hated him first. The inquisition was the Catholic thing, they hate Christians. No they are not Christians, they are a different kind of religion.

          2. Rigorous scientists have been laughing at the GW hoax from jump – it was so obviously flawed. But, you’re right – the Lib-Leftist controlled media and political hacks have promoted the pseudoscience and lies of GW and stifled the valid criticisms of bona fide scientists. They won’t quite now.

        2. Much the same strategy as Obamacare. Get it in place and well involved before it’s discovered that it’s nothing but lies. But too late to get out of it.

        3. Exactly, sooner or later the climate will make liars out of them and they know it. On the other side, if they KNOW the climate is cooling and many of these grant paid frauds do, they know they don’t have much time to get their crap rammed down our throats so they can claim what they are doing is actually working and take credit for it, hence the intensification the scare stories is their last tactic.

          1. They are simply kicking the can down the road. Some are now claiming that we’re in the middle of a global warming pause due to low solar activity. I think the new projection is that global warming will resume around 2020. It’s a bunch of crap.

        4. That’s why they changed the name of the “crisis” from Global Warming to Climate Change to Climate Disruption.
          You could fit any weather into “Climate Disruption”.

      2. Every time I posit that none of the major catastrophic predictions over the last 40 years have come true. When I ask for a rebuttal there usually is none. Who are the deniers, again?

      3. All part of the NWO globalist strategy.

        “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
        – “The First Global Revolution”, A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider 1991

              1. only when you consider the witless left, I do think the conservatives in the US are well aware and ready for the conflict. do not include real americans in with the limp left of obama’s sycophants.

                1. 750,000 Americans needlessly died in the US Civil War. Civil Wars make nations weak as we have seen with the removal of all Islamic leaders by the current administration in order to place the Muslim Brotherhood in power.

                  The Gallows are sooner rather than later for some will be a swinging for their betrayal and that crying wolf thing the boy did well he ended eaten by the wolf.

                  1. do you not see the inevitable civil war that is in our near future, We are 2 distinct and non-accomodating cultures inhabiting the same real estate. One side will prevail at the expense of the other.

                    1. 750,000 Americans needlessly died in the US Civil War.

                      That divide and conquer thingamajig just is obvious it hurts.

                      You wanna cos a race war in the USA
                      You wanna cos USA citizens to kill US citizens in the USA

                      Not as if we were fooled by the Ukrainian civil war where outsiders tried to tear apart a nation too. A nation were more than half the population speaks Russian as well.

                      Islam and Sharia law violate the US Constitution.

                    2. our national divide existed long before radical islam was on our radar, this is a cultural rift that began when the first socialist flostam was given succor at our universities after WWI and we can see the fruit of these fellow travelers that has so degraded the cultural core of a nation that used to be great.

                    3. Let’s get the language straight here since words have meaning. There is no such entity as radical Islam there is only ISlam.

                      Again you are wrong and trying to get the USA to kill the USA is a a military ploy used all over the world as we have seen with the current administration messing around killing off leaders in Islam and Ukraine as well in order to put the Muslim Brotherhood in power. Did not work in Egypt for the Egyptians are smart peoples who will not tolerate ISlam destroying Egypt and Egyptian history.

                    4. I am in total agreement that islam is the core of that problem, but the core problem in the us is utilizing this recent bout of islamic terrorism to further insert the progressive “fundamental transformation” of america. I am in greater fear of the rogue cabal of unionized bureaucrats and fellow travelers who inhabit our media, our educational institutions and our civil governments, I would refer to them as “the Lois Lerner Brigade”.

                    5. Do know the history of Communism in the US Civil War?

                      Here let me get you stated I have two names of German Communists who gladly killed USA citizens: Franz Sigel and

                      “Carl Christian Schurz (German: [ˈkaʁl ˈʃʊʁts]; March 2, 1829 – May 14, 1906) was a German revolutionary, American statesman and reformer, U.S. Minister to Spain, Union Army General in the American Civil War, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of the Interior. He was also an accomplished journalist, newspaper editor and orator, who in 1869 became the first German-born American elected to the United States Senate.[1]”

                      See how Communists embed themselves also look up old Franz Sigel where the pattern is obvious for those who understand patterns. 🙂
                      There were more 1848ers than these two but the importance in learning the history and identifying the patterns.

                    6. “Franz Sigel (November 18, 1824 – August 21, 1902) was a German military officer, revolutionist and immigrant to the United States

                      who was

                      a teacher,



                      and served as a Union major general in the American Civil War. His ability to recruit German-speaking immigrants to the Union armies garnered the approval of President Abraham Lincoln..”

                      Identifying the pattern in the basics ‘101’. Ever wondered why US history classes all but skip studying the US Civil War in any sort of detail? Studying details Would out how many foreigners were recruited when some found it difficult to get USA citizens to kill USA citizens. 23.4% of the Union army were immigrants.

                    7. that is not uncommon, as far back as the Egyptian empire, the use of mercenaries has been a common tactic, especially for the put down of internal uprisings. Even the british used Hessians against their “fellow englishmen” during our revolution. I don’t think there is anything special about our civil war other than it allowed LIncoln to begin the destruction of our federal republic.

                    8. As a result of the use of the Hessian (Germans) the hold outs, the Royalists and Catholics, joined the American Revolution.

                      Germans have been killing USA citizens since day one of the beginning of the USA.

                      Studying the US Civil war will help you with better understanding why some are trying soooooo very hard to divide the USA and in fact the US Civil is the very most important part of US history. best to hit the books becos PATTERNS REPEAT THEMSELVES when one is ignorant of history.

                      btw nice little German Communist thurr eh? There are more 1848ers and one brutal sadistic Hungarian Communist to learn about too you know just like George Soros!

                    9. NOW with that every so brief US history lesson …

                      Can one imagine the US Military today made up with 23.4% of Maj Nidal Hassan/ISlam?

                      Do not imagine for it is happening right before our eyes.

                      And the sole reason the RINOS and Democrats are promoting the mass immigration of foreigners who seek to embetter themselves in the USA by ANY MEANS NECESSARY!

                      “I fit wit mit Sigel” US Civil War marching song marching to kill USA citizens to benefit themselves!

                    10. Did you learn anything at all about those who promote civil wars within nations?

                      Did you learn why the use of the IS IL rather than IS IS is significant and outs those who use IS IL rather than IS IS?

                      One need only to look up and read the difference between IS IL and IS IS and be weary and suspect of those who use the IS IL rather than IS IS.

                      Hope you have also learned there is no such entity as radical ISlam only Islam where again usage of language is very important. Language usage outs how one thinks and or is trained to think.

                      For instance we learned the importance of language from George Orwell in 1984 and Animal Farm.

                      My solution son is get to hitting the books and learn patterns and if one enjoys being enslaved by Islam then so be it just never even expect a USA citizen to ever GIVE IN! Again the reasoning for the mass immigration of immigrants where immigrants replaced slavery in the USA.

                    11. why do you morons always try to changed the subject?…attention?, look what the original subject is about…..Me thinks someone didnt get enough hugs as a child

                    12. becos a well armed entrenched civilian population is far more difficult to kill!

                      Also the reason why the VA is not caring for US Vets so there are no civilians capable of fighting the foreigners/enemies embedded in the US Military

                    1. Again 750,000 Americans needlessly died in the US Civil War.

                      In 1937 Spain permitted Germany to practice bombing civilians own their own Spanish women and children.

                      Understand perfectly why some are promoting civil wars within nations.

                    2. I am on subject and you sir should skip along if you do not want to read posts. Skip to something you like rather than trying to be a moderator of a thread on disqus

                    3. Well stated. I get tired of these special snowflakes that honestly believe they have special insight that no other educated American can see.

                    4. “stay on subject”

                      The subject is the warming fossil fuel companies are causing that Marc Morano is paid by those fossil fuel companies to lie about. When a person has such a long history of dishonesty, is it possible there are people who still take him seriously?


                    5. Note the phrase “latest corrected analysis” at the bottom of the chart. Translation: they’ve jimmied the data to make it work (as already noted above in the article – thanks for providing everyone the evidence).

                    6. How many more “corrected analyses” will there be?
                      Oil and methane are not fossil fuels. They are abiotic.
                      They do not not come from decaying organic matter.
                      Those abiotic fuels have been responsible for billions of people to live more comfortably than their ancestors.
                      If you were sincere in your beliefs you would do one of two things:
                      Off yourself – thereby ceasing to produce CO2.
                      Walk everywhere you go with a sign stating “The Climate is changing! Everyone join me in walking the earth!”.

                    7. “Oil and methane are not fossil fuels.”

                      What if that were true?

                      It’s not, of course, but what if it were?

                      How might it change the warming effect of the greenhouse gasses that are emitted when they are burned?

                      “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”


                    8. CB ,Global Warming which had to be changed to the euphemistically always correct Climate Change is all about government power over our lives and the ability of the government to identify an evil and force people to pay more to fight the evil. It has never been about facts and truth. When they added CO2 as an evil they screwed themselves, because CO2 is an important and necessary substance. Plants thrive. As to the Fossil fuel silliness, just think of all the oil, gas and coal in the world, and more keeps getting discovered. There were never that many dinosaurs. They would have been needed to be piled up for thousands of feet on top of one another to get even close to the amount of abiotic fuels there actually are. Use your imagination. That was actually a fraud brought into existence by scientists hired by John D. Rockefeller in 1898 to create the lie that oil was scarce and therefore must be very valuable. It is all a massive fraud.

                      “The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time.”
                      Fred Hoyle, 1982

                    9. So, oil and methane are not fossil fuels?
                      We bury Aunt Peggy and put s spigot in her casket and we get oil out?
                      That story of the 97% of “scientists” has been explained and the true story is quit funny and revealing.
                      If it is science, how can there be a consensus?
                      Like the man in the US Patent Office in 1932 or so who claimed “There will be no more patents. Everything has been invented that can be.”

                    10. The heat trapping nature of carbon dioxide is currently being demonstrated on Venus lol.

                    11. “The heat trapping nature of carbon dioxide is currently being demonstrated on Venus”

                      That’s right, Josh!

                      It most certainly is.

                      “Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps infrared radiation beneath Venus’s thick cloud cover. A runaway greenhouse effect is what makes Venus even hotter than Mercury!”


                    12. ‘The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century’. That is patently false.

                    13. “they’ve jimmied the data to make it work”

                      Who informs you of that, and why did you believe them?

                      Is it likely multiple research institutions on multiple continents are all coordinating with one another to “jimmy the data” in the same direction?

                      “The annual anomaly of the global average surface temperature in 2014… was the warmest since 1891.”


                    14. They do what you do: give themselves thumbs up. Works on self-confidence,
                      I guess. Someone needs to appreciate you, even when you’re wrong, right?

                    15. You can post all of the self-serving made-up BS you want to. I simply pointed out the FACT that they manipulate the data – and admit it.

                      “”Is it likely multiple research institutions on multiple
                      continents are all coordinating with one another to “jimmy the data” in
                      the same direction?””

                      Yes. They’re all leftists, and all leftists lie – and pass around the same lies.

                      “””The annual anomaly of the global average surface temperature in 2014… was the warmest since 1891.”””

                      Repeating the lie doesn’t make it true. It’s still madeup BS. There hasn’t been any significant warming in almost two decades.

                    16. In statistics, the Bonneferoni Correction is a method used to counteract the problem of multiple comparisons. It’s not an error correction.

                    17. I am amazed that these warmists who believe themselves so much smarter than the rest of us can’t seem to recognize the phrase ‘latest corrected analysis’ means ‘we’re full of sh!t’. NOAA’s own data states the disclaimer ‘using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment’. When you eliminate data, and adjust data, you aren’t performing science whatsoever.

                    18. We read how these “corrected analyses” are done…they go into the record and any data temp not recorded, they add plus a degree or two. They always correct it warmer than the average….

                    19. Gee, CB, you remind me of a lemming anxious to hurl itself off a cliff, and you call me suicidal? Don’t you know what would happen to us if the government were given regulatory control over energy in this manner? Also, any benefit from draconian govt programs will not result in significant change, but make a whole lot of crony capitalist very, very rich. Tell me the reason used by Obama to deny the Keystone Pipeline. Do you know?
                      Here’s how they tricked the data:

                    20. WHAT long-term average are they talking about? Isn’t this the same data where they had “anomalous” South American data so they didn’t just drop it but they “fixed” it? Shameful to publish such crap with government stickers on it.

                    21. And prior to 1900 was the temperatures higher and lower just like the graph, before the industrial age and the AGW nonsense? Yep… because that is what the earth does, also noting the scale of your graph is not even a degree… and you may also want to understand where they are taking those measurements… most of them are done on south facing walls or in parking lots with scorching hot pavement or near hot air exhaust of AC’d buildings. This has been admitted, shown and proven that is how they do it. So is it warming? Or are you just grabbing at straws? Notice how there is NEVER a graph or chart shown before the industrial age? Why, because it has ACTUALLY been hotter with LESS CO2 and vice versa, so while the ‘97% consensus’ might buy your nonsense, people who can do their homework do not… and your biggest issue is not that ‘its all big oil’ but that fact is people are seeing through the fear for what it is.

                    22. “it has ACTUALLY been hotter with LESS CO2 and vice versa”

                      Point to a single moment in Earth’s history when it got cold enough for polar ice sheets to form with CO₂ as high as we have today.

                      If you were telling the truth, isn’t this something you should be able to do?

                      “How come a big ice age happened when carbon dioxide levels were high? It’s a question climate sceptics often ask. But sometimes the right answer is the simplest: it turns out CO₂ levels were not that high after all. The Ordovician ice age happened 444 million years ago, and records have suggested that CO₂ levels were relatively high then. But when Seth Young of Indiana University in Bloomington did a detailed analysis of carbon-13 levels in rocks formed at the time, the picture that emerged was very different. Young found CO₂ concentrations were in fact relatively low when the ice age began.”


