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

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


3,469 Responses

  1. OH NO! What do I do now??!! Buy more SUV’s??? Smash my solar panels and start burning a pile of tires in my yard?? Al GORE please tell me what is best!!

          1. Repenting has absolutely nothing to do with it. What’s needed is for you to accept the empirical reality of the world you inhabit. Antarctic sea ice is increasing because the continent is melting down. Ice is moving from the land to the sea.

            If Climate Depot were a reliable source of information and not a dishonest Climate Denier propaganda outlet, why would they pretend to have difficulty understanding this?

              1. “I’m going to invest in coconut palm futures in Antartica. I’ll make zillions!”

                Who are you going to sell them to if the world’s coastal cities are drowned beneath 75 meters of melted ice cap?

            1. It does? Obama has me and others convinced that the world revolves around him… Or am I confused and Obama is black hole where all logic,sanity etc is sucked down to never return?

            2. Faith in something greater than me, tradition, history, being sophisticated enough and trained as an engineer to know that I’m not the cousin of an amoeba. But, this pope is doing tremendous damage to the church. He is supposed to be a spiritual leader.

                1. Look, I’m not going to get into a debate on the role of the pope or his infallibility. I can tell from your snarky comment that you are just attempting to take a cheap shot at the pope because he is an easy target.

              1. He’s a human being elevated by men to a position of deity. Sorry, but the whole pope thing is a fraud. I cringe every time I hear someone refer to him as “the holy father”. Man, better start taking those Biblical warnings about idolatry seriously.

                1. He is not a deity. He is not worshiped. He is the leader of the church much like the Archbishop of Canterbury is the leader of the Anglican church. So, to even say that show your lack of knowledge.

                  1. He’s not worshiped? Hah! I know many Catholics who think this man is infallible. Only God is infallible. To attribute that quality to anyone else is, by definition, worship. They call him “The Holy Father”, not “the leader of the church”. The Holy Father is in heaven. Not worship? Geesh, these people refer to him as a deity and claim he is infallible, and you don’t think that’s worship? Get a clue.

          1. You call him the Pope because that is the position he was elected to by a group of other Pope-wannabees. So, what if he had lost the election? We could have Pope Oscar and his world view could be a whole lot different. Catholics have to stop giving credence to this person who literally won a personality contest among a group of so-called abstinent men.

            1. He was elected because of his religious “resume”. I am sure that there was an element of politics considering that he was from Latin America, a Jesuit, etc. But he was elected to be a religious leader. He should stay out of politics.

              1. as born out by what scripture? None. Only God sits on the throne of God – Go’ds permissive will – the same will that allows you to worship false idols, follow a human instead of Jesus, murder babies, steal from others, live in sin etc. I have no doubt you believe that drivel you just spewed – sad really.

  2. VUNDERBAR,. I was under the impression that polar bears were drowning due to no ice. Global warming was melting it away. And East Angelia college was always telling the truth. VUNDERBAR.

  3. And last year the Great Lakes were 96% frozen over for the first time in decades. I don’t care what the warmers say, I’m cold. Would somebody please forward this data along to the Pope?

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

          1. Man, we’re off topic.

            But, hey, good times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        1. Socialism is directly against Jesus’ teachings.

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

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

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

                1. wow what an utter dolt you are… perhaps he should have said “I feel my airways are being constricted which is making it harder for me to take in oxygen and expel carbon dioxide…”? tard’s like you make it so hard to fight for critical thinking

          2. By definition, Charity isn’t charity if it’s being enforced by law, sword, or gun.
            Jesus’s teachings were to be charitable. Trying to ‘enforce’ charity defeats its very purpose.

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

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

              And, no, there are no SUV fossils.

                  1. Liberals made up the religion of global warming so they can PRETEND to be the savior of the planet.

                    Just as they PRETEND to be the savior of the poor, the blacks, the gays, the feminists, the unions and dozens of other special interest groups too lazy, ignorant and weak minded to think beyond the media lies.

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

                    2. I thought that the earth began to heal and the seas began to recede the very moment Barak Obama took office……….weren’t we told exactly that?

                1. …and the bankers who knowingly sold bad loan debt to other banks and collapsed the banking system. Also, the politicians who made that possible by gundecking Federal loan reports at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years. They have the cash and the media flacking for them though. They should all be locked up.

              1. Not defending them and I agree with most posts here, but multi-million dollar estates? That they own? Please, if this is not just some brown gas coming out your back side, provide some links to this, I am interested.

                1. Go look it up yourself you lazy dolt. People don’t have to do research for you. Al Gore lives in a palatial estate in Tennessee and it’s easily seen via Google Earth. If I found it, so you can you.

                  1. AND his beachfront Malibu home, prefectly safe from rising oceans, apparently. Right on the beach, though.
                    BTW the Church of Rme, to deal with mess those touchy feelie priests made, is selling off a TON of really nice waterfront property in New England, and elsewhere. Vow of “poverty” ROFLMAO.

                  2. Attenhut!

                    STHU PO Green. You were too lazy to read the article, or the comments or you would know he was referring to the top Vatican officials in Italy.

                    At ease and carry on

                  3. I may be a lazy dolt but the comment was not talking about Al Gore, it was talking about the Catholic Church, you ignorant dolt. And I am not backing up the Catholics, I think they have a lot of nerve wanting the US to spend on their programs while they have great wealth in buildings and art work and I think the Pope is way out of line and an Obama loving socialist, I was just asking about the comment that was made. I don’t really think it is too much to ask when someone makes a unfounded statement to ask them to back it up. If not, the entire comments section dialog is nothing but drivel and although a lot of it is, like your comment, I believe a good deal if it is healthy dialog.

                    1. Apology not necessary my friend. And, as a disabled US Army veteran and veteran supporter, Wounded Warriors is a good place to show your support. Thanks.

                    2. A good percentage of my giving had been going to WW recently but now they get it all. Once the Bishops sell the mansions and feed the poor, I might start listening to them again. I think it takes big balls to tell the US government what to do with tax money when you live in a 14 million dollar mansion

              2. The church owns expensive real estate- the priests, bishops, cardinals own virtually nothing but the clothes on their back. When they are in civilian clothes, that is. When they are in their vestments they don’t own those either.

              3. Agree. It appears that we are in an interglacial period of an ice age. I looked ice age up after returning from Alaska when a glacier guide said we are in an ice age.

              4. What you do not realize is everything the Church has, was donated or given to them. Unless you know the history of the Catholic Church and how It came to be, you really should keep your opinions to yourself. You are just like the libs and perhaps you are one. You point out what is on the surface and not the truth. This is about Global warming, not the Catholic Church.

              5. The Catholic Church is simply the world’s largest real estate company. Ever been to the Vatican’s “Map Room”? And that’s just the Italian properties! Then they have their “other assets”, i.e., you and me, who fork over our paychecks to pay taxes, rent and maintenance on all that real estate … in exchange, of course, for a solemn assurance that we’ll have a great time after we’re dead.

              6. “The Catholic Church…look at the top brass with their multi-million dollar estates. It’s a fraud.”

                I am looking but where are those ‘estates?’ Can’t you control your religious bigotry and ignorance even when the subject is the global warming fraud?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    2. Get with the program. “Climate Change” was so yesterday. It is “Climate Disruption”.

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

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

                    4. Little by little, car lanes are being removed in favor of bike lanes. I wonder why is that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    19. Not true. Germany is replacing nuclear with solar – and Germany isn’t even that sunny.

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

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

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

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

                      They are separate things.

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

                    25. You just make stuff up, don’t you. Flechette did not say it was “dumb.” Perhaps you are, though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    4. There you go lying again. You must be,what 7th grade? Believe all the propaganda you’ve been taught?

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

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

                      “Can I have some more, sir?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    12. And it now has its own “Pope”. I wonder how the Marxists deal with that one in their feeble minds.

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

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

                      A POLLUTANT .

                      BOTH YOU & THE POPE SHOULD KNOW BETTER

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


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

                      BUT MISGUIDED .


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                      Whatever, indeed.

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

                    25. The magazine cover you posted is a fake.

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

                      Why would I continue to talk to you, clown?

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

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

                      But thanks for playing!

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

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

                    29. Simple absolutes.

                      The cornerstone of the mislabeled “liberal” mindset.

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

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

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

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

                      Did it work for you?

                    31. Oh, and hey everyone else out there-I’ll spare you having to slog through “OmaJohn” here’s disqus comment history by linking to a single image that sums it up nicely.


                      Just another predictably partisan clown, stepping up to bat and striking out again and again and again.

                    32. No, no clown.

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

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

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

                    34. Warmist!

                      That’s rich!

                      I also eat food, so am I a foodist?

                      I am affected by gravity so am I a gravityist?

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

                      Look how you scramble and buzz!

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

                      It’s adorable.

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

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

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

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

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

                      Ridicule is a very, very potent weapon.

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

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

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

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

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

                    42. Yawn. Whatever.

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

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

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

                      You’re a stain on history.

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

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

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

                      You should totally go edit wikipedia and fix that then.


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

                    47. Ohhh, I see.

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

                    51. Oh!

                      A link to the Heritage foundation.

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

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

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

                      Yeah, great source, “Doc”.

                      You really know how to derp a good derp.

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

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

                      – Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922

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

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

                      Who could ever argue with that?

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

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

                      – Adolf Hitler

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

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

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

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

                      Rick Santorum. hahahahahahah

                      George Bush. hahahahahahahahahahah

                      Real intellectuals there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                      So why do I continue?

                      The sheer SPORT of it, I suppose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                      You’re a disgrace.

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

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

                    72. OOOOOOOH!

                      It was intentional.

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

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

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

                      I stand corrected, shill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                      Barack Hussein Obama: Worst Marxist ever.

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

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

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


                      NO SUCH THING AS SETTLED SCIENCE .


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

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

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

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

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


                      Anyone here honest enough to give it a shot?

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

                      Slurp, slurp that big ol’ billionaire dong..

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

                    84. If his masters say it’s so, he believes unquestioningly, no matter what he experiences personally.

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

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

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

                    88. You’re right!

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

                      Scoot off, you silly git.



                    90. DOES IT MAKE ME WRONG ? CAN YOU PROVIDE A GRAPH ?





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                      Are you really making these claims with a straight face?

                      Well bless your heart!

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

                      Clown on, clown.

                      Clown on.

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

                      Ya hear?

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


                    98. And again, you REALLY should learn how to spell “global” if you’re gonna come stink up threads like these.

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

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

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

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

                      Just as I’ve done here to you.

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

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

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

                      Same as climate hustlers of today.

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

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

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

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

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

                    110. You know nothing about the animal abuse in China, so why are you arguing about the issue?

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

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

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

                    113. OMG HE SMART

                      HE BILLIONAIRE


                      HE FRIEND


                      GUBMINT EMENY


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

                    122. AND HE TOPS IT ALL WITH ANOTHER “RAGHEAD”!!

                      Man, I never saw THAT coming!

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

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

                      I bow to your obvious brilliance.

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

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

                    125. Also, you really are dumb.

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

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

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

                    128. “Rag-head” is a racist slur.

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

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

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


                    129. hahahaha, I think I struck a nerve!

                      Who signs your checks, little shills?


                      You climate change denier clowns are an absolute delight.

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


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

                    131. So, prove me wrong dude. Show me higher temps since then and tell me all bout Maunder Minimum, eh?

                    132. I’ll just save us both the trouble.


                      Isn’t that handy?

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

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

                      Win/win, wouldn’t you agree?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

                      Nice attempt at false equivalency though!

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

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

                    138. Clown:

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

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

                      Actually, it’s not a question at all.

                      It can’t.

                    139. Asshat:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    6. LOL. Not in California.. with the strict emissions standards – exceeding Federal regs and all..

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  4. (In the voice of Chevy Chase’s Fletch’s “Gordon Liddy” the airplane mechanic) Come on, guys, maybe you need a refresher course. It’s all global warming these days!

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

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

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

                    1. I grubered, you grubered, he/she/it grubered.
                      We grubered, you (all) grubered, They (all) grubered

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  1. As I understand it, the problem is that we are burning in a very short period of time that which took a very long period of time to accumulate as fossil fuels.

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

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

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


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

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

                17. here’s and inconvenient truth for ya:

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

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


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

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

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

                  1. Indeed. A perfect illustration of something one of my physics professors warned us about 60 years ago: “…the unwarranted extrapolation of insufficient data.”

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

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


                20. The area of sea ice on Earth has moved into unprecedented territory. When it was declining, they blamed it on global warming. Now that it is increasing, they blame it on global warming.

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

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

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

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

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

                25. And there were times when temperatures were warmer pre-industrial revolution. I don’t see that in your 8 year graphs. Nice try at skewing data, meanwhile, I’m putting on a coat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  Why is this alarming?

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

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

                33. Natural sources:

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

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

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

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

                  Added together – 770.15 to 770.26 Billion tonnes

                  Man made sources:

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

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

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

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

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

                  That makes 37.5 billion tonnes per year.

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

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

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

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

              2. The power of earth and it’s systems is unspeakably powerful- far beyond what we know now. The “people are a pox on the earth” just make me so tired..

                1. It’s leftwing lunatics, communists, fascists, Nazis and assorted criminals who are a pox on this earth. What a wonderful world it would be if none of them existed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    8. 1) “Dire.”

                      2) “Literally.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    9. 1, 2. Who cares about spelling these days?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    16. “Blame the black guy. Take the credit.” Did your white Supremacist majority whip think this up?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    28. Animal Farm was much more a critique of what Stalin did with Communism, rather than Communism itself. And of course 1984 is largely apolitical — totalitarianism can spring up from any quarter.

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

                    1. That would be true if I encountered fewer rabid fanatics like you. They’re so annoying and so full of bullshiit.

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

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


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

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

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

                    6. You love corporations so much that you’re willing to hand them the keys to the kingdom.

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

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

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

                    10. 2014 was hottest only to those who will not actually look into the facts. Taking your facts from the media will make you think how the people that own the media want. Doing your own research will always lead an honest informed citizen to see human caused warming as the FRAUD that it is.

                    11. WRONG.

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

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

                    12. repeating a lie is a socialist/nazi tactic……..satalite records do not agree with you.

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

                    14. Wow, maybe if you could just get this schlock through peer review you would win a Nobel Prize! Lol.

                    15. 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded.

                      As if.

                      It wasn’t, but even if it was:

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

                      a) I was always this tall, and

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

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

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

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

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

                    19. BloodAxe does not have an argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

                      Is that actually what you believe?

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

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

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

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

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

                    27. Show you the document?

                      OK. No problem:


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

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

                    28. You say it is easily refuted.
                      Please show me the document.
                      I would like to see.

                    29. CB says:

                      …but all scientists do believe it.

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

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

                      Next, you emit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

                      But everyone else can see it.

                    30. Me loves me my Internet Performance Art!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

                      This hapless, clueless comedy makes me LOLz!



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

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

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



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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


                      Finally, the UN’s own climate models project that if man’s
                      greenhouse gas emissions were causing global warming, there would be a
                      particular pattern of temperature distribution in the atmosphere, which
                      scientists call “the fingerprint.” Temperatures in the troposphere
                      portion of the atmosphere above the tropics would increase with altitud