Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming

Climate Depot Exclusive

As President Obama attends the UN Summit climate summit in New York City, a fellow member of his Democratic Party, who is also a scientist, is publicity renouncing the Presidents climate change claims as “delusional.” Rossiter reversed his view on man-made climate change and now says belief in a climate catastrophe is “simply not logical.”

Climate Statistics Professor Dr. Caleb Rossiter of American University, is an outspoken anti-war activist, has a flawless progressive record on a range of political issues – and he is a climate skeptic.  Rossiter is a former Democratic congressional candidate and he campaigned against U.S. backed wars in Central America and Southern Africa. He was one of the founders of ‘No Arms to Dictators’ and the ‘U.S. Campaign to Ban Landmines.’

In an exclusive interview for the upcoming documentary Climate Hustle, Rossiter, an adjunct professor in American University’s Department of Mathematics and Statistics, explained how he converted his views from accepting to challenging the so-called “consensus” on climate change after examining the scientific evidence.  Rossiter has taught courses in climate statistics and holds a PhD in policy analysis and a masters degree in mathematics. (Note: The upcoming climate documentary will reveal how politically progressive scientists and other former warmists are now challenging the “consensus” claims of man-made global warming. See: Watch Now: Morano on TV (humbly) promotes new climate film: ‘We are going to have the greatest climate documentary of al-l-l-l-l ti-i-i-ime!’)

“If we had this interview ten years ago, I would have said I never thought about climate and I assumed all the scientists reporting and telling a president and a prime minister in England are right,” Rossiter explained. (Note: Rossiter was joined this week by one of President Obama’s own scientists in expressing skepticism on global warming. See: Obama’s Own Scientist Runs Cold on Warming – Outs Himself as a Skeptic! – Physicist Dr. Steven E. Koonin, Undersecretary for Science during Obama’s first term and former professor of theoretical physics at Caltech)

Fired for ‘Diverging’ on Climate: Progressive Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd calling global warming ‘unproved science’

When Rossiter called global warming “unproved science” in a Wall Street Journal OpEd in May 2014, he found that his credentials as a long-time progressive could not trump his climate skepticism. He was immediately terminated due to his ‘diverging’ climate views from his 23 year fellowship at the liberal group Institute for Policy Studies. See: Fired for ‘Diverging’ on Climate: Progressive Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd calling global warming ‘unproved science’

Rossiter, whose research has focused on the construction of climate models and the statistical evidence of extreme weather,  started to suspect that climate-change data was what he termed “dubious” 10 years ago while teaching statistics at American University.

“So, doubling carbon dioxide, the higher you get, the less effect you get.  So logically, in a complex system, like the atmosphere, you’re going lot of feedbacks that you don’t have much forcing at a certain point.  We really don’t know. It’s very hard to model. Models are run way past their usefulness because they are tuned,” Rossiter explained.

As a progressive anti-war Democrat, Rossiter has found his climate skepticism ostracized him.

“I would say since 2004 I’ve been very lonely. I’ve been lonely working on the Hill for the Democratic Party. I thought I was the only person in the room with all my colleagues and all the members of Congress on our foreign affairs committee who held these views about the weakness of the data on climate change and the need to keep Africa developing,” he said.

Obama is ‘delusional’ on climate change

Rossiter has declared: “My blood simply boils too hot when I read the blather, daily, about climate catastrophe.”

“Obama has long been delusional on this issue,” Rossiter declared.

“Anyone who believes we are in a climate catastrophe, I think is deluding themselves,” he explained.

He mocked President Obama’s claim that his Presidency will slow the rise of the oceans.

“So when President Obama says, ‘this will be the time that the water started to recede because I’m elected’, that reminds me of King Canute. Canute took all his advisers to the shores of England and said ‘see how powerful I am? Tell the waters to go out’ and the tides were coming in,” Rossiter said.

Rossiter is disgusted by the way political leaders have portrayed climate science.

“I find it irresponsible. But that’s what politicians do, they try to seize onto one cause and show the other effect without looking at the other possible intervening variables,” Rossiter said.

Excerpts of Rossiter’s interview adapted from the upcoming Climate Hustle documentary (set for early 2015 release):

As a man of the political Left, Rossiter has felt lonely with his climate skepticism.

“You are very isolated on the Democratic Party on the left — one is, I am — for having this conclusion of analysis. I don’t call it a belief because I feel that I am analyzing — and you’re very isolated in the conservative circles if you believe as Newt Gingrich did for a very brief period that you need to have carbon trading to control this threat,” Rossiter told Climate Depot’s Marc Morano in the interview.

Rossiter bristles when asked about Al Gore and his film “An Inconvenient Truth.”

“Worst Nobel Prize for peace since Henry Kissinger,” Rossiter declared.

Rossiter gives Gore’s film a failing grade in science.

“I think it’s a wonderful teaching tool because it shows how we don’t do science,” he explained.

“Gore’s irresponsible. He pretends carbon dioxide is driving temperature when temperature is driving carbon dioxide. He does all these crazy things, he vilifies people. He does nothing different, from what the president of our country – President Obama, advised by John Holden, the top scientist in the county, do every day,” he said.

Rossiter sees Al Gore as a political centrist.

“I had battled Mr. Gore so much in the 1980’s. He is a Dixie — he is part of the Democratic Leadership Council, conservative on foreign policy, as proved by his opposition to us in all these issues,” Rossiter explained.

Rossiter chastised his colleagues on the political Left for “hopping into bed” with Gore when it comes to climate change.

“I know why the Left is supporting Al Gore on this when they didn’t on anything else, it’s because it gives them the lever to move away from an industrial society to what they call a postindustrial society,” he said.

Progressive using global warming issue to ‘dismember the carbon-driven capitalism’

Rossiter says the political Left in the U.S. is using climate fears to achieve a “welcome license to dismember the carbon-driven capitalism.”

“They want to use the concern about the climate catastrophe in what they called Archimedes giant lever, to move away from industrialization, toward this postindustrial non-fossil fuel, non-corporate world,” he said.

Rossiter dismisses CO2 as the climate control knob.

“We always, as humans, are looking for cause-and-effect, but it’s extremely difficult to find it in a complex system like the Earth’s climate over thousands of years,” he explained.

“It boggles the mind that I could be certain that I know what caused a half degree (C) in the last hundred fifty years. It’s simply not large enough to find a physical cause,” he said. (Note: Other scientists agree. See: Top Swedish Climate Scientist Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all’)

Rossiter had harsh words for the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, and its claim that they were 95% certainty of human caused climate change.

“When the IPCC uses words like very likely, like 95% likely or somewhat like, about 90% — that’s an alarm bell for people who know statistics. We never use those words — 95% certainty — unless we have a standard deviation and we are estimating how often we get within two standard deviations of the mean. That’s the nature of statistics,” he explained.

When Rossiter called global warming “unproved science” in a Wall Street Journal OpEd, he found that his credentials as a long-time progressive could not trump his climate skepticism. He was immediately terminated due to his ‘diverging’ climate views from his 23 year fellowship at the liberal group Institute for Policy Studies. See: Fired for ‘Diverging’ on Climate: Progressive Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd calling global warming ‘unproved science’

“At the Institute of Policy Studies I was obviously very lonely because nobody would debate me and finally fired me for having an article in Wall Street Journal,” Rossiter said.

“Two days later I was handed my walking papers from 23 years association with that think tank,” he added.

“They felt that it was best that I’ve been terminated because my views on African development and climate change and climate justice were divergent from theirs. So I’m willing to express my opinions and have them come out. This is the first time I’ve expressed an opinion that was alien to the left,” he said.

Rossiter says the left has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to dissent on global warming.

“One item out of everything that is the agenda for the institute policy studies I’ve expressed disagreement with and I’m gone,” he noted.

Rossiter’s failure to follow his colleagues on the Left on the claims of global warming has left him isolated.

“What we are supposed to do as professors is follow the data to our conclusion, and then put it out there to be debated,” he explained.

But his colleagues refuse to debate global warming.

“I have invited the Union of concerned scientists, Greenpeace, Institute for policy studies, random members of Congress who I knew from when I worked up there on the Hill, to come to my classes at A.U. to debate — they simply refused,” he said.

Rossiter says refusal to debate is part of a strategy.

“There was an agreement among the groups who believe strongly that there’s catastrophic climate change not to debate because it gives credit to those of us who have questions about the certainty with which they operate,” he said.

“It is absolutely true that the money available for global warming statements and research is driving academia right now and people line up to get it. I know it from scientists. I know it’s absolutely true,” he noted.

“But it’s nothing new. If you were here 100 years ago and I was in the psychology department, I’d be telling you about the science of craniology – that black people are stupider than white people, that West Europeans are smarter and more creative than Eastern Europeans — and this is called phrenology,” he said.

“And all the data and statistics that they could line up supported it, and everybody believed it. And anybody outside phrenology didn’t believe it. Academia is no different from anywhere else. We wimp out when we are under pressure; we do,” Rossiter said.

More Rossiter quotes appearing in Climate Hustle:

Rossiter pressure in academia to conform on global warming: “It is deadly to your career to be a young dissenter. But a young person, I can tell you by being here on the campus, if you’re in the sciences and environmental studies you are going to be seen as such a kook (if you are a climate skeptic). It will definitely hurt you. See, I don’t care! I don’t give a monkey’s uncle. I’m old enough that I’m just going to say what’s on my mind. I’ll get by, but if I were early in my career, I know that I would be tagged as a kind of crazy, extremist, denialist, and it would hurt my academic career; there’s no question about it.”

Rossiter on IPCC: “For the IPCC to say nothing else can explain (global warming except mankind’s CO2) is the opposite of what we do in science. We are trying to test the known hypothesis that there is no effect to anthropogenic warming. And in order to do that, you have to have data that removes all the other causes — factors out all the other elements, and isolate yours. It is simply not true that you can only model how temperature has changed from 1850 to today using a doubling of carbon dioxide levels.  I can model it for you with baseball statistics from that same period if you give me enough time to scrub the models.”

Related Links: 

Another Prominent Scientist Dissents! Fmr. NASA Scientist Dr. Les Woodcock ‘Laughs’ at Global Warming – ‘Global warming is nonsense’ Top Prof. Declares

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

Top Swedish Climate Scientist Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all’ – Award-Winning Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified’

‘High Priestess of Global Warming’ No More! Former Warmist Climate Scientist Judith Curry Admits To Being ‘Duped Into Supporting IPCC’ – ‘If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic’

German Meteorologist reverses belief in man-made global warming: Now calls idea that CO2 Can Regulate Climate ‘Sheer Absurdity’ — ‘Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us’

UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report – Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

‘Some of the most formidable opponents of climate hysteria include politically liberal physics Nobel laureate, Ivar Giaever; Freeman Dyson; father of the Gaia Hypothesis, James Lovelock — ‘Left-center chemist, Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of the German environmental movement’

Flashback: Left-wing Env. Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a ‘corrupt social phenomenon…strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass’


114 Responses

  1. I am glad to have stumbled upon this article. In truth, I have felt isolated also, not believing in the “climate change” scam from the beggining. I am relieved to know that there are educated leaders willing to step out, relying on truth and facts. I wish there were more. I am alarmed by many media phenomenon’s and what lies are propagated. I shudder at the thought of how many are so easily influenced and guilded into mass minions. The hypocracy is crazy on media. Thanks for the time, and sacrafice.

    1. You stumbled into the usual blathering poppycock. These pages are filled with the usual lies & deceptions. Look a bit closer & you find they have all the integrity of a guy who sports a fictional “Lord” title. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXS8l3_Yhh0&index=2&list=PLM0zGW8coTipM9dE12kOA5W4azQ5gtaHE

      Usually they miss direct your attention to the extent of the ice rather than the mass of ice. Or they will call your attention to some almost believable chart showing air temperature, but avoid calling your attention to many other factors such as acidification of the oceans, or once again ignoring the mass of water which is warming, a mass much greater than air temperature. They will neglect to tell you the latent heat of ice, & tell you the climate is always changing, but never call your attention to rate of change. If you believe these deniers, you are doing the equivalent of watching a illusionist & believing he is performing magic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTUghG2Zwsk&index=1&list=PLM0zGW8coTipM9dE12kOA5W4azQ5gtaHE


      You need to avoid the distraction of a Liberal Hoax & get back to the reality of trillions of dollars worth of fossil fuels which is just too much money to pass up, & the fact no politician can possibly run on a platform of reducing your standard of living.



      1. Yea, it prooves just one thing. That Obama is not only stupid, but a piece of usless excrement. Like, pardon my French, tits on a bull. Thank you. Mind bogiling stupidity, car less, screw everone else, he got his and so sorry for you other stupid f####. Thank you. Have a nice day, and keep up the pitifull, mr. President. Even a blind pig finds an occasional acorn as someone once said. It is no doubt being caused by the ancient Atlantians doing some experimenting under the (fill in the blank) ocean.

      2. Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds


        Remember the science of the past:

        – The Earth is 300 million years old (Lord Kelvin)
        – Noah’s Flood left moraines in North America and Eurasia (not continental glaciers)
        – Continents are fixed, never moving laterally across the surface of the Earth
        – Humans have 48 chromosomes
        – Duodenal ulcers are caused by stress, not by a pathogens

        It goes on an on. The History of Science course I did for my M.S. in Earth science was mostly a history of mobs of very dogmatic scientists who were dead wrong and the heroes who put them right.

  2. Worse than Kissenger may be Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize. The prof is not completely current in his observations though he does seem to be coming around on AGW.

    1. I think the prof was meaning up till 2007 AlGore winning the No Bull peace prize was worse than Hammerin’ Hank… 2007 was also the year Rush Limbaugh was nominated for the NoBull Peace Prize…. I told my sis that Rush had been nominated and she went occupy Wall Street Crazy! NoBull peace prize used to be @ one time pretty serious, but if you believe MMGW, Hate America, Hate Capitaism, etc….YOUR IN LIKE FINN…(Scandy Joke) btw AlGore Ex.
      Mrs Tipper G what is she doing??
      Kind of liked her….

    1. it’s not a long step, his “anti war” stance may take a hit when he views videos (if he can bring himself to do so, i cannot, though i know they are real) of decapitations of Americans and children, and crucifixions of Christians

      1. …of decapitations of Americans and children, and crucifixions of Christians.

        Although we have a generous plenty of audiovisual recordings to support the veracity of these practices on the part of the Islamic State in that hell-hole the Sunni religious fanatics have made in the Middle East, one has to be mindful – especially on the centenary of the Great War – of Belgian babies being bayonetted by Brandenburgers.

        There’s no underestimating the True Believer’s capacity for inflicting atrocities, but the cold-blooded fact of foreign policy is that the only legitimate purpose for all such in a republic governed under the rule of law – specifically the U.S. Constitution with emphasis on the Tenth Amendment – is the retaliatory use of deadly force against aggressors threatening or attacking these several states of our federal union, i.e., waging war against us.

        If the actions of the Islamic State do not constitute legitimate casus belli – and there’s no indication as yet that their actions (not their yammering, but their actions) rise to that level.

        I’m not myself particularly “anti war,” but I am profoundly anti-state – indeed, an enemy of the state, as are all of us “deniers” considered to be – and I cannot forbear acknowledgement that “War is the health of the state.”

        1. so we should wait for another 9/11 or even Boston Marahon before accepting that they are the enemy? have fun with that…hope you don’t live in a highly populated urban area

          1. so we should wait for another 9/11 or even Boston Marathon [bombing] before accepting that they are the enemy?

            When, in fact, the entire Islamic world is by doctrine and other dispositions “the enemy” (and have always been), what – other than a war of extermination – do you and the other bellicose know-nothings propose?

            To the extent that foreign policy admits the use of measures other than warfare, the preference runs against armed conflict, though the credible capacity for killing bloody everybody who so much as frequents a mosque (and blowing that meteorite in Mecca back up into space) is an asset in negotiations never to be foresworn.

            But you want pre-emptive war? Which target? How to discriminate between one ragged, smelly son-of-Allah who’s a Sunni adherent to the Islamic State and another bedraggled, malodorous Sand Nazi who’s a Sunni but is amenable to living his life of corruption as an appendage of the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad?

            What, do we just call Caedite eos! and let Allah sort ’em out?

            I’m Roman Catholic. The history of Holy Mother Church is full of stories about religious war-to-the-knife, with sieges and sacks and slaughters and living heretics burned alive, plenty of those campaigns fought to get Islam out of Europe when they’d worked their way up the Iberian peninsula into France and up the Balkan peninsula to the gates of Vienna.

            Want a crusade? Do you have even a hint of a suspicion of what a crusade – with today’s weapons technologies – must entail?

            Because once that kind of thing gets started against fanatical Islamic whackjobs, there’s no cavil at what must be done, and that’s extermination, including forcing apostasy upon them at gunpoint, converting them to some form of Christianity or killing them, root and branch.

            Hrm. Arab Pentecostalists.

            Dunno about you, but that thought surely gives me the shudders.

            1. i read, and re-read what you wrote…other than the fact that you are Roman Catholic, i take nothing from it except that we should do nothing. personally, i am against sharia law, for myself and my family…if/when they come here will you willingly die for your faith, or convert to islam to stay alive? because that’s what it’s boiling down to…personally, i have a bugout kit almost complete, and a 4wd to take me where i need to go, whoever the enemy may be

              1. i read, and re-read what you wrote…other than the fact that you are
                Roman Catholic, i take nothing from it except that we should do nothing.

                Oh? Sorry, I can’t oblige your bloodlust, no matter how circuitously you push it.

                As for your flaming idiocy about whether or not I’d “willingly die for [my] faith, or convert to islam to stay alive,” suffice it to say that I’d delightedly kill for my liberties, including freedom of conscience. As writer L. Neil Smith had once put it:

                You cannot force me to agree with you. You can force me to act as though I agree with you — but then you’ll have to watch your back. All the time.

                In regard of this widely-prevailing attitude among Americans, even that “good Muslim schoolboy” with Harrison Bounel’s Social Security number has had to remain mindful.

                Beyond that, it seems appropriate to observe that in addition to being a Roman Catholic, I’m also a physician, and I’ve entirely too much clinical familiarity with the phenomenon of iatrogenic therapeutic misadventure as well as academic grounding in Church history.

                Not at all facetiously, therefore, I bear in mind the various Laws of the House of God, taking particular care to evoke the last of ’em:


                Or as the principle had been applied to governance by the Founders who’d hammered out the enabling charter of our republic’s federation, better King Log than King Stork.

                Government is goons with guns, and if the citizens of our republic do not bind those goons down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution, they become a far greater danger to us – here, now, at our throats – than any welter of wogs three continents away.

                  1. And to change the nature of “jihad,” just what – precisely – are you suggesting?

                    Have you a practicable strategy to propose, or are you just blowing it out’n yer bunghole?

                    1. Ignore jihadist pedophies like yourself. Or do what we did before, wipe out 1400 years of holy murder 14 months.

                    2. Ignore jihadist pedophies like yourself. Or do what we did before, wipe out 1400 years of holy murder 14 months

                      Word salad, much?

                    3. Copy and paste your your lies, you will be judged by your deeds Kidnappers slave traders pedophiles butchers and beasts who emulate a man who cut out his enemies heart and raped his wife in her dead husbands blood. 250,000,000 Jews and Christians slaughtered. The Egyptions are on the right track banning 55,000 mosques and so were the Crusaders .What do they say about history, ignore it and it will repeat itself.

            2. Anyone that does not shudder at the thought is a war mongrel. yet in the same breath I do not see any alternative, other than to convert, and prepare to live in the stone age!

        2. Some of these ignorant laggards mention their coming to the U.S. to carry out their jihad which the bible says will happen (Ezekiel 38, 39). Also mentioned is thst GOD takes note ot the slaughter of Americans until “the fury rises up in his face” and he smites these invaders to the last man, resulting in paid grave digger employed six months to bury this rotting army.

          1. …resulting in paid grave digger[s] employed six months to bury this rotting army.

            Nah. When the enemy corpses stack that high, it’s just a matter of field sanitation, and the engineers are called upon to bring their bulldozers and put ’em down deep enough to keep frost heave from cluttering the landscape with their bones.

            Might take a tip from experience in the Philippines during the Moro insurrection (1899-1913) and bury the jihadin in trenches to which plenty of the pork industry’s reeking slaughterhouse offal had been liberally added.

            If they’re True Believers in “the religion of peace,” they’ll know that such defilement will prevent them from ever being admitted to paradise.

  3. The AGW community is incredibly brittle. The slightest deviation cannot be tolerated. This is simple proof that AGW is not a science, but an extreme political agenda. Science can always accept doubt and question, extreme political agendas cannot.

    1. The AGW community is incredibly brittle.

      On the contrary, their adherence to this contrafactual quasireligious orthodoxy is remarkably robust.

      In a lot of ways, it’s possible to argue that the rank-and-file adherents to this carbon dioxide demonization dogma hold fast to their egregious idiocy out of pure faith, and show their astonishing refusal to engage in reasoned argument (ever and always leading to refutation) because they need to believe in the anthropogenic “climate [fill-in-the-blank]” catastrophism.

      Gives me to wish, sometimes, that I had trained in clinical psychology rather than clinical medicine. What a great subject for a monograph. Even a dissertation.

    2. It seems you are describing the top down line and staff type of organization found in military organizations and the culture of death, where disobedience is severly punished.

      1. The military must have a strict top down structure where disobedience is severly punished, because in combat there is no time to question or discuss direct orders. You act or you die.

    3. I have a copy of The True Believer. But to the point, it is the deniers who have the religious belief & magic thinking. I is patently crazy to hold to a fiction you are going to dump billions of tonnes of carbon in your air without some effect. Those effects have been stated for over a hundred years, so don’t delude yourself with imagining a left wing hoax. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y209xSRSLjE&list=PLM0zGW8coTipM9dE12kOA5W4azQ5gtaHE&index=109

      1. AGW is definitely the vehicle for a far-left agenda. The emission of CO2 by human activity is minor compared to that done naturally. Large amounts of CO2 are required for the life cycle to exist. The more you have the greater plant growth is. All the crazy AGW predictions are based on computer models that are woefully inadequate and written with a bias to present a desired outcome for political reasons. That the results of these predictions have been completely at odds with observed reality, exposes the fraud of AGW for what it is.

        1. Don’t delude yourself with the fairy tale of harmless CO2, it is a distraction from the fact, the CO2 we are talking about has not been effective in any environment humans have evolved in. It is a a patently stupid argument to make. The stupidity of it should be enough of a clue, but NO, you guys swallow anything to aid you in denial. You will even gush like little infatuated school girls over a guy who sports an illegitimate “Lord” title. Lord Monckton is the stage name of a clown. Even one of the more qualified skeptics in the denier crowd has convinced himself of reality with funding by Kock. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqPuKxXUCPY&index=7&list=PLM0zGW8coTipM9dE12kOA5W4azQ5gtaHE End your delusional fantasy. Accept the reality. There is nothing that can be done about it anyway.

          1. It is pretty clear you are the one with the delusional fantasy problem. CO2 is very beneficial (essential) for life, and plants do not care where it came from.

            1. That is the stupidest argument around. That argument should be a clue to what delusional or propagandist is making it. While true in a general sense, it is completely irreverent when discussing CO2 as a greenhouse gas. This argument is like saying water is is beneficial or essential to life. Drink enough water in a short enough time & it will kill you. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is a fact. Burning fossil fuels has ADDED to the carbon content of the atmosphere, that is a fact. The combustion of fossil fuels has added to the heat released on the planet. These insane statements such as CO2 is beneficial, is only made by people who wish to ignore the scale & rate of changes which have been made by honorable men & women. The evidence is indisputable. There is no debate about it, only the denial of a few remains. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0&index=50&list=PLM0zGW8coTipM9dE12kOA5W4azQ5gtaHE

              1. So you reference a person, David Attenborough, that thinks humans are a plague on the Earth, and who is a colleague of Paul Ehrlich, who has been wrong on all of his doomsday predictions – that is insane on the face of it. But of course you think there is no debate…and that position is DOA, except in the dark corners of the far-left. The creation of felonious computer models and dependence on a trace gas to impose what amounts to a green dictatorship over the entire planet is excruciatingly evil, and will be resisted by the rest of us at all hazard. There seems to be a lot of insanity on the far-left, and you can keep it.

                1. If you had a grid with 1,000,000 squares on it only 16 of them would be filed withl the man made CO2 isotope. This no reason to dismantle this country. The bed wetters have really jumped the shark on this one.

              2. You are the stupid. There is no argument. CARBON LIFE FORMS require Carbon. and CO2 is a vehicle with in that carbon cycle. Please Kill yourself. Your Marxist friends awaits you in the None-afterlife. The evidence you site are VERY disputable. Indisputable theories have predictable outcomes and Climate science is hardly a science. heck its clear you don’t know anything about science. dodging the indefensible fact that YOUR PRECIOUS THEORY WHEN MODELED is 100% WRONG. (That’s science) Then you detract with the old CO2 boogey man. Please Start with yourself and stop breathing. If you believe CO2 is a pollutant you are anti-life, Misanthrope and an Idiot of the highest caliber. Now stop breathing!

                1. Very true. There is no known level of CO2 in the atmosphere that can hurt anything. Al least that it is possible to produce by humanity and nature as it has evolved. Further water vapor accounts for 95% of the “greenhouse” defect, CO2 less than 4%. Natural wetlands and termites generate more CO2 that humanity does…..Earth could benefit from more CO2 , not suffer from it. .

          2. Russell, I hate to tell you this, but your ranting is only undermining your credibility the longer you keep it up. I tell you this because I have absolute confidence you WILL keep it up and therefore will continue to undermine your credibility. Go for it!

  4. Professor Dr. Caleb Rossiter has got his history a trifle confused. King Canute was the “denier”. His stunt on the shore of The Wash was to demonstrate to his fawning courtiers that he had no control over the elements (the incoming tide), explaining that secular power is vain compared to the supreme power of God.

    He was putting down the “believers”!

    1. What about Fukushima? What is the counts per minute in your area? Back in 1986 we had honest investigative reporting about Chernobyl circumnavigated the globe. There has been an out of control nuclear disaster in Japan spewing radiation into the environment since March 2011. One meltdown after the other. The biggest threat to the Earth is the gigantic tower full of all the spent fuel and all the new fuel from/for the Daiichi IV Reactor. It was down for repairs when the Tsunami hit. It’s tilted and leaning. No one can go in and shore it up because of radiation poisoning.

      Instead we have the establishment and their media and their Rothschild Zionism talking points to keep us divided and arguing to hide the truth.

      1. Our best minds aren’t trying to figure out Fukushima? They’re all busy arguing about climate change?

        What’s to “figure out” with regard to the Fukushima disaster?

        If it demonstrates nothing else, the Fukushima event shows that light-water fission powerplants really shouldn’t be constructed in shoreside areas – seawalls notwithstanding – which are susceptible to tsunamis.

        More than that, I’d think it an excellent opportunity to argue the merits of leaving the uranium fuel cycle behind and going over to thorium-fueled fission power generation.

        1. Thorium wasn’t the poison of choice. The establishment doesn’t care about solving anything. Fukushima is still spewing radiation and has been out of control since March 2011. It renders the establishment’s war on coal and climate change debate to irrelevance and hypocrisy. There is a gaping hole in Fukushima coverage by the media. You don’t even know what the CPI is for your area, like we had reported back in 1986 when Chernobyl circumnavigated the globe.

      2. “It’s starting to look like Israel was the ringleader of the 9/11 inside job. Rothschild Zionism forces Jewish people to occupy Palestine and dictates our horrible U.S. foreign policy.” bigoted much?

    2. If you read it carefully, that is what Dr. Caleb Rossiter was saying. King Canute knew he could not reverse the seas and was trying to demonstrate this to his people.

      1. I actually saw Rossiter speak today.
        While he is very intelligent – and I understand him – he can be easily misunderstood by people not familiar with the subject. Two of the audience questions were misconceptions of what he had said and he tried, with limited success, to clarify.
        I guess you would call it “ivory tower syndrome”.

  5. For the love of Jove, what is with the freakin’ bowties? Tuxedoes aside, very few people can pull off the bowtie thing without looking like a clown college drop out. Leave the bowties to Kinko the Clown.

    1. For the love of Jove, what is with the freakin’ bowties?

      Though it’s a peripheral matter, I gotta admit that I’m in agreement. At least the wearing of a regular tie admits the possibility of use as a sling or a tourniquet.

        1. A bowtie can be untied and made useful either as a sling or a tourniquet faster than a modern necktie. You must be used to clip-ons.

          The standard rule of thumb with regard to the size of a bowtie is to take the collar size and add 19 inches for the knot. A man with a size-16 collar thus buys his bowties at about 35 inches in length.

          With regard to regular neckties, whether managed with a Windsor, full-Windsor, half-Windsor, or simple four-in-hand (the other knots are, insofar as I’ve been able to determine, considered superfluous by most American men of measurable testosterone levels), the average length runs at 57 or 58 inches, and men well over six feet in height – like me – seek XL or XXL ties running as much as six inches longer.

          Dunno about you, but I don’t think I care to improvise a sling or a tourniquet for an adult patient from a strip of cloth 35 inches (or less) in length. Not if I can get something longer.

          My dad wore bow ties. Me? Except for formal occasions when I’ve had to suffer a tuxedo, I’ve avoided them as contemptibly foppish and affected.

  6. He does not present much data along with his opinion. I tend to agree that the global warming alarmists are over stating their case. I was hoping that he had more facts to back up his argument. Most of all, future projections by either side, are suspect, IMO.

    1. He does not present much data along with his opinion.

      In an interview, it’s not to be expected that anyone would “present much data” to support assertions on a subject to which the speaker had applied complex methods of statistical examination.

      If the active URLs provided here by Mr. Morano don’t satisfy your need for further information – if, indeed, there’s a genuine, honest wish on your part for supporting data before you come to your own conclusion about the alarmists’ preposterous bogosity – you’re on the World Wide Web as you’re reading here, and you can employ a search engine (I recommend Ixquik) to gain access to Dr. Rossiter’s more detailed statements with regard to his appreciations of the failures of the anthropogenic global [whatever] climate contentions.

      1. He states: ““It boggles the mind that I could be certain that I know what caused a half degree rise in the last hundred fifty years. It’s simply not large enough to find a physical cause,” he said.
        His facts are wrong. According to official figures , global temps rose one and one half degrees, globally. Not, one half degree. Before I can believe him he needs his facts straight. In the USA it was a 1.3 degree rise.

        1. His [Dr. Rossiter’s] facts are wrong. According to official figures , global temps rose one and one half degrees, globally. Not, one half degree. Before I can believe him he needs his facts straight. In the USA it was a 1.3 degree rise.
          If the facts do not fit, is he making up his own?

          For all I know, it may be that Dr. Rossiter holds the “official figures” to be incorrect, and that’s not so incredible a supposition given the fact that those “official figures” are derived from thermometers many of which had been effectively “sited next to a lamp” in terms of instrumental error and other factors.

          But, then, in this interview Dr. Rossiter may have simply misstated the degree of warming since approximately 1850 (when instrumental thermometry became widespread and the records came into their earliest existence) as the world continued its rebound from the Little Ice Age. You would have to show that Dr. Rossiter had consistently stated this lesser extent of global warming over the course of the past century and a half.

          Had it been a position taken purposefully, it may be that he had given reasons for holding that the “official figures” had overstated the extent to which the global average surface temperatures rebound had taken place since ~1850.

          Pro parte mia, I’m not about to claim authoritative knowledge. This online article is the first I’d ever heard of Dr. Rossiter, and I haven’t felt much impelled – as you clearly are – to dissect everything he’s said in this interview and then research everything he’s ever written on the subject.

          I will observe, however, that one data point – derived from one statement in one interview – hardly makes a trend.

          1. He should have been more careful with his facts. A1/2 degree rise is not accepted widely. He should say where he got that number.
            His criticism of computer models is worth considering. His rewrite of historical data is not. Not without proof by facts.
            Have a good day. Leaving now for a flight overseas.

            1. He should have been more careful with his facts.

              I repeat: one data point – derived from one statement in one interview – hardly makes a trend.

              Nitpicking has its place, but mostly it applies to work with a fine-toothed comb in an effort to eliminate the eggs of Pediculus humanus capitis from the pelt of a patient.

              Just what the hell are you after, anyway?

    2. The expectation that he should have “presented … data” to support his opinion, especially in an interview is … well, there probably is no non-offensive adjective to describe it. If you are at all familiar with the actual history of the rise of AGW and CAGW “theory,” then the question should be “where are the data supporting the hypothesis?” What we have been presented are models, adjusted data (which is arguably not real-world data), “missing heat,” and an argument from coincidence. Models are not data, nor are they “experiments” except insofar as they can with serious surgery retrodict and forecast real world measurements.

      If you take models as examples of the latter case, then they have demonstrated unequivocally the modeler’s lack of “skill.” That is, they have unequivocally failed to rule out the null hypothesis, which is that there is NO human effect. Since we know for a fact that humans do have climate effects at the micro to regional scale (e.g. urban heat island, and effects of landscape conversion to agricultural land), the lack of results that can be unequivocally ascribed to human activity is, mildly put, problematic.

      The current assertions from AGW theorists are that the “hiatus” in warming, which shockingly is visible even in “adjusted” data, will end and the climate will “rebound” to match predictions. I suggest reading up on the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy and other related cognitive fallacies.

      1. The only data he included was very much in error. He stated that the globe warmed 1/2 degree in 150 years. The well documented figure is 1 and 1/2 degrees. Big error on his part and undermines all
        that he said.
        I am we’ll aware of the shortcomings of computer models, which is why I said that projections into the future are suspect.

    1. where are the facts to support his claims in this article?

      Dr. Rossiter’s assertions, or those of Mr. Morano? There are plenty of active links provided in the article. You want endnotes and a bibliography in a blog post?

  7. It is just common sense no body knows what the world was in the past as we were not around and Obama knows this but it makes a great cause of descent of which he practices in what ever category he can jinn up to use as a filler when he has nothing else to create ,like his light blue suite or cream colored suite. A cover for what he dose not know.believe me he is not street wise.

  8. With the type of thinking we are seeing amongst global warming alarmists like Obama, preaching to like minded people who are simply deluding each other over a coming climate catastrophe, it helps explain how Hitler was able to rise to power… manipulate, mislead, deceive, lie, threaten, dictate… it’s all justified in order to achieve a political objective.

  9. Not just delusional – paranoid delusional. The alarmists’ behavior and attitude towards skeptics (wanting to fine, jail, or kill them) proves the “diagnosis”

    1. Well, if you are a religious person, everybody came from God.
      That would include Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, John W. Gacy, et al.
      What’s one more?

  10. If you delete all the leftist non-science (the nonsense of playing computer games to predict the climate) and focus only on real science, more Co2 in the air is good news — it is an airborne fertilizer that greens the Earth.
    If more Co2 causes an increase in the average temperature, and we assume it caused all the warming from 1976 to 1998 (just an assumption, not proven), then the temperature increase so far has been small and harmless, while the greening of our planet has been very beneficial.

    1. “If Mother Nature’s plants could vote for an energy source, they would vote for COAL!”
      H. Leighton Stuart
      Today, September 26, 2014 – “At The Crossroads Energy Summit” in Houston
      He’s right, you know.

  11. Most atmospheric warming derives from decaying plant materil in the world,s oceans. Parick Michels ,U,S. atmospheric scientist said warming is a natural heating and cooling cylcle, always occuring. Another cause is HAARP technology used br Russia and the U,S, which is capabele of manipulating the Ionisphere, creating any kind of wheater trend they want.

  12. I saw Dr. Caleb Rossiter speak today (Sept 26, 2014) in Houston at a meeting of Climate Skeptics of equal or greater academic rank. He is still an unrepentant leftist who is proud to have associated with Sheila Jackson Lee and Mickey