                    23. The recent warming trend that began in 1975 is not at all different than two other
                      planetary warming phases since 1850; there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, and; it is possible the Medieval Warm Period was indeed a global phenomenon thereby making the temperatures seen in the latter part of the 20th century by no means unprecedented.

                    24. Ice core drilling in the Davis Station in Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

                    25. The highest CO2 concentrations during the last many ice ages and interglacials are lower than at any other time for the last 300 million years. The dinosaurs lived when CO2 concentrations were 5 to 20 times as high as now. Indeed, such large creatures could not survive without the very verdant conditions afforded by adequate plant food known as carbon dioxide.

                    26. Hello. Please clear up what seems to be a contradiction. During the ice-ages, were the CO2 levels high or low? Maybe you are saying that–in recent history, the levels have been dramatically lower than during the time of the dinosaurs, but this is not clear by your words. THANKS.

                    27. she should’ve overruled that nigga but she was sucking his cock for affirmative action

                    28. The 97% consensus in a new study turned out to be 0.03% Biff because hardly any scientist had a say in the matter but government morons did.

                    29. part of the problem may be the dating…

                      “You read books and find statements that such and such a society or archeological site is (claimed to be) 20,000 years old. We learn rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known (speculations and imaginative guesses); in fact, it is about the time of the First Dynasty in Egypt that the last (earliest) historical date of any any real certainty has been established.”

                      –Willard Libby, Nobel Laureate for development of radiocarbon dating

                    30. The average ground temperature of the Earth is impossible to measure since most of the Earth is ocean…So this average ground temperature is a fiction.

                    31. Your chart must be plotted with crayon. If a chart can persuade you so convincingly that means you are really an easy take.

                    32. Look at the scale on the left. The range is too small. It doesn’t even reflect the range of temperature change for any day selected at random.

                      That trend line looks step because someone with an agenda plotted it against wrong scale.

                      Good luck!

                    33. Appreciate your comment, Mac. One of the first things you learn in a statistics (or research) class is that the range you select can yield conclusions which are not justified. What’s more, data that are not “statistically significant” cannot be used to establish any conclusions.
                      The AGW/GCC campaign is full of this kind of fiddling with the data and unjustified assumptions. It is as sound as a “left-handed monkeywrench.”

                    34. Still don’t get it, huh? Don’t see any problem with ‘the latest CORRECTED ANALYSIS’ …’? That chart doesn’t even match NOAA’s chart from the data they publish. You really need to wake up to the fraud that is AGW.

                    35. “In 1937 Spain permitted Germany to practice bombing civilians own their own Spanish women and children.”

                      Sweetie, what does that have to do with the effect of greenhouse gasses on planetary temperature?

                      “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.”


                    36. “BS”

                      What is BS?


                    37. Oh, I’d surely bet MY life that this so called ‘data’ is accurate and meaningful.


                      Too many of these bogus climate Chicken Little leftists have been caught red-handed ‘fudging’ (manipulating) the ‘data’ to imply warming……

                      And NOAA figures prominently in the Lair of Global Warming Liars.

                      Example: it was revealed in August that NOAA has been collecting temperature data from numerous U.S. airport weather stations, BUT, to support the totally bogus global warming scam, they have MANUALLY bumping UP THE TEMPERATE READINGS from the weather stations to show a higher temperature!!!

                      Yep – I’d trust NOAA as far as I could drool.

                    38. I live half a mile from a municipal airport, whose weather station reports anywhere from 5 to 10 degrees higher, than the actual temperature, during the summer. I have to believe that they have placed their equipment in a box, on the runway.

                    39. All you need to is be a mature leader to 6 year olds and you’re life will not have been in vain.

                    40. “Too many of these bogus climate Chicken Little leftists have been caught red-handed ‘fudging’ (manipulating) the ‘data’ to imply warming……”

                      That’s a big claim, feel free to provide evidence supporting it any time you like.

                    41. The first rule of proof club
                      is you do not talk about proof club
                      The second rule of proof club
                      is you DO NOT talk about proof club …………

                      ……….. except perhaps to ask how much faith you put in ‘proof’ supplied by a fictional character like Tyler Durden.


                    42. Let us know how it feels like to work (for free) for an industry that has STOLEN $14 TRILLION from mankind and yet we ALL are STILL dependant on govt an utilities. This is enough to get everyone off grid the whole world over…. and STILL no change… go on, I know, here it comes ‘but big oil’ nope, sorry… it is the very govt that wants to tax AIR that is doing all the stealing… (and allowing big oil to not pay taxes to boost pension plan profits)

                    43. I’m curious about your definition of theft and thieves.

                      Who has actually stolen all this money and what did they use it for?

                      That is a lot of money. Did they all go to jail?

                    44. OK, so here is a question, can you point to one thing from that 6 year old non scandal that the scientists weren’t able to clearly explain when someone bothered to actually ask them?

                      The 9 separate esquires were happy with the clarifications.

                    45. NOAA have been in the spotlight for this recently so it seems only fair to refer to their explanation:


                      It is also worth observing that the paper was peer reviewed and the information publicly available.

                      It is also worth noting that without transparency in this process you would not have access to the graphs you use to beat up climate scientists.

                    46. Funny how the adjustments all go one way – everything before 1950 is made cooler, everything after 1950 is made hotter. Did thermometers suddenly change in 1950? Does no one notice that the changes are only in one direction, that the adjustments are always to make the past cooler and the present hotter? Think about this – I might accept that old data would require some sort of adjustment. perhaps there was something wrong with the old instrumentation. But they are adjusting data they just collected. This says to me that they still haven’t quite figured out how to create a global temperature average. Therefore everything they have been saying about global temperatures for the last 20 years is crap – they didn’t know what they were doing, probably still don’t, if the data keeps requiring these massive adjustments.

                    47. Here you are again, CB, making a fool of yourself. Before you ask questions why don’t you try reading the article? It would save us all a waste of time.

                    48. My problem here is that Climate Depot is not a scientific site but a political clearing house run by an ex political aide to the Republican party for a right leaning libertarian think tank called CFact …….. not what you would call an honest broker on this issue.

                      So far so bad.

                      Add to that the fact that Richard Lindzen is not a research active scientist but is employed by a (big surprise coming here) right leaning libertarian think tank …….. The Cato Institute:


                      So far so terrible.

                      Add to that, the Cato Institute was formed with financial assistance from everyone’s favorite avuncular climate villains …….. the Koch Bros:


                      None of the above is a ringing endorsement for the honesty of this article, never mind though, if past behavior is anything to go by you be seeing a lot of this from the propaganda houses in the few weeks ahead running up to the Paris climate summit.

                    49. Mobius Loop: I’m obviously missing something here. If you don’t like a person or don’t like an organization because its politics are opposite or different from yours, are you saying that nothing they say or write can be true? Do I have this correct?
                      Does this mean that any organization which you don’t like is automatically not capable of providing valuable or accurate information? Does this mean that the highly political body and very expensive fully taxpayer funded UN and its political offspring the IPCC, have a higher level of honour or truth because they use massive amounts of your tax money while those other groups or organizations in comparison, often use little or none?
                      Do you examine any of the collected data? Have you bothered to check into how well the scientific method has been used in justifying their claims, predictions, or projections (the term now used by the IPCC)? Are you OK with all the claims being made based on mathematical models which have failed (nearly 100% of the time)?
                      Just wondering how you arrive at your conclusions and philosophies. I’ve been studying weather and climate for a long time and can’t quite seem to follow your reasoning or arrive at the same conclusions.

                    50. Your thoughts lead me to conclude that, Al Gore, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry (ALL politicians, not Scientists), are bastions of honesty? I see no logic in the basis for your conclusions.

                    51. The problem with all your character assassinations is that the science presented by these people show more evidence of truth than what the alarmists are parading around as “settled science,” which is an oxymoron. Strike three!

                    52. Most of what I have said is simply a statement of fact which I’ve provided links for so you can check yourself.

                      Let me phrase it in another way, all three scientists in the article have conflicts of interest which neither they nor the article’s author see fit to explain to readers.

                      Oh and what they are saying is so highly selective and edited that it is effectively nonsense.

                    53. I agree that you reported what they said, but what they said is distorted, compared to other scientific reports. And I know that some of their funding comes from private sources as compared to government grants issued to finding manmade causes. As for the editing, that could be posed to both sides. Nevertheless, what evidence is most accurate and clear, remains to be seen. As of yet the science is not “settled” but the alarmists are appearing to be the ones cooking the books. Therefore to call someone a “denier” really should be applied to the alarmists who have made up their minds and refuse to look at the new evidence. Don’t be so quick to condemn.

                    54. And I’ve seen other data that portends to show that temperatures have actually fallen over the last fifteen years or so. Climate changes, weather changes, temps go up, temps go down. We have almost nothing to do about it, and there’s almost nothing we can do to change it. And it isn’t even known whether we SHOULD change it. What if there are more benefits to warming a few degrees than to cooling a few degrees? We don’t know. Any talk about climate change and what we will do about it displays the ultimate in human arrogance.

                    55. People who believe humans can alter the temperature of a planet are in a special category of imbecile.

                      One volcano can dump more crap into the atmosphere in an afternoon than humans have in recorded history.

                    56. “One volcano can dump more crap into the atmosphere in an afternoon than humans have in recorded history.”

                      That’s transparently false idiocy that could have been identified by a few seconds of google time.

                      If you’re going to make it so blindingly obvious you don’t care about what’s true, why bother posting anything at all?

                      Who’s going to take you seriously?

                      “all studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities”


                    57. I see you bought the hockey stick, despite the fact that this was debunked years ago. NASA and NOAA have been “adjusting” temperature records, and if you look at the details of those adjustments, you might well call their efforts the “Save the Hockey Stick!” campaign.

                    58. The average ground temperature of the Earth is impossible to measure since most of the Earth is ocean….. So this average ground temperature is a fiction.

                    59. Wait a few minutes and I can draw a different graph going the other way. Are you that naïve?

                    60. The article just stated that the data is shite so stuff your graph someplace the sun doesn’t shine.

                    61. The scientists quoted in the article explain why the data charted above is useless. Did you not read it?

                    62. Why is it you liberals are so phuq’ing arrogant that you actually believe you can change what is happening when what is happening has been happening for millions of years? The earth warms, the earth cools, the earth warms, the earth cools. You must be a racist, because if everything you GORBOTS wanted to implement on the world actually took place, it would cause 10’s of millions of people in 3rd world countries to die.

                    63. So, they botched the science so bad… they actually went back into the past… and made events that ACTUALLY happened ‘not happen’ Wow, is there something wrong with the truth? Yes, of course, the truth is against the very lie that pays the bills… nice try though… seems this is the only graph you know… is this the extent of your ‘research’?

                    64. BIMBO REALLY DOES NOT KNOW WHAT ”BS” MEANS. (Strange, since she uses it extensively herself)

                    65. “actively publishing climate scientists” … that right there exposes the inertia in this mythology. None of them would have meaningful jobs or anything to write about without AGW.

                    66. Those evil Koch Bros!!! Actually VERY decent guys trying to be helpful. BUT… the b*st*rds fail to follow the progressive agenda, so….

                    67. I’m glad their great guys, I just find it a puzzling coincidence that they are at the top of a food chain from which Lindzen feeds while he is spouting nonsense that aggressively supports their interests.

                    68. Back to you SweetHeart: You GW Sheeple often refer to that 97% number that was concocted years ago that was a result of a U of Ill survey to 10,000 professionals about AGW, where only just a couple of 1,000s even responded, and of the very few, less than 100 of 10,000 responded to the questions only 86 THOUGHT it was a problem, hence your 97%. And in the web site you refer to above, most are just opinions of a few that thought it was even worth while to respond. One example of your source, the American Meteorological Society sent out over 7,000 surveys and so few responded that they reported “The extent to which the findings reported here represent the
                      views of all AMS Members is therefore unknown.” So it is nice that you give references to YOUR opinion, but sighting it as 97% scientist agree is not accurate. It is just 97% of the PEOPLE (not necessarily scientist of proper training) you are of a similar OPINION as you. (Liars use numbers, and numbers will lie.)

                    69. The numbers argument is a pretty puny one. How many said the world was flat when the VERY few disagreed? How many bought into “relativity” when that dastardly Jew posted his alternative view? Yes, a million, even a trillion flies CAN be wrong – it’s NOT a “voting issue”. Yep, the voters who elected Obama may (I do say “may”) have been in the majority, BUT Obama has OBVIOUSLY been a disaster to civilization in general – BUT the golf industry has profited at least!

                    70. First, if you look at the 97% claim, those making the claim did a considerable amount of cherry-picking regarding who they declared “climate scientists”. The primary criteria were apparently whether they could get away with denying that skeptic was a climate scientist and whether they could claim a AGCC proponent was, despite being in a different field. In other words, the 97% is a meme based upon lies.

                      Second, climate is not static, and, as we do not understand the drivers of climate (weather forecasts are pretty darn miserable, you know), and the models that incorporate the AGW/AGCC carbon dioxide hypothesis have all proven egregiously wrong, assertions about carbon-dioxide based changes are exceedingly poorly founded.

                      Third, if you read the actual U.N. climate reports, their content often not only does not support the assertions in the various executive summaries, the content often refutes those assertions. Read the actual reports in their entirety, rather than the summaries, and you will, if you have an open mind, become a skeptic.

                    71. And here is a list of the other surveys that returned similar results:


                      But look this should be really easy. You are clearly convinced that most scientists do not support AGW so just point to the surveys and research that support this …….. should add, that does not mean selecting one or two lines and presenting them out of context while ignoring the bits you don’t like.

                    72. Yeah, uh-huh … Wikipedia is now “authoritative” … In your dreams, perhaps, but not in the reality.

                      No, I am not convinced that most scientists do not support AGW. That is a false inference on your part. But, there is not a consensus. There are thousands of scientists who do not think the debate is over, the science settled. Those thousands include respected climate scientists, Nobel Laureates, etc., who the AGW crowd simply chooses to ignore as “deniers” even when they simply say that the science is not settled. The fact is the science is not settled. The bodies of the U.N. reports make this rather clear, while the summaries say otherwise. Further, here’s an item where quite reputable scientist assert that the science is not settled.


                    73. OK, you don’t like WIkipedia so lets go straight to source material










                      So the WIkipedia bugbear is out of the way, and we are dealing with the surveys themselves or articles that describe them.

                      The last of the links above is particularly interesting, as it make a statement that of 10,883 peer reviewed climate related papers submitted in 2013 only 2 (that is TWO out of TEN THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED & EIGHTY THREE) reject the reality of AGW.

                      I’ve made a considerable effort to underpin my point, if you still feel strongly that I am in error then please provide the counter evidence to build a case rather than presenting more threadbare cliches from the dwindling book of denial memes.

                    74. Name one credible scientific institution anywhere that denies man made climate change.

                      A list of (real) worldwide science agencies… :

                      “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 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.”


                      Or, we could look at IPCC AR5 WG1 SPM





                      Or, The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

                      Or, who says: If the consensus were 97%, then if you read, say, 300 peer-reviewed articles you should find on average 9 that reject AGW. Instead, to find even a single rejecting article, you must read nearly 5,000. (Try this yourself with a random selection of 300 peer-reviewed articles here.) The true consensus on AGW cannot possibly be as low as 97%.

                      Or for your amusement a study just published 9-24-2015. Purdue study: Climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists.


                    75. OK, so you are the variety of idiot as Mobius. I said the science is not settled, and it is NOT settled. That does not mean man-made climate changed does not exist. It means denying that we still do not know a great deal about climate, and that much of the debate from the AGW/ACC side is based upon flawed hypotheses. That further means that drastic actions based upon those hypotheses are premature, and may in fact create more problems than they solve.

                      The climate changes constantly, as it always has and always will. Where in that is a denial of climate change? Where in that is a denial that climate change as we are currently experiencing it may be in part driven by human activity? But also, where in the AGW/ACC dogma is recognition of the fact that change will occur no matter what?

                      Now f*** off and grow a brain.

                    76. It was a simple question, name one credible scientific institution anywhere in the world that disagrees with man made climate change. I even gave you a list.

                      Yes, climate has changed in the past. If you’d stuck around for eighth grade earth science, you would have learned about the Milankovitch cycles, that seem to have driven the last couple of dozen glaciations and interglacial periods in the current ice age. It turns out we do know something about our global climate.

                      Approx half a million years of steady rise and fall cycling up and down approx 100 ppm every 100,000 years, like the steady rhythm of a heartbeat or breath and then suddenly in 50 years we have knocked the levels off by double that bandwidth.

                      If this were a patient doctors would be scrambling to do something. This graph from NASA shows with chilling clarity what we have done to CO2 levels

                      Personally I kind of like NASA, they seem to be pretty good at the whole science thing. They are saying that climate change and warming are still very much happening

                    77. Well here is the thing, the study has not been widely discredited no matter how often you repeat it, further more it is backed up by several more studies all returning similar findings to the John Cook paper..


                      Furthermore, every major scientific institute on Earth accepts the reality of AGW:


                      Furthermore 90% of scientists generally accept the reality of AGW


                      Furthermore 71%+ of US citizens now accept the reality of AGW.


                      You are in a dwindling minority

                    78. You clearly failed to investigate the evidence provided. How can you refute the words from the many scientists themselves who say their studies were misrepresented?
                      Answer: you can’t but you won’t because you are an ideologue. Facts mean nothing to you and the ends justify the means. In short you are a filthy liar.

                    79. What I can say is that when the report came out, I went through it taking a random sample of 10 abstracts, read them and compared them against the ratings given by the researchers.

                      All appeared appropriate and in some cases I felt the reviewers were on the cautious side.

                      The paper offered all scientists a right to reply and while I don’t doubt there are a few that may feel their word was incorrectly rated, I’ve come across nothing that shows widespread rejection of the work by actual scientists………. note that is actual scientists and not propaganda sites like this one or WuWT.

                      You clearly believe that you have access to information demonstrating I am wrong. Feel free to present a list of the ‘many’ scientists your refer to.

                      I utterly reject your last sentence on the basis that I had a bath this month.

                    80. Are you dense? The links in my original post detail the very information you are asking for and details the comments from scientists who said their work was misrepresented!

                      You are clearly unable to learn. I’ve seen your kind before and I’m just not going to waste my time with you. My hope is that I can reach others in hopes that they do not also become useful idiots.

                    81. ALL propaganda. AGW is a farce making thousands of individuals and companies wealthier while stealing productivity and wealth from the millions of poor and middle class.
                      It is an attempt to indict America for the benefit of third world countries while the real polluters go on their merry way ignoring the scam and profiting handsomely for it.

                    82. Only a true sheep would claim that we should support a scientific position to go along with a crowd.

                    83. In the honorable memory of Michael Crichton, may he RIP…..

                      “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of
                      consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I
                      regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that
                      ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of
                      consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid
                      debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear
                      the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for
                      your wallet, because you’re being had.”

                      “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to
                      do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on
                      the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right,
                      which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference
                      to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant
                      is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great
                      precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

                      “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

                      [Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.]

                      “… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of
                      consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the
                      science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists
                      agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93
                      million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

                      From Michael Crichton’s speech, “Alien’s Cause Global Warming.” Full speech can be found all over the net.

                    84. Why quote NASA which is accused of fudging the data and if the truth will be allowed to escape from this administration’s mouth, it will be shown to be true!?

                    85. How many total ‘scientists’ were there? If there is 100 scientists and 97 of them agree, does that mean the entire world is going to die tomorrow if we don’t cough up an air tax to the broke govts who already wasted all our money? Or do you work for Goldman Sachs who is going to be bringing in a $10 000 000 000 000/year CARBON EXCHANGE? So you may say you don’t like banks and capitalism… and yet is you who work for them (for free no less) promoting this nonsense over fractions of a degree for Goldman Sachs!

                    86. I love the USA and the US Constitution and the US Military never mind I capitalize because grammar nd vocabulary reflects who one is. NOt that errors are not prevalent just a visual clue of many clues when one reads threads on line without the ip address and taps.

                      George Orwell taught that language is very important in 1984 and Animal Farm. Goebbels knew that too.

                    87. “I could think of a few candidates today that have done far more damage to american security”

                      Like the Republicans who deny the existential threat that global warming poses?

                      “The year 2014 now ranks as the warmest on record since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA scientists.”



                    88. “Drinking the kool-aid again!!”

                      Yes! Metaphorically, that’s precisely what Climate Deniers do.

                      If they weren’t suicidal, why aren’t they interested in the threat climate change poses to their well-being?

                      “The annual anomaly of the global average surface temperature in 2014… was the warmest since 1891.”


                    89. CB – Let’s just assume that GW is caused by human activity. Maybe you can explain what you would do to stop it?

                    90. “What flavor is your kool-aid?”

                      I don’t drink Kool-Aid, sweetie!

                      Why are you guys so obsessed with Kool-Aid?

                      If you aren’t trying to project your suicidal impulses onto others, what are you doing?

                      “The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 billion metric tons per year.”


                    91. @CB – your contention that Antarctica is losing ice mass has been debunked. Fact is that it has gotten the largest new amount in 2014 and again more in 2015.

                      The BS you may have read is that the western side of Antarctica is receding someone due to underground volcanoes.

                      Again do some reading. Remember also that science doesn’t work when one side implies that other side is deniers. Science is more a challenge of learned minds. Try to use yours better.

                    92. Thanks Mensa……I’ll just add this. “Think like a Vulcan” remove the emotion from your decision making process.

                    93. That is an awesomely passive-aggressive quote, I hope you don’t mind me stealing it with a slight adjustment like to add a little snark. “Remember that science doesn’t work when one side calls the other stupid. Science is a challenge of the minds. Try using yours.”

                    94. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,

                    95. Was that link published before or after NASA recently admitted that the Antarctic ice thickness has been growing instead of receding? I love NASA’s rationale in the report, in which they state that it’s really, really difficult to measure ice thickness, which is why they were wrong before. Funny, they didn’t seem to think it was all that difficult when they told us the ice was decreasing.

                    96. No it hasn’t. Dammit, check your facts somewhere besides Al Gores ‘SCIENTIFIC WEBSITE”. Your ignorance is embarrassing.

                    97. I won’t believe there is a problem until Antarctica is habitable and equatorial regions are uninhabitable. When do the Chicken Littles expect that to happen?

                    98. CB – Did you read the report that showed how this was proven wrong? People actually tour parts of Antarctica and the part of it they tour did register loss of ice sheet, but satellite and physical measurements on the rest of the continent shoreline has show a very significant gain in ice sheet. Google it you’ll see. In fact there is now significantly more ice sheet than there was before, a net gain. So what does that do to your BS theories?

                    99. the university of Illinois has ice flow charts there are the best they show now loss of sea pack ice

                    100. CB, I really hope you are still in high school. “Drinking the kool-aid” refers to the mass suicide-murder of the Jim Jones cult (like you, he was a communist). His brain-washed followers drank the kool-aid knowing it was laced with cyanine because Jim Jones ordered it thus creating the term ‘drinking the kool-aid’. It refers to a blind follower so yes, you are drinking the kool-aid.

                    101. just shut up..please. you people only stand behind this “glowbal warmeen” because you have nothing else in your lives. you’re like the table of dateless ugly kids at the prom.

                    102. Sorry CB NASA is reporting “Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum”
                      Here is the link

                      FYI, “drinking the Kool-Aid” is a reference to a socialist cult called the People’s Temple where 918 followers committed mass suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid. It is a perfect metaphore for the religion of climate change. You have a small number of global socialist elite Kool-Aid mixers plotting a bogus climate crisis to justify a power grab that would give them power over the worlds productive resources and distribution of wealth. These political elites give money to a small group of people who don’t mind politicizing science so long as the grant money gravy train keeps flowing. These scientists at the Climate Research Unit housed at the University of East Anglia provide the primary data that the rest of the scientific comunity studies. During Climategate, these corrupt scientists were caught red handed distorting the primary data with 2,000 documents including emails and footnotes in computer code admitting to using “tricks” to hide and distort the data. These “scientists” were publicly insisting that the past decade was the warmest ever while internally dismayed that the planet was cooling. Next comes real scientists doing secondary research based on distorted primary data looking to get published and advance their career with alarming predictions. Then comes every journalist in the “If it bleeds it leads media” and every Hollywood movie producer looking for an apocolyptic storyline and every anti-business, leftist government union teacher indoctrinating children to the point of anxiety. Before long you have millions of Kool-Aid drinkers willing to sacrifice economic security and prosperity at the alter of Mother Earth.

                    103. David, thank you for that prescient response. Extremely well written, well thought out and covered a lot of the “high-ground.” Press on brother… you rock……

                    104. Well, you need to do a bit more research. First, Antarctica is losing Ice primarily because of volcanic magma under the ice, but hat said, Antarctica gained record ice for the past 2 years, I believe, you do the research, I already know what’s going on. The Arctic Ice has always ebbed and flowed. Greenland once supported the growing of grapes.
                      Climate has changed for 4.5 billion years, it will always change as long as we have an active sun, and as with 99.99999% of that changing climate, man isn’t a factor.
                      I’m laughing more often these days as more and more scientists are stepping forward and calling B.S.!
                      I delight that all you loons will have to live with your gullible peers while we with level heads and thinking minds laugh at how really stupid you all have been.


                    106. It has to be watermelon. Green on the outside and red on the inside. This is their cover and flavor. They use temperature change to cover the behinds.

                    107. Huh? I deny it because its scientific correct, therefore you Post nonsense to state it does? I think CB likes Peach Kool AId.

                    108. So what caused the warmest other year in 1891 pre industrial revolution?….less than 200 years of data is a pretty weak argument for a planet that is billions of years old.

                    109. CB, you appear to be thoughtful and interested in the “science” you are always referring to. You really owe it to yourself to do an exhaustive study of the COOK REPORT that came up with the 97% Consensus Nonsense. It really is quite an eye opener to see the Goebbels-like structure that was set up to “validate” the hoax of AGW.

                      You really should “look” into it.

                    110. She’s not interested in facts that refute her worldview. I commend you for trying but your wasting your time.

                    111. Gordon Jeffrey Giles – There has been a name change recently. “Goebbels” is now “Gruber” ( as in Jonathan Gruber).

                    112. oldbit…. don’t get me started on that fiasco. AGW…destroy the Energy Industry…ObamaCare…destroy the Medical Industry…. Common Core… Destroy the educational industry….. Do we see a pattern here… Kardasians…destroy the entertainment industry…o.k. that one was just for grins….

                    113. Hey Gordon, one minor issue with your post on the Kardasians….
                      I believe it was Charlie Sheen who tried to destroy the Entertainment Industry. Of course, I might be mistaken…

                    114. You’re quote is complete BS.

                      You do realize you’re taking about a trace element that, over the last one hundred years, has risen from 0.0039% to 0.0041%, don’t you? Have you considered that the earth is more like a living being than a rock? Given that, what stays constant in a living entity? Heck, your body temperature has fluctuated a hundred time more than 0.0003% in the last thirty minutes. Are you dying?

                    115. thank you for that one, sincerely! The 2nd scientist in the article is right – CO2 levels have been dangerously low on the planet, due to the sequestration of it in the forms of coal and oil buried deep underground. Liberating this vital element is key to survival of many species, plant and animal alike.

                    116. Apparently it still has not become warm enough for palm trees to grow as they did in England at some point during the 1400s…

                    117. Climate deniers? You meen objective observers….

                      Technically the globe has been on a steady warming trend since the ice age, so what rate is normal? Noone knows because we have barely more than a decade of accurate data….

                      It is about money and control plain and simple.
                      it is a purely politically driven theory based on very little data pushed simply to line the pockets of politicians. Nothing more….

                    118. “Technically the globe has been on a steady warming trend since the ice age, so what rate is normal?”

                      It’s not merely about the rate of warming but the extent.

                      What is normal for the human species is a planet that has polar ice sheets.

                      If it’s so likely polar ice sheets will be able to withstand CO₂ as high as we’ve pushed it, why isn’t there a single example of them doing so in Earth’s history?

                      “Together, Greenland and Antarctica contain about 75% of the world’s fresh water, enough to raise sea level by over 75 meters, if all the ice were returned to the oceans.”


                    119. And still, there is not enough data to know if it is man made or a natural climate shift. The planet has gone through dramatic global climate changes before our existence and will continue to do so.

                      Using a little over 100 years of climate data out of roughly 4.5 billion to form a half ass theory and claim its FACT is idiotic….. Solar activity has a greater effect on the climate than carbon emissions….

                    120. bwahahahar now they have gone from raising 3 feet (1 meter approx.) to 75 meters!!! BWAHAHAHAHAR!!!!

                    121. If it wasn’t for global warming we wouldn’t even be here. You obviously believe that the earth can exist “forever”. It can’t and won’t. There is nothing you can do to change that. Even if your theories about global warming were true it will not outpace the clip mankind is moving at to extinguish itself from existence.

                    122. If we eliminate all sources of CO2 from the environment observable science is dead. Along with mankind. This is your brain on drugs.

                    123. Assuming you are correct, there still is nothing we can do to stop it. Whatever man-made activity is contributing is not significant to make any difference whatsoever. The most we can do is adapt.

                    124. Exactly your problem. That is the normal for humans that know this from there 700 year encounter with ice caps. Too bad the top of the warming trend after the last ice age was over 6000 years ago. So your missing 5300 years of data since the trend ended. According to the actual data we are at the end of the warming state and leading into the cooling trend because the sun just went into its slight dormant stage.

                    125. Yes, and if all the air was replaced by vacuum, we would all be dead!
                      And if Shoemaker-Levy discover another comet which impacts the earth, we will all be dead.
                      The climate on earth always changes, it always has. It is called weather, and it is driven by the Sun…always was, and always will be. At least till the Sun runs out of Hydrogen…then we all die!
                      Want to worry about something real, worry about idiots running your Government who actually believe that bringing 10s of thousands of Muslims into America is a great idea!

                    126. When you look up in the sky. Do you see the big shiny glowing thing there? That’s a G2 Variable Star. It’s 8 light minutes away. It has been varying on a 44 year cycle (Maunder Cycle) for about 5 billion years. That has more to do with any climate variances than human activity. Now get off the computer and go read something that wasn’t written by that fat pant load Al Gore.

                    127. Satellite data shows that there has been no warming in 18 years! Who is drinking the Kool-Aid?

                    128. Are you even listening? Do you know anything at all about The Scientific Method? This is social media’s fault. It has given credibility to the morons like CB, who probably couldn’t pass basic algebra and Chemistry 101, as every other Liberal. I took a year of Meteorology in High School, on top of biology, chem, marine biology, and this whole Global Warming “presentation” has always rubbed me the wrong way because it conflicts with the Scientific Method and analysis we were taught. The ROLE of science is to constantly challenge and try to disprove current theory, and to suppress that (as the global warming crowd wishes to do) is actually ANTI SCIENTIFIC

                    129. Climate change alarmists are famous for their lack of consideration of the net benefits of the extremely uneconomical, illogical, and damaging ‘remedies’ they greedily promote and try to get everyone else to pay for.

                    130. So what? Temperatures go up and down. Next year might be the coldest since 1853 so what? It is called weather! It happens. Get over it. All you envirofreaks have your knickers in a wad over carbon emissions and claim to be “green” implying you love plants. Plants-such as trees in the rain forest that the greenie weenies are always crying about- thrive on carbon dioxide. It is what they breath. You folks are advocating suffocating plants by removing their most essential element from the atmosphere. It is the same as someone advocating removing all the oxygen from the atmosphere. If that happened we all would die.Show your love for a tree burn a lump of coal!

                    131. Do you keep using the word “Metaphorically” to sound smart? Can you define it without using a search engine or dictionary?

                    132. So, what caused the warming in 1891 ? If it was warmer in 1891 than it was in 2014 … Well ??? It was crazy warm in the 1930’s, then it got crazy cold during the 1970’s. Prompting many scientists to fear a mini ice age. Now, it is warm again. And what about 900 to 1200 AD ? FAR warmer than it is now, and then near the end of 1300 AD, the mini Ice Age. Sounds like a cycle to me. It gets warm … It gets cold … Then it gets warm again. With or without mankind. Sorry, but the evidence against man made global warming is just too compelling to ignore. Starting with my first sentence.

                    133. For the love of Pete, you cannot even write a decent paragraph. You quote someone else and then interject one of your bumper-sticker mentality sentences. I can only imagine what’s behind your handle, CB: Complete Bimbo.

                    134. I assume you are a proponent of an old earth, say, billions of years? Your sampling of temperatures only goes back about 130 years or so. The sample size is way too small to make ANY claim about climate change. Insofar as CO2 is concerned, it is .04% of the atmosphere! I’ll type that again: .04% The only thing in this case that threatens my well-being is your idiotic assertions that will levy taxes on my income, you dolt. It is a lie, you may or may not know it’s a lie, but it’s a lie nevertheless. Incidentally, climate changes all of the time, it’s called seasons. Imagine that!

                    135. People who use epithets like “Climate Deniers” will never be taken seriously. Might as well write “The End is Near” on a sandwich board. Fortunately you are outnumbered in case we have to settle this in the streets.

                    136. Without a doubt you are an idiot blinded by your leftest ideology. My guess is that you can’t comprehend that measurements in hundredths of a degree are useless on instruments that have tolerances in tenths of a degree. Furthermore you have can’t tell the difference between pollution & climate change. Run along now with the rest of the lemmings.

                    137. So when they were about to sign that global warming treaty and Obama even went over and hackers leaked all them emails from all them scientist the day before that showed even they were lying, which put a stop to the treaty. All left and went home red faced! Till they decided to change it to climate change!!! History of this planet shows and proves that it is constantly changing. Ice ages, warm times etc, it is nothing new or abnormal, just part of the earth cycle that is completely normal. Just that in today’s time there are some that want to exploit others dumb enough to follow them and give them the money!

                    138. Don’t you think it’s telling that Warmists’ most-used argument is to compare people who question the Climate Change industry with Holocaust deniers?

                      Please produce a single piece of reproducible, empirical, hard scientific evidence that Man’s activities have had any significant effect on the climate.

                      If you can’t — and you won’t be able to, since none exists — then you have no argument, do you?

                    139. “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.” (2012)
                      American Meteorological 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.” (2007)
                      American Physical Society
                      “The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.” (2006; revised 2010)
                      The Geological Society of America
                      “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (2006)
                      American Association for the Advancement of Science
                      “Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem.” (2004)
                      American Chemical Society
                      “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.” (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)
                      American Geophysical Union
                      “Our AMA … supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant.” (2013)
                      American Medical Association

                    140. I suggest you read…Oh never mind. Just keep quoting the same folks who have been fudging the data for decades to get a pre-determiend outcome. The IPCC was formed for “climate change.” If it told the truth there would no reason for its existence. Ergo, its employees would be without jobs and those lovely government grants that keep these folks wealthy and living in a grand style.
                      If the planet were indeed warming over the past two decades, why does not the supporters of it publish the data It uses tons of CO2 to try to quiet those who hold solid, peer-reviewed scientific papers holing the opposite view.
                      Satellite reporting, actually recording temperatures accurately, indicates there has been no climate warming in 19 years.
                      Why would you believe data “modeling,” making up temps, to reach a pre-determined outcome, over actual temperature readings?
                      Seems like sloppy reasoning to me.

                    141. Sent to an Australian newspaper. (I am an Australian geologist/educator). These are facts which anyone may verify.
                      “To rehearse some geology: Back in the Pleistocene, an era affectionately termed by some, “the plasticine”, because events are so difficult to date — just before human fossils — which are notoriously rare at
                      the best of times — just before we arrived –- we may surmise, based on a shoestring, Lake Eyre and
                      places like it, were temperate, wet, even fresh. Giant marsupials, ferns,etc. At some stage. At some other stage, in the Pleistocene, or perhaps in the ‘Recent’, after the Pleistocene – who knows? –freely blowing, unsecured sand formed large tracts of sand dunes in Australia. Witness, the Simpson Desert. Sand dune formation implies dryer conditions than exist today, to
                      account for bulk free moving sand. In another dry part of the world, and certainly in Human/Recent times, large tracts of North Africa suddenly changed from grasslands to desert. Suddenly. In a colder part of the world, in
                      this ‘Recent’ (Holocene is the technical term), Greenland was so-named for being green, not white, and wave formed beach ‘ridges’ were laid down at the north-facing mouth of Independence Fjiord. Wave formed beach ridges demand waves, and the waves came from the Arctic Sea. By implication, ice-free, for considerable time.

                      All these events – there are countless similar events
                      recorded in the strata – all these events — you need not be advised –pre-dated coal mines.

                    142. CB, your troll pay has just dropped below minimum wage. There are plenty of others out there that do it better than you. Give this one up. The lie has been exposed and nothing you can make up will change that.

                    143. You mean the massive fraud and power grab by the bankers behind the global warming scam threatening to implement an Orwellian world government and drastically reduce world population?

                      Yes…the skeptics are very concerned about this. Only extremely unintelligent people believe in significant man-made global warming when all the evidence is against it and a bunch of politicians are screaming for legislation to save 1 degree of beneficial warming over the next 100 years while gaining massive economic control over us and earning billions from taxation and emissions trading derivative schemes…
                      I mean you’d have to be completely moronic to believe in significant anthropogenic Global Warming.

                    144. Average SURFACE temps, which are highly volatile and unreliable. NASA conveniently omits satellite data. Now there’s a surprise, considering the amount of research money at stake for them if their research becomes moot.

                    145. Lady, you are drowning in the Kool-Aid. Maybe you should fly your unicorn or ride your dolphin to the land of rainbows and BS.

                    146. Better yet have a glass of concentrated Sulfuric Acid. After all it’s just a chemical compound. Water is a chemical compound, it’s good for us isn’t it? Now that I know chemical compounds are good for us I feel better about all of them, let’s celebrate CO2, more CO2 for everybody. This sophisticated message brought to you by scientistswho are all on the Payroll of the American fossil fuel industry.

                    147. Everyone has an agenda.

                      These scientists are no less believable than those who depend on grants from government to fund their research.

                      Ask yourself why the intellectuals at the East Anglican University in the UK (one of the original Global Warming Alarmist group) had to use fraudulent methods to get ‘scientists’ to accept their findings …. nor why they used flawed computer models to provide their ‘evidence’?

                    148. Actually that’s not true at all. Scientifically credibility is a function of successful publication, review, and acceptance of research in the relevant peer reviewed scientific journals. The fossil fuel industry’s scientists have not published a significant amount of convincing research in the peer reviewed scientific literature to convince their fellow scientists that their climate science denying arguments are true. The purpose of publishing your research in peer reviewed journals is so that other scientists (who understand the work) can check it, verify the methodology and claims, and agree with the findings or criticize what they don’t agree with. If the fossil fuel hired guns did actually so publish they might have the same credibility as the scientists who actually do. If you want evidence for this fact you can get it at this Youtube link: posted by an impartial and experienced science journalist who actually tracks the scientific work on climate science in peer reviewed journals. Think the proof for global warming depends on computer models? Wrong. Check out his video on the actual research evidence in real science journals for global warming (which Time magazine and the rest of the lay press ignore). Do you think there was a scientific consensus that global cooling was leading to an impending ice in the 1960s as reported in the popular press? A survey of the actual scientific literature at that time says otherwise. Check out potholer54’s videos and learn how to really judge what is and what is not scientific evidence and scientific credibility. If you really don’t care just keep spouting off. Most climate science deniers don’t really care.

                    149. Spot on. Take blood letting for instance. It’s blatantly obvious that poisoned blood causes sickness. All the published science concurs. Get rid of bad blood, cure the patient. Get with it, get with the peer review and the science. Let more blood!

                      Ahh, strike me silly. In whose ‘pay’ was Copernicus, when he risked all by saying the planets might not all revolve about Earth?

                      Fossil fuel industry scientists? You mean, people who study geology texts? And write them?
                      Krauskopf, K.B. 1967, INTRODUCTION TO GEOCHEMISTRY,McGraw-Hill/Kogakusha, Tokyo.
                      p.617f, touches on the carbon topic, as of safety and certainty. Let the record speak. “The carbon of sedimentary rocks was nearly all derived from CO2
                      that once existed in the atmosphere: the carbon of organic materials was fixed in organic compounds by photosynthesis and the carbon of precipitated
                      carbonates represents atmospheric CO2 added to seawater either directly by solution or indirectly by the respiration and decay of organisms. If we estimate the total amount of carbon buried in sedimentary rocks,
                      therefore, we should get a figure indicating how much CO2 has existed in the air at one time or another. Rubey’s calculations (Rubey,1951,GEOL.SOC.AMERICA
                      BULL.,vol.62, pp.1111-1147) indicate that the amount of buried carbon exceeds that in the present atmosphere, oceans, and organisms by a factor of about 600 times (see Rubey, p.1124). Even if some of the analyses and estimates of volumes on which the calculations rest are greatly in error, the figure would still be startlingly large. Beyond any reasonable doubt. the amount of carbon
                      now in the air is only a tiny fraction of the amount that has existed at some time in the geologic past. This result can be interpreted in several ways. One extreme possibility is that the atmosphere at some early period was very dense,consisting chiefly of CO2 at a partial pressure of about 12 atmospheres, and that the activity of plants plus the deposition of carbonate sediments has
                      gradually reduced the amount to its present low value, 0.0003 atmospheres [recent measurements place this figure at 0.0004]. This is an unlikely hypothesis, for it would mean that we are living at the very end of the history of life on our planet. Some CO2 is returned to the air by respiration, rock weathering, and organic decay, but the amount is too small to make up for the
                      carbon that is being steadily removed as precipitated carbonates and organic matter buried with sediments. A rough calculation of the carbon balance indicates that CO2 in air will fall to a level too low to support plant life
                      within a few centuries, unless some other source of the gas is available. Since the geologic record gives indisputable evidence for the continuous existence of
                      multicellular organisms for at least 600 million years, and of unicellular life for at least 2 billion years [since extended to 4], the CO2 content of air cannot have dropped far below its present figure for a long time. And it is scarcely believable that the present 0.0003 atmospheres [more precisely,0.0004] has been reached only now after 4 billion years of steady depletion. An
                      obvious additional source of carbon dioxide is volcanic activity. …. .”
                      Please note, the author of the ‘Bible’ of geochemistry did not have the advantage of more recent discoveries re. comets and ice bodies of Space. Thus he did not mention comets alongside volcanoes as potential
                      re-supply agents.

                    150. So the earth’s atmosphere will be unable to support life very soon unless mankind continues burning coal and oil at historic and increasing rates. I see. Boy the climate science community never saw that coming. Are they trying to get us all killed? Thank goodness for China and India, their carbon pollution is a life saver! Thanks for pointing that out!

                    151. Chug-a-lug, sister. Keep drinking that kool-aid and be sure to believe everything the doom-sayers tell you. You do realize you are believing in computer generated predictions, right? They are only as reliable as the information entered into them and you still have to deal with the fact that nature is not predictable. It does seem to run in cycles and it was only a few years ago when we were told we were headed for the next ice age (also a computer generated prediction). Al Gore had to switch really fast when that one didn’t work out. Oh, and remember the ozone layer. It was supposed to be gone by now and we were all supposed to burn up or something from the sun’s rays. Me? I’m waiting for Chicken Little’s next announcement.

                    152. What do you mean? My calculator is telling me that 10×10 is 110, NOT 100 like you and the math are telling me. Therefore I have to believe my calculator. Wait. What do you mean I input 10×11 into my calculator and that is why my predicted answer was wrong?

                    153. Someone got a hold of AL Gore’s model (software) and started plugging all kinds of crazy temperatures into it, but the result was always the same scorched earth ending. Gee, I wonder if it was simply built to prove Gore’s message?

                    154. Probably is, but it wouldn’t matter anyway since it’s just a computer projection. There is no concrete evidence and even if there was, we are such a minute component of the entire earth’s ecological system that to believe that one country or five or even 10 could destroy the planet (or stop its destruction) is absurd. And those that spout this BS, say they will be proven right in 75 to 200 years when none of us will be here to say “See, I told you so” to those believers out there. I believe we can make the air cleaner in our local area but the whole planet, no.

                    155. Let me quickly help you scientifically assess your quote. Up until the 40’s there was not temperature recording instruments, dispersed widely enough (around the globe), recording temperatures with precision enough to ascertain tenths of a degree, with any accuracy. Your sample from the 1800’s – 1940s would be worthless (statistically) to make any such claim. Take a few science classes and a stats class or two and then get back to us.

                    156. “Up until the 40’s there was not temperature recording instruments”

                      Let me just stop you right there.

                      …because that’s f*#king retarded.

                      “In 1724, Gabriel Fahrenheit invented the first mercury thermometer”


                    157. Very low on reading comprehension aren’t you. What he said was “…dispersed widely enough around the globe.”

                    158. Literally the first things I said ~25 years ago when human GW erupted in the press was

                      1 – there is no century’s worth of data that is global

                      2 – there is no historical data of sufficient accuracy to make any such claim.

                      It’s so basic: a sufficient number of samples of sufficient accuracy. Neither one is even remotely close to being satisfied.

                      Those things are just as true today as they were back then. There is no scientific basis for claiming human activity is heating the planet. Which I guess is why it’s now ‘climate change’ – so vague it can be invoked to support anything.

                    159. You mean to say that every last wrong thermometer reading , the sky is falling, global climate change alarmist would leap to their doom? ……….ok. I can agree with that.

                    160. Perhaps we could get ALL the scientists to jump to their doom……

                      ……actually what about the doctors too, what a bunch of charlatans….

                      …… while we’re at it bloody engineers (structural, electrical, mechanical – need to make sure we get the disreputable whole bunch) ….

                      …. in fact lets chuck in everyone who ever spent their life studying and practicing a discipline …..

                      …. then a certain restricted section of the population can live a short but happily unchallenged existence ……..

                      ……… until a reality they can neither understand nor cope with rushes up and bites them on the …….. astronauts …… now there’s another bunch of feckless losers …….. etc.

                    161. Hahaha. The difference is that there’s a theory, then a hypothesis, then research, testing and honest outcomes. To state emphatically with scientific F-Ing PROOF that the warming or cooling of the earth WILL cause chaos that can only be rectified by taking a piece of my income, is like stating that there is no God. I have a book that says its so. You say my book is false. But your data is flawed, created by man, using a computer graph that predicts the weather, when all along it was George Bush and his mighty weather machine. Your belief vs mine. Why not donate all your money instead of creating BS to steal mine earned income for your selfish one sided global research. What a chicks hit little.

                    162. Here’s the thing, I’m just not clear about your book and it’s accuracy e.g. what were Jesus’s last words before dying? You would thinks something like that would be pretty important and therefore clearly recorded.

                      On AGW it is not an issue of belief, but of cold, clear research and evidence. Ever major scientific institution on Earth who has looked at the case for AGW agrees that it is a reality and serious enough to require action.


                      World leaders from all over the planet have listened to scientific advice and are gathered in Paris to discuss the next steps.


                      The momentum and the evidence is against you. Like someone arguing that smoking is good for children the onus is now on you to provide the case against. You may argue that you don’t need to, and that is your prerogative, but you will find that events have passed you by and you won’t have a choice.

                    163. Just the liars, please. You h, global warming charlatans, please. Or at least when they can predict the weather two days in a row……….or control the sun. Whichever comes first. Puke.

                    164. CB, regardless, what would you do to stop CO2 emissions? The question is not so much how to stop it, but rather how to respond to it if and when it happens

                    165. You’re asking someone that can’t finish reading the sentence they quoted to give you a solution? Love you long time but…. LMAO!

                    166. Good question, directed to CB but I’m sure she won’t mind if I throw some thoughts in.

                      1. A root and branch drive to energy efficiency that runs through every aspect of our life.
                      2. A Manhattan type project to develop new technologies and diversify energy portfolios.
                      3. A global survey of potential energy e.g. its an unusual case but Norway is capable of providing 100% of its energy from hydro electric sources.
                      4. Agree a series of international carbon taxes that start very low but ramp up a little each year allowing people, industries and countries to migrate away from these dying technologies. Use the funds raised to drive research and to fund energy efficiency measures for the most vulnerable.
                      5. Reprogram the World Bank and WTO so that AGW is at the top of their agenda, with the WTO in particular charged with policing international behavior as they currently do for trade, equipping them to levy penalties against those who dodge carbon limit for competitive advantage.

                    167. Yes indeedy, that is precisely what I did not say so………..

                      ………….. thanks for that stale thought!

                    168. Open borders, carbon taxes, and the UN. One World Order. Too bad the guys trying to establish the new Caliphate and use, in addition to jihad, a strategy of immigration with polygamy & high birth rates, or “al-hijra,” as the long-term strategy to transform Western Europe and America into different societies subjugated under Islam see a different vision of “One World” than the liberal dimwits do.

                    169. Yeah the WTO is doing such a great job of policing China, Russia, and the Middle East, India and …. gee, maybe we could find just ONE country they are there. But the UN drivers of policy are the countries that will benefit from taxing the producing countries. It is a shakedown. Why not tax people for using water, or breathing air? You can start with China and India – they have LOTS of people.

                    170. Do you have a comprehension problem? — “Up until the 40’s there was not temperature recording instruments,
                      dispersed widely enough (around the globe), recording temperatures with
                      precision enough to ascertain tenths of a degree, with any accuracy.”

                    171. Not the idiot CB again??/ And Orville Wright invented the Airplane idiot?? Doesn’t mean He could fly across the Atlantic like now…I know its hard to follow CB the idiot…but try

                    172. I have a question….. What exactly have you done personally to stop global warming? In your personal life? I’m curious as to what kind of lifestyle we should all be living to stop global warming. If it all boils down to a “carbon tax” being monitored and controlled by politicians, count me out. Politicians want money……. our money. They will offer any excuse to get to our money. The only way I can envision stemming the amount of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere is to cut the Earth’s population at least in half. Are you volunteering? Neither am I.

                    173. If all the crazy leftist really wanted to help, to save the planet they would just stop breathing.

                    174. Mercury thermometers- best guess.
                      Digitally calculated temp device- +-2*
                      Accurate to measure Global warming +- 2*
                      Depending if it’s 1980 or 2015.

                    175. Two words.

                      Ice cores
                      earth cores
                      tree ring samples
                      historical documentation
                      temperature records beginning in 1850

                      Oooops, silly me that was way more than two words.

                      I just get so excited when I realize how many ways those clever scientists have of reconstructing historical temperature trends.

                    176. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you truly mean well. However, you are simply mistaken. Its not true.

                    177. Reading your post, I will in return give you the benefit of the doubt and advise you not to get all your information from right leaning libertarian think thanks pulling the strings of sites like Climate Depot (you might want to look up CFact).

                      Much better to get your science information from scientists, NASA is a good place to start.


                    178. Those scientists are caught manipulating data so often that it is almost a sort of dark comedy.

                    179. Which might be bleakly funny if you were actually able to provide any proof to back up your random emission.

                    180. It happens fairly regularly. They produce a graph, the graph gets adjusted. They produce statistics, they temps get lowered. They claim polar bears are going to vanish, polar bears are fine. They claim coastal cities are going to be under water, coastal cities are not under water.
                      What you have not done is refute the three professors featured in this article. Right wingers I suppose.

                    181. There are two parts to the response, and what they are

                      Who is important because it goes to the heart of
                      credibility. If you follow this issue and accept the science it rapidly becomes
                      clear that there is a campaign of denial orchestrated by a series of
                      anonymously funded right leaning libertarian think tanks that all cross
                      reference and back each other up in rejection of mainstream climate science.

                      So here we have an article written by an ex political aide
                      to the Republican party running an outreach website for CFact, an anonymously
                      funded right leaning libertarian think tank.

                      Richard Lindzen, a scientist with strong past research
                      credentials but has not been research active for some years. He is however
                      employed by the Cato Institute, (I’ll bet you didn’t see this coming) a right leaning libertarian think tank ….


                      …. set up using funding from and heavily influenced by
                      fossil fuelled billionaires the Koch Bros.


                      William Happer is research active and again has strong
                      science credentials but has also been the chairman of the board of the Marshall
                      Institute (you’ve guessed it). a right leaning libertarian think tank, that has
                      received substantial funding from Exxon Mobile.


                      Patrick Moore, may have been a founding member of
                      Greenpeace but has spent the last 30
                      years working in Environmental PR for industry.

                      He is also associated with a number of organizations e.g.
                      the CO2 Coalitions which provides a wonderful glimpse into the wider structure
                      of this network of denial:


                      Check out some of the members: the board of directors

                      Roger Cohen, PhD — former Manager Strategic Planning ExxonMobil Research and Engineering.

                      Will Happer, PhD

                      Patrick Moore, PhD

                      William O’Keefe — CEO George C. Marshall Institute; former Executive Vice President and Chief
                      Operating Officer American Petroleum Institute.

                      H. Leighton Steward —
                      former Chairman, Louisiana Land and Exploration Company

                      While the Advisorary Committee includes Richard Lindzen.

                      With very very few exceptions every time a counter argument to AGW is
                      put forward it contains little actual research and is usually delivered by a
                      hand that is one or two handshakes away from a representatives of the fossil
                      fuel industry standing just out of sight.

                    182. @CB – 97% of all global warming gasses is water vapor, necessary and without it our planet’s average temperature would be below freezing. CO2 levels are small compared to the levels of water vapor but tends to be an amplifier of cooling and warming. Google “Vostok ice cores” and you will find gas measurements during an ice age where CO2 levels were 20 times higher than today. Hmmm, human technology was non-existent then so what is to blame?

                      It is the sun’s varying output that is the major cause of climate change. Major and minor solar cycles are the cause and when they coincide, we have extremes in climate, such as an ice-age.

                      I have references but these can easily be googled to verify but I suspect that cool-aid drinkers will continue their rant. We should take practical means to control pollutants but not reactionary! Global warming should be proven or dis-proven with the scientific process, not political correctness driven by politicians whose only skill is lying to voters!

                    183. Look up ‘Milankovitch cycles’ for 420,000 years of ice core data.

                      Stop using that pigeon hole 100 year argument.

                    184. check the latest data from MIT, seems the alarmists have been cooking the books again, sorry we all know this is just a scam to achieve an even greater control of what people do, You are duped and you don’t even know it yet, but you do feel noble, don’t you?

                    185. CB, you did exactly what the guys in the article talked about, you hid the scales showing the time period involved. Then you ignore the conflict between the surface data which has been “massaged” to put it mildly and disregard the satellite data (which measures far more globally than the surface pinpoint stations. You show all of the groundless confidence of a religious zealot and therefore are just as immune to logic and common sense.

                    186. The average ground temperature of the Earth is impossible to measure since most of the Earth is ocean…So this average ground temperature is a fiction.

                    187. The average ground temperature of the Earth is impossible to measure since most of the Earth is ocean……So this average ground temperature is a fiction.

                    188. I think h just missed the entire point. If your trained in statistics you would understand the concept of statistical significant and random error. You can’t make the claim of hottest year because there is too much variance in the data. The confidence interval is too low.

                    189. You are the precise embodiment of a “useful idiot”. Every graph, chart, calculation, and forecast you present and post is a lie. Did you not read the article? 100% of real, actual scientists agree that man made global warming/climate change/climate disruption/climate catastrophe is a fraud based on nonsense, driven purely by political propaganda. Wake up. Nobody with a brain and a modicum of common sense believes this tripe anymore.

                    190. The fact that this graph has been debunked as a hoax, just doesn’t seem to matter to you, does it?

                    191. bwahahahahr!!! Just ignore all facts and scream science to the top of your lungs and demonize anyone who disagrees bwahahahar!!!!

                    192. Did you even read anything on this page? Where is your PhD? You have nothing but regurgitated nonsense.

                    193. You know less than you think about global warming. You are what Lenin called a useful idiot, and will be discarded as irrevelant once leftists are done with you

                    194. Can you go to the middle east and start preaching this crap to muslims? You can come back and tell us all the great horror stories around a camp fire, if you’re not stoned to death for being raped. Can you read? Did you read the article? Do you think al gore has a better education than these people? When did you realize that your life isn’t worth a roll of toilet paper?

                    195. “Like the Republicans who deny the existential threat that global warming poses?”

                      Horseshit! LACK of warming is an existential threat to alarmists, while CO2 is an existential NECESSITY to life on earth. I’m so sick of these ignorant neanderthals pretending that they understand anything at all about the climate and life on earth.

                    196. The report by NOA && NASA, has been debunked by highly credentialed scientists as a complete FRAUD being perpetrated on the citizens to satisfy the Obama Administration. In fact, they are also under investigation by a Senate Committee because of all the fraudulent politicized agenda-driving they have been doing. “Somehow, they managed to calculate Earth’s temperature within 0.01 degrees – even though they had no temperature data for about half of the land surface, including none in Greenland and very little in Africa or Antarctica.”

                    197. Using the lies in question to prove truth from the lie?
                      CB, ten, twenty years from now, this planets’ climate system will be just as you experience it today, the seas will not have risen, the Poles will be ice-laden, glaciers will not have melted. Verdure will be plenteous.
                      But you, dear friend? If Gaia wills it, you will awaken in your dark, urban ghetto hovel and light a candle to see by, slip on tree bark sandles and hobble down to your nearest government food queque that you may be blessed with your daily ration of soylent green-esque gruel to live on that day, that day and everyday you aren’t excised to lessen the human carbon footprint.
                      Utopia will have been achieved.
                      This is YOUR future, sop.

                    198. You are the leftist equivalent of a street preacher. You’re just a troll who agrees with your own opinion in the face of any facts. Your entire operating system is based on a combination of 2 things. Faith and ego. You believe the pseudo science of the left and you have acted upon that belief so frequently that a good chunk of your identity is now wrapped up in your misguided and puerile mission to “save the planet from republicans” or whatever. You are offering government sources to back government talking points. That’s no different than using the bible to prove the bible. Global warming does not exist in any way that mankind is capable of preventing. The Earth is not flat, stationary and stable. There is no constant by which temperature can be judged. This planet is dynamic and ever-changing. There are people who will try and use anything to gain power over others. They are usually easily identifiable by their desire to exert control over people that disagree with them. Global warming is a scam. It’s an ongoing system of control because the climate will never stabilize, regardless of anything mankind does or doesn’t do.

                    199. Warmest on record since 1880…I didn’t know soccer moms drove suvs in the 1880’s…How many coal fired electric plants do you suppose existed then? A dirty little secret for you…the climate has been changing for 4+ billion years and it has been hotter than the present and it has been colder. What hubris to believe man has that much influence on the weather. Put your attention on pollution from plastics, etc.

                    200. You look to be about 12, CB. Best at that age to keep your mouth shut and your ears and eyes open.

                    201. Existential threat…..really?
                      Then you better start building your specially filtered underground bunker.
                      You will need it when the “SUPERVOLCANO” erupts in Yellowstone.

                    202. Dude!.. when do you people stop? when will you all realize that you’re just a bunch of weak, scared morons without the common sense to think for yourselves?…oh yeah, I forgot…IT’S BUSH’S FAWLT!!.

                    203. This really is a religion to you blokes, isn’t it? You have no faith in what human reason and nature tells you to worship, viz. your very creator, so you imbibe this intellectual swill and turn it into a damned ’cause’. What we have now has to be the most pitifully educated generation in human history. It has no sense of proportion, no humility, no common sense.

                    204. CB uses links to back up his arguments, but has anyone else noticed virtually all his links are government-controlled propaganda outlets? This is the same government that told us ISIS is the JV team, and ISIS us under control, and the Benghazi attack was caused by “that Youtube video, and “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, etc, etc. etc. Only a damn fool would have faith in today’s American government. We now know what it must have been like to live in the Soviet Union with onlt TASS, Pravda, and Isvestia as news sources.

                    205. “I urge you when looking at a graph, check the scales! The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree,”

                    206. you purposely miss the point that the whole thing is based on infinitesimal changes in degrees. And fyi why don’t you check on a corresponding graph of activity on the Sun during the same time periods, as well as the changes in the rotation of the Earth’s Axis. Lots of reasons for climate changes – but apparently it is only CO2 that proponents are concerned with … ever wonder why?

                    207. Yet significantly cooler than 7000 years ago when the earth was finishing it rise out of the last ice age. Warming trends before heading towards a new ice age is somewhere between 8000 and 10000 years. You know bases an all scientific evidence, even that of the “climate change”/”global warming” community excepts. This was actually the coolest of 4 heat spike in 450000 years, you know according to the graphs put out by MIT and NASA, the smartest scientists in the world that don’t rely on government grants to stay employed.
                      Go read articles on “global warming” they all say that it isn’t that big of a deal because of the trends and then the last paragraph in everyone says “yet this leads scientist to believe (not conclude) that climate change exists. We as a civilized people have only been able to actually keep weather records for less than 200 years, yet the warming trend for this planet peaked out 6000 years ago. Do your own homework people and don’t just fall for everything they try to tell you.

                    208. Oh yes, the adjusted, fiddled data, designed to fit the model that produces the results that the warmophobes want (the mathematical model that was determined to have the upward bias no matter what data it was fed), the data that has massive time gaps filled in by “educated” guesses, and literally fills in missing field data where with created data-THAT data!

                    209. So you just joined the conversation without reading the article… just like all you libterds do, make a$$ umptions based on the stupidity you are fed. Get a grip and stay out of the teddy bear room.

                    210. Clearly you didn’t read the caption. “…the latest corrected analysis”. NOIA has fudged the numbers 16 TIMES to try and get this result. If you use the satellite data, acknowledged to be the most accurate, there has been NO warming for 19 years. ONLY when you adjust the data can you show warming.

                      “corrected” my a$$.

                    211. Thank you for that. I mean really, who want’s to believe a MIT Climate Scientist or a Princeton Physicist anyway. I am sure that qualifications are much more reliable. I truly love it when complete idiots like yourself try to sound knowledgeable. It truly cracks me up.

                    212. Bet you thought the economic collapse of 2008 was a genius move because, after all, George Bush went to Harvard business school.

                    213. Gee, excellent use of labeling a person so you can dismiss them as a stereotype. Kudo’s. I’m curious as to how you could make the mental leap from the discussion on climate change to the economic collapse of 2008 and President Bush. The Economic Collapse of 2008 was two decades in the making and started when the Federal Government lead by Liberal Democrats forced banks to begin making loans to people who truly could not afford them under the guise of “Fair-housing”. But I’m sure you knew that already…

                    214. There, there…dry your tears, nurse Palin will be right along to change you and tell you some more flat-earth fairy tales.

                    215. Wow, I bet your mental problem is really hard to pronounce. Obviously you can’t even fathom a coherent response to your constantly being proven wrong. So tell us, with a head as vacant as yours, does the wind whistle when it blows through your ears?

                      Please if you could. Provide one, just one factual piece of evidence to back up any or your truly inane comments.

                      It is quite obvious by checking your profile that you are truly an idiot in that you have more comments than you do up votes. Your parents truly owe you an apology, because they raised an absolute idiot for a child.

                    216. 1880? That is so 19th century. NASA was great until they became a conduit for political science.

                    217. The people are not falling for the lies anymore. No such thing as Global Warming..its Global Cooling. The Leftists just keep the tax scam going

                    218. And no one at NASA ever lied, either, right? By the way, by what margin was 2014 ranked as the warmest on record since 1880?

                    219. Two sets of satellite data do not show this. Whistle blowers in NOAA are saying the data has been fudged.

                    220. This is the same NASA that Obama said should do more “outreach” to Muslims, right? And, one warm year does not make a climate change, especially when the records show we’ve been in cooling “pause” from “global warming”, for 18 years, anyway. The globe was warmer during the dinosaur ages, and then there were the ice ages. What caused those climate changes? There were no men during the age of dinosaurs, according to main stream science, and not enough humans to matter, during the ice ages, right? That’s evidence that man hasn’t influenced climate change in the past, so, you need really concrete evidence that man is influencing it now, and these scientists are evidence that there is no consensus in science, where climate change is concerned. And, where is the evidence that throwing money around will influence climate change if it is real?

                    221. Explain climate changes on Mars, there’s no SUV’s there. The warmest climate on Earth was in the beginning of Earth’s formation.

                      The recording of weather is only a very short period of the millions of years on Earth, you have no real base of the true original temperatures.

                      The hippie type nuts believed in the 1970’s in global cooling, then Al Bore made global warming, because of global warming discredited it’s now called climate change. Follow the money path, you find it just makes a few Liberals rich, flying in their personal jets, LOL.

                    222. Climate myths: Mars and Pluto are warming too

                      There have been claims that warming on Mars and Pluto are proof that the recent warming on Earth is caused by an increase in solar activity, and not by greenhouse gases. But we can say with certainty that, even if Mars, Pluto or any other planets have warmed in recent years, it is not due to changes in solar activity.

                      The Sun’s energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978 (see Climate myth special: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans). If increased solar output really was responsible, we should be seeing warming on all the planets and their moons, not just Mars and Pluto.


                    223. “The recording of weather is only a very short period of the millions of years on Earth, you have no real base of the true original temperatures.” – nara

                      Similarly you have no real base for the amount of oxygen you consume. So if I deprive you of it for 4 minutes, which is a similar fraction of your life, and thereby killing you, there must be no proof that you have been murdered.

                      Such is the consequence of your nonsense reasoning.

                    224. “The hippie type nuts believed in the 1970’s believed in global cooling” = – nara

                      Sorry, but there was no warning of an imminent return to glaciation from the scientific community back in the 1970’s.

                      But we do see such claims for the near future coming from the Denialist camp here in 2015.

                      Liars.. Liars… Liars….

                    225. And just what is the threat that less than 1° rise in temp causes? How many beheadings, crucifixions? How about tell me how ISIS wouldn’t exist if we had only spent trillions to stop that 1°.

                    226. Haven’t they scheduled your surgery yet? The one to have your head removed from your rear? Nice graph, looks like a drawing my next door neighbor’s 2 year old drew. You obviously have missed the point, graphs are made up by you luneytoon left, with no factual data to support them. Any azzclown can make a graph.Give us ALL the factual data that supports your cute little graphski.

                    227. Here is how that chart is FRAUDULENTLY CREATED:

                      Just you point out your line, look at this chart. The cheating of NOAA started exactly at the same time…..Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the smoking gun.

                      The raw data shows no warming AT ALL.

                      But look also how NOAA doesn’t show their cheating after 2000! Why? Because there has been an actual cooling in that period. Thus the harmonization should be NEGATIVE. How are they going to show such a dislocation in that chart!

                    228. Read the fine print buddy. They can’t accurately claim it was the warmest year, only that it might have been.

                      Ah, the useful idiot left.

                    229. Yes.. and what people forget about the end of the last century.. is that coal spewing locomotives were dominating the environment then.. and causing atmosphere change even then. ..!!

                    230. Did you not read the article? There is no threat. Human effect on the climate is, in fact, statistically insignificant. This AGW thing is a political money grab, not a scientific issue.

                    231. Here we see the chart showing the production of baloney taking a sharp increase….
                      Remember that when the data doesn’t support your agenda, just change the numbers around!

                    232. CB, so you are giving yourself a thumbs up these days? I guess you are part of the 97% who believe what you say? LOL

                    1. The Gallows as we did after WWII in Nuremberg but we also need to address the collaborators.

                      Those is Spain collecting pensions from Angela Merkle’s government for their participation in WWII in support of NAZI need to be jailed as well. We know who they are thanks to being outed by the UK Telegraph too.

                  1. pure retribution … even if they were guilty, the damage from their supposed actions was nothing more than advancing by an insignificant period, the time in which USSR scientists found success in producing their version of the “A” bomb.

                    1. How many USA citizens has Germany killed? Now Russia?
                      Angela Merkle declared prior to the Dresden rally Islam “Belongs to Germany” Jan 2015.

                      Get it?

                1. Pretty mouth thur! Your contribution is soooo Islam.

                  “Once you even begin to argue rationally with them you have lost 98% of progressives. Truth does not matter to them. Do not waste your time.

                  You will only be ridiculed, abused, yelled at, cussed at, told how stupid you really are.

                  These are animals plain and simple. They will not stop until their worldview is fully implemented and the country is no different than the European Socialists.”

            1. “that is the core of this con job”

              The greenhouse effect was discovered by people living over a century ago.

              Is it likely they were engaging in a con to get grant money that no scientist on Earth has been able to identify in all that time?

              “Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who, three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases, such as CO₂ and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856 was accompanied by speculation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO₂ could result in significant atmospheric warming.”


              1. Same old examples, I see, that still fall short. We all know that CO2 absorbs head and then radiates some of it back, heating the atmosphere to a minute degree. But it’s effect is logarithmic, so the more you add to the atmosphere the less warming you get. Pretty soon it can’t hold anymore no matter how much more you add and the heat just passes into space. There is no such thing as a “runaway” greenhouse effect.

              2. you do know that weather changed into warming and cooling periods long before we started burning fossil fuels, there are ice-core samples to verify that, It is a scam and you are afraid to question it because your clan would ostracize you if you veered from the acceptible speeh of the hive. Grow a pair and think beyond the propoganda for once, really?

                  1. you are attempting to instruct someone who has studied the history of this globe for more than 40+ years, I do believe you need to dig deeper for you analysis that just the “choir” that has already signed on to the agenda. or are you afraid you would end up like that french meteorologist who was canned for actually “questioning” the so called settled science. (and that is a laughable term since no scientist of any merit would use that term because the flat earth used to be “settled science” until it wasn’t

                    1. He accuses pretty much the entire climate science community of fraud. He either has some pretty compelling evidence and will be able to take his employers to the cleaners in court or he was engaged in a cheap publicity stunt using the run up to the Paris summit to flog his book in which case his position was untenable.

                    2. he is not the only such incident of silence by intimidation. What of the MIT study, are they flagginhg a book, there have been calls against the “cooked” data from a variety of independent corners, this is far past just an angry single actor, this is systemic.

            2. For almost 2 decades now, we’ve been suffering from the effects of climate stasis where the global temperatures don’t go up and they don’t go down.

              After the recent Paris attacks you can see the clear tie to terrorism.

              This is going to take massive amounts of money and a huge increase in government to solve.

              And more LGBT people in science. And people of color.

              Well, various shades of brown that is. No white and no pink.

              And tanning doesn’t count.

          1. Most climate research is aimed at proving the earth is warming and that man caused it? Why and where is the research proving otherwise. Well…………here is the answer.

            Researchers respond to RFP (research funding proposals) from politicized federal agencies BECAUSE that is where the money is. There are no RFPs from anti warming agencies.

            AND, academic researcher’s promotion, tenure, and merit salary decisions are based on publication record (in “refereed journals). These journals send papers out for peer review and the process is incestuous. If you pan a colleague’s research methods or conclusions you risk getting your own paper torpedoed.

            AND, research to prove that global warming does not exist is next to impossible to do. You can not prove a negative. A positive can be proven with one instance of increased temperature. A negative conclusion would have to be based on every date point in history and would still be subject to criticism for not seeing into the future.

            AND, look at the politics involved. Every “victim” of global warming has their hand out hoping for cash for remediation. No warming denier is expecting to get anything but must pay for it all.
            Billions of dollars are being spent on fraud and waste. And many industries are thriving on the hoax.

            1. EXCEPT that climate research is diverse incorporating

              EXCEPT that in a world built on and driven by cheap, readily available fossil fuel energy every political, economic and social imperative screams out for the continuation of the status quo.

              EXCEPT that any scientists who could provide definitive proof that AGW is not real would be showered by rewards from grateful politicians and industries. They could pick up their Nobel award on the way to a very highly paid job with the oil or coal industry …….. yet no-one does, not even when they are funded by the Koch Bros.


              EXCEPT that with trillions of dollars of assets at risk of being stranded it seems highly unlikely that fossil fuel industries would not be falling over themselves to fund publishing costs for sympathetic research.

              EXCEPT that if the temperatures took a downward turn, we would not even be having this discussion, but when year in year out the climate warms as predicted, and almost nothing that sites like this one say has proven correct, then yes your case is very hard to make.

              EXCEPT that when you look at the politics of this you see a toxic issue, if a politician doesn’t deal with it they look impotent (Democrats) or plain stupid and corrupt (most Republican – history will not be kind). If a politician doe deal with the problem they will be asking the electorate to give up some cherished freedoms, endure financial hardships and tolerate a complete upending of our way of life ……. i.e. that politician will be committing electoral suicide, and yet they will increasingly do all of these things because if they don’t we are looking at a different kind of suicide.

          2. This has always been about economic gain. Always. Propaganda produced by the ruling class at some Bildeberg retreat to amass more wealth and more power. Climate change is the new world order’s latest organized religion — the opiate to subdue and oppress the masses — facilitated by priests masquerading as academics. So transparent for those of us with eyes wide open.

          3. And without that “free” money they are given, they wouldn’t be able to push their sick insane agendas. The left robs the tax payers then uses that stolen money to attack the very people they stole it from.

          4. Without all those papers indicating global warming…many climate scientists would be asking “paper or plastic?” instead. I’d fudge the numbers too if I could find a gravy train like this.

          5. Govt “grants” are the biggest and most expensive and cynical “circle jerk” EVER perpetrated on mankind. OK, NOT as dangerous as Islam BUT pretty close.

          6. Thanks for the research grant, fellas. What do you want the report conclusions to say again? Can I copy from other reports that agree with your value judgements? Does it have to be original research? Can I have my buddies do the peer review thang?

          7. Money..and power. Let’s not forget about the power. The reason global governments are more than happy to fund these bogus “studies” is a socialist power grab with the ambitious goal of controlling global economic resources and putting themselves in charge to distribute/resdistribute the wealth produced from those resources. Catastrophic climate alarmism where the boogeyman is the free market capitalists and factories that produce wealth allows the socialists to make the claim to replace the evil business people who suffer human frailties with benevolent politicians who have halos over their heads and fly unicorns. Surely, they argue, the politicians will make better decisions than business people. They will be better stewards of other people’s resources and therefore more efficient and effective at managing those resources and producing a sustainable prosperity for all.

          8. as the bible says, the love of money is a root of many evils! follow the money. greed and personal comfort and personal well-being is a huge motivator, maybe more than some grand ideology or scheme for global government.

          9. Board of Directors for Texas Public Policy Foundation is Wendy Gramm, wife of the democrat Saving & Loan deregulator, Phil Gramm, costing taxpayers $600 billion, and wife of republican senator Phil Gramm, author of the bill to deregulate banks, costing taxpayers a trillion each in TARP 1 & 2. When Wendy lost her $250K/year Reagan gig she was on the board of ENRON, helping the inventor of Carbon Credit Trading, Ken Lay.

        1. The Koran advises to lie in order to promote Islam by any means necessary.

          Climate change agenda is about control and nothing to do with weather much less saving the earth from man.

        2. No, they actually use their lofty positions and so-called benevolence towards mankind to hide sinister agendas that were planned many years ago. Same guys are still there wanting it… like Kissinger, Ted Turner, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, Bill Gates, Hitlery, etc. It’s all about depopulation, and an easy scam to take money from the 99 percent in taxes while funneling the money into their offshore accounts.

        3. Agree; and science is not about what position one holds.
          It’s about theories that make predictions and whether or not those predictions hold up to observations in nature.

        4. Nah! They use their lofty positions much in the manner of broadcast towers to enable to expose their ignorance more broadly to more people. Such practices are epitomized by Obama, Kerry and McCarthy. But don’t overlook Hillary.

          1. Yep, no such thing as a hate crime. There are only crimes.

            Hate crime legislation sets the stage for thought crimes and the thought police. Imagine, that you could pre-arrest someone for a hate / microagression / thought crime to prevent a future real crime. Who would not want to be safe from the potential of a crime?

            1. Hate Crime was created to ban thoughts and words.

              Orwellian in fact if not a little Mien Kamfpe too with that BIG LIE

              Mathew Shepard was killed by his own lovers over drugs. More of a violent MSM domestic violence thing and drugs crime not hate what so ever.

                1. Yes the homosexual drug dealer who lost his life to his lovers over drugs that crystal meth makes some lose their mind and then their liberty.

                  The Turd Riech had their German soldiers strung out on speed fighting without sleep and food when supplies lines were severed by the USA.

                    1. No H8? — Bombshell Book: Matthew Shepard Tortured, Murdered by Gay Lover (breitbart) 14 Sep 2013

                      “Almost everything you think you know about the Matthew Shepard narrative is false..”

            2. Hate crime laws aids ISlam in fact.

              Here in Washington DC at the police station there is a poster of a woman wrapped in head scarves daring one to say anything to her with her threatening use of hate crime law

        1. I happened to be a conservative Republican who is tired of the back and forth rhetoric. You on the other hand sound like a knuckle dragging Trump supporter!

      1. “To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?

        Prevent global warming.
        Stop breathing!

        1. Earl is just another liberal jerk like Gore and the rest of their ilk…proclaiming all the steps we need to take to stop global warming then doing just the opposite themselves. Hey Al! You still flying your L1011 body around the world?

          1. I happened to be a conservative Republican who is tired of the back and forth rhetoric. You on the other hand sound like a knuckle dragging Trump supporter.

        1. I happened to be a conservative Republican who is tired of the back and forth rhetoric. You on the other hand sound like a knuckle dragging Trump supporter!!

      2. Sooner or later Chimpypants, if they aren’t violent killers they are either doing it wrong or lazy. Could be they are too stupid. Are those the ones that hang with you?

      3. NOW YOU GET IT!!

        Every follower of the certifiably psychotic, demon possessed, genocidal, pedophile, camel “lover!” is a potential terrorist IF they follow the koran & hadith!!!

      4. When the majority of Muslim believe sharia law should rule their own countries do you actually believe they will assimilate to western cultures when they come?

      5. The Quran clearly states that all Muslims must participate in jihad. Either by direct violent action or support thought money or resources. Jihad is defined as the “struggle” and when read in context the struggle is against all infidels (non-Muslims) and all infidels are to be converted to be put to death.

        So, yes – all are responsible for the terrorism or they disobey Allah and not a real Muslim. So, what are they if not Muslim?

      6. Sir. If a fanatic islamist comes to your door and says ‘kill your neighbor now’ or your children will die, your wife will die.and all of the of your family will die today or as soon as we can get to them, You will become a murderer. Yes, EVERY muslim is a potential terrorist .And don’t forget it!!

      7. No, but Islam is the religion of worldwide violence and terror. Most Muslims are peaceful because they ignore basic Islamic requirements such as jihad and the forced imposition of sharia.

    1. warl flemm: Every Muslim belongs to a religion whose prophet and god COMMAND them to kill all non-Muslims and take-over the whole world by the sword.. So you tell me what does that make them?

      1. Every Jew belongs to a religion whose prophet and god COMMAND they kill people for land and who gave them their law through a talking bush… that was on fire. Also interesting fact Muhammad’s Mother was Jewish, making him a Jew. You don’t hear that talked about very often.

        1. yeah, so was jesus’ mom..I here she used to bang a jewish guy too. dont hear about that too often either.
          Jonas Salk, Albert Sabin…both jews…will the trickery never end?
          is there anything fear of them cant do?

          1. It is constantly pointed out by Jewish people that Jesus was Jewish. What is your point? I was simply pointing out another person that was. According to fascists like you I can’t point out facts because you don’t like them.

            You forgot Karl Marx (Moses Levy Mordecai) father of Marxism and Communism was also Jewish…
            Gee whiz… Judaism/Christianity/Islam/Communism… that covers 90%+ of murders in history.

            1. Im a fascist like your name is saul gold.
              you anonymous bag of excreta. Youre a coward and a putz…a spineless drop of putrid fluid..
              you can point out whatever “facts” you like…just because your mom sucked some jewish penis in her life, and youre daughters are banging black guys is no reason to hate the world.

                  1. you are a fascist, a would be tyrant and a racist
                    you anonymous bag of excreta. Youre a coward and a putz…a spineless drop of putrid fluid..
                    you can point out whatever “facts” you like…just because your mom sucked some jewish penis in her life, and youre daughters are banging black guys is no reason to hate the world.

                    1. yeah “earl” those comment apply to you as well. Youre an anonymous asshatted coward troll.

              1. If a small land mass is home to by far the most populated area that would prove they infact have had far less death than the other warring factions/continents.
                You must have missed where I said communism which would include ASIA as Mao murdered at least 10 times more than Hitler on his own, many Christians so Mao is not a monster in MSM he is quoted frequently as a good thing.
                Science, History and Math anyone?

                1. Uh, Asia is approximately 30% of the land mass on the planet….

                  I would not call that small.

                  *Taiping Rebellion

                  20,000,000–100,000,000 Killed 1850–1864 China

                  *Three Kingdoms War

                  36,000,000–40,000,000 Killed 184–280 China

                  *An Lushan Rebellion

                  13,000,000–36,000,000 Killed 755–763 China

                  *Second Sino – Japanese War

                  25,000,000 Killed 1937–1945 China

                  *Qing dynasty conquest of Ming Dynasty

                  25,000,000 Killed 1616–1662 China

                  *Mongol conquests
                  40,000,000–70,000,000 Killed 1206–1324 Eurasia

                    1. Internet much?

                      Look it up your self, lazy arse.

                      You ain’t my professor…

                      your my huckleberry.

        2. Get back into your Mommy’s basement and practice goose stepping. Jew baiting losers should just stick to storm front and other skin head publications.

          1. You don’t like facts? Are you saying the Torah and Old Testament are wrong about the killing for land and talking bush that was on fire or the historical fact that Muhammad had a Jewish Mother?

            1. Aminah (Muhammad’s mother) was born to Wahb ibn Abd Manaf and Barrah bint ‘Abd al ‘Uzzā ibn ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Abd al-Dār in Mecca.[1] She was a member of the Banu Zuhrah clan in the tribe of Quraysh who claimed descent from Ibrahim (Abraham) through his son Ismail (Ishmael). Being the descendant of Ismael would make her Egyptian (Abraham’s concubine was Egyptian) The Jewish line started with Isaac

              1. She is descended from Abraham she is more Jewish than any Ashkenazi that came from Japheth and not even Shem (where word Semite derives from). In Torah and all through Christian Bible OT and NT the covenant was made with Abraham and his seed. Abraham was the first circumcised as well.

              2. Once you even begin to argue rationally with them you have lost 98% of progressives. Truth does not matter to them. Do not waste your time. You will only be ridiculed, abused, yelled at, cussed at, told how stupid you really are. These are animals plain and simple. They will not stop until their worldview is fully implemented and the country is no different than the European Socialists.

                1. BINGO The threads are full of ISLAMIC posters here to do exactly as you have so explained word for word one can read all the feeds in the MSM news that still have comments.

            2. Again, we are living in the 21st century. History is what it is. What does any shred of your statement have to do with modern times. I thought you progressives were called that because you had evolved to a higher level of being. More intelligent, science based, hate religion, agnostic or atheist, generally better than your average Joe. No you defend the most barbaric of practices because you are too PC and do not wish to offend Muslims. I only wish you shared the same sentiment for Jews and Christians. You are hateful and John Kerry slipped and spoke the truth about your ilk. You believe there is some kind of legitimacy to their cause because England put Israel back where it has always been. Therefore the only conclusion I can draw is that you do not believe all people are created equal. Progressives are created superior.

          1. Muslim extremists follows their leaders;

            Head of ISIS: Elliot Shimon(Ashkenazi Jew)

            Al Qaeda leader: Adam Gadahn(Ashkenazi Jew)

            Why do you think every time Assad hit an ISIS camp another MOSSAD turned up dead? Why is Israel medevac ISIS injured?… You must not read very much.

            1. I read plenty – have never come across what you are claiming. Perhaps you would like to provide links to this? And remember not everything you read on the internet is true. Besides doesn’t change that muslims worship satan.

              1. Just google either name and you will get plenty of side by side photos of the two men mentioned. Any link I would provide would be called biased. Do you trust your own 2 eyes or not? That is the final question you have to ask yourself in today’s BS world. Also google Israeli captured in Iraq leading ISIS, they caught an actual IDF Officer leading the ISIS in part of Iraq.
                WHy believe MSM, Brian Williams was one of the most trusted news anchors and he was total liar. He said he was in a helicopter that got shot down by an RPG but was actually 2 hours behind it in another helicopter. Plus if you take an hour and find owner of every major News channel they are owned by Jews, same people profiting from war, etc.. so why would Jews report this stuff on their own propaganda networks? Why do they report only Jewish Victims of Holocaust and always Hitler but never Mao and Stalin who killed many times more than Hitler?

            1. If you have read the Koran 1 passage for example is the rider on the pale horse being the messiah – well now anyone who understands the bible knows that the rider on the pale horse is satan.

              1. The German scholar Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932) was of the opinion that this first horseman was ORIGINALLY A SUN-GOD: “His horse is white (as in the white horse of the divine slayer of the dragon; the white horse of Mithras in the Avesta…)” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, by R. H. Charles).

                The same volume states that “…according to Weiss…the victorious Rider [of the white horse] REPRESENTS THE VICTORIOUS COURSE OF THE GOSPEL, which must be preached to all nations before the woes come.”

                What in the world are you reading?

                1. uh – the bible – duh. Revelations 6:9 to be exact -I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. Obviously you are not familiar with it.

                  1. Whatever the pale horse represents, we know that God will judge the world in righteousness someday and that everyone will have to give an account for what they did in their lives. Revelation 20:12-15 tells the fatal outcome for all who refused to repent and trust in Christ, “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” this has nothing to do with pointing out Muslims but everyone including people who claim to be Christians and who don’t follow Christ. I’m interested in truth not foolish speculations.

              2. “White is the color most often mentioned in the Scriptures. Besides its descriptive use, it also serves as a SYMBOL OF RIGHTEOUSNESS AND SPIRITUAL CLEANNESS. (Rev. 3:4; 7:9, 13, 14). The white horse, as portrayed at Revelation 6:2 and 19:11, SYMBOLIZES CLEAN, RIGHTEOUS WARFARE UNDER JESUS CHRIST’S DIRECTION”

          1. That’s a dumb question. How many Muslims just got another 50 Billion from US Tax Payers for fighter jets and attack helicopters… You are a pig brained moron.

                    1. No, you dimwitted jackass, Netanyahu ASKED for $5 billion a year for 10 years. God are you people stupid!

                    2. Yes 5 times 10 is 50Billion jackass. That is on top of what they currently get. Total welfare queens over there, can’t do shat for themselves. Helpless bagel eaters.

                    3. Are you really that stupid? Netanyahu ASKED for $5 Billion over 10 years. The current agreement runs through 2017. Obama did NOT give Israel another $50 billion as the ignorant asshat posted. Try again, Adolph.

                    4. Let’s give Israel 10 billion and all the nukes she needs just to make a glass parking lot out of our enemies.

            1. Are you unaware of the US foreign aid in the form of military equipment, including jets that goes to muslim nations?
              Perhaps you shouldn’t be throwing stones out of your glass house by calling others morons.

              1. You mean Saudi Arabia… They have been proven to be Crypto Jews. The house of Saud is Jewish and Netanyahu has said repeatedly on the news Saudi Arabia is Israel’s closest ally in the Middle East. You know the country where almost all the 9/11 hijackers lived and were raised…

                    1. Add up what goes to muslim nations. It’s more than what goes to israel.

                      Why give money to people who want to destroy us? Sounds pretty dumb.

                  1. DNA… Unlike AshkeNAZI they are descended from Abraham… you know the guy God made the covenant with? Try reading the Torah Adolph. You sound just like a Nazi piggy.

                    1. So that is your proof that the House of Saud is Jewish? You are really one ignorant asshat, Adolph.

            2. That’s nothing (and it’s not $50 billion, US military aid to Israel is more like $1.5 billion a year).

              Obama just gave Iran $150 billion. More money that all the aid the US has give to Israel since 1948.

        3. There is nothing in the Torah about killing for land, Jesus was a Jew, Mohammad was a Jew, because Jews were the native population of the entire Middle East, with the exception of Persia (Iran). There was never A Palestine, nor was there ever Palestinian population until modern times when the Muslims forced their Gypsy populations around Israel as a threat.

          1. Palestine is mentioned by name in Torah and OT. Maps of that land by every country that surveyed or cataloged it for over 1000 years called it Palestine. US Govt. Documents and maps up until the war have it marked as Palestine. It’s not going to be easy for you to rewrite history on that one.

            1. You are right, but it was used in the same way we use North America, it was never a country or specific people. The people that occupied it historically were primarily Jewish. We stopped using the term when we designated it the “Middle East” instead.

        4. The command to kill given by God to the Jews was a very specific command to kill certain people at a particular time. God did not command the Jews to perpetually kill those who did not hold a common belief, as the Muslim’s Allah is alleged to have done. Besides that, the Old Testament stories about a Jewish campaign at God’s command are nonsense. Most of the places the Jews are alleged to have destroyed and taken 1.) didn’t exist at the time, 2.) had been destroyed by others before the time of the alleged Jewish campaign (and some were re-occupied by Jews much later), or 3.) they existed at the time but show no evidence of having been attacked. If you believe the OT story of the Jewish conquest, you believe in a fairy tale. The mythology was nationalistic propaganda created to bind together the disparate people who called themselves Hebrews and give them an identity of “conquerors” so they could make claims to greatness like the truly great powers that surrounded them. Islamic militancy is not a fairy tale; it is here, it is real.

          If Muhammad’s mother was a Jew, then Muhammad was a Jew by tradition. But he became something else by a change in his belief system – like being born a Catholic and converting to become a Baptist. Being born into one tradition or another doesn’t cast someone’s belief system in stone.

          1. So you are going to pretend that Rabbinical Law in Israel is not based on the Talmud then right? Because it is nothing but a doctrine of it’s ok to kill non-jews for any reason.

            1. No, it’s not. Plain enough? And do you know any Jews who believe and act on such a thing? Is it the policy of the nation of Israel? It is of IS. And I’m talking about the Torah, a higher authority. It certainly isn’t there either.

        5. get over this.
          Race is not a problem. Ignorance is.
          The truth is God does not need religion.
          It is man who has the problem. The atrocities committed in the name of God, by whatever name he is called, are not justified nor approved by Him. He doesn’t need our help.
          So many souls are misguided by their own teachers.
          God does not need our help. We are direly i need of His.
          Defend your home and the ones you love. Lay down your life for another.
          Protect all you hold dear.
          Be upright. We shall meet in Paradise.

        6. God punished the pagans through the Israelites, read the whole of Scripture. Sometimes God blasts the sinners Himself, sometimes He uses other means. In the New Testament, God, through His Son, Jesus, instituted a New Covenant. Posting what you did simply shows your ignorance of the Gospel. There are many things in life that defy rational explanation, but they are no less true.

        7. You and your president always try to morally equivocate Islam with Christianity or Judaism. This is the 21st century. Christians and Jews have evolved since the seventh century which the same cannot be said of Muslims. Christians and Jews do not burn people alive as a regular sport and certainly do not kill innocent men women and children. Oh, for all you progressives, they also do not throw gay people screaming to their death off of buildings. ANIMALS

        8. Every Muslim belongs to a religion whose prophet and god COMMAND them to kill all non-Muslims and take-over the whole world by the sword. Prove it show us the verse(s) from the Koran that states this. You sound ridiculous!

        9. Here’s what the Religion of peace teaches…[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, “I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip. Quaran 8:12
          “The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah “; and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah .” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded? Quaran 9:30

      2. Every Muslim belongs to a religion whose prophet and god COMMAND them to kill all non-Muslims and take-over the whole world by the sword. Prove it show us the verse(s) from the Koran that states this. You sound ridiculous.

    2. Interesting how the miracle of photosynthesis is forgotten by the ecofascist’s on the left. Coal and oil continue to be the best energy source created by solar power.

      1. Lol so very true, but the right aren’t perfect either by any stretch of the imagination. We need to stop having this left/right thing and just have ordinary common sense views and facts that bring us together against the Globalists who manipulate us.

    3. Liars, morons and mental defectives. The best example of a leftist that we have seen in the past 10 years is Rachel Dolezal (the former president of the NAACP chapter in Spokane, WA). She is a delusional liar who KNEW she was white yet she pretended to be black because she is obviously deranged. And the black folks who looked at her, knew she was obviously a white woman, and yet said nothing to discredit her obvious ruse are just as bad. Liberals, Progressives and leftists are all Rachel Dolezal’s…deranged, delusional liars.

      1. BHO thinks this current crop of morons in college doing all this protesting over hurt feelings will be labeled “GEN44.” After himself of course.

        The rest of us normal educated people will historically label these idiots “Generation Gruber.”

    4. Not entirely accurate. Every leftist is either stupid or a liar. There are honest leftsts. There are intelligent leftists. There are no intelligent honest leftists.

    5. Because the leftists are atheists, they have no sense of a power higher than themselves and therefore believe they can make up any “truth” that suits them. If they get away with it, no foul. It is the same who believe that unborn children are chunks of tissue that can be chopped up and sold for profit as they laugh over their wine. Remember folks, (you have any integrity), there is a judgement day for all.

    6. In Nov. 2010, Ottmar Edenhoffer, one of the co-chairs of the International Panel on
      Climate Change (IPCC), said in an interview with German NZZ Online,“One must
      say clearly that we redistribute defacto the world’s wealth by climate policy.
      One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is
      environmental policy.”

        1. So true. Long after this climate change nonsense is finally rejected as BS, the rift between the scientists and the public will remain for generations.

          1. Darwinism has already gone a long way in convincing me and others that some so-called “science” is mere speculation, religion and politics in the guise of fact.

    7. THe people are far more profitable to blame (7 billion) than the few in comparison corporations actually polluting earth and the nations governments building and testing nukes, wars, GMO’s, big pharma, big oil, mining, etc. Seems like if governments were actually concerned about the environment…they would readily stop destroying it.

      1. Nay if one is really concerned about man made pollution one would cease to exist you know to reduce your own personal pollution and to set an example that and not breeding like rabbits helps too

    8. A person can be intensely deluded by the indoctrination and propaganda and actually believe their programming. So they’re not necessarily lying when regurgitating the lie they were fed for decades.

      1. Example: Jonestown devotees and cults alike willingly drank the poisoned ” koolaid ” giving it to their children and killing others who ran.

        Even killed a US Congressman and staff

    9. Well, isn’t THAT just wonderful.
      Now WTH am I supposed to do with all these carbon credits I just bought?
      Oh, Mr. Gore, Mr.Gore, may I speak to you again for a moment?

      1. I have lots of carbon credits, too, but not that kind. They are called oil futures. When the market for oil has crashed, it is a good time to consider buying long-term oil futures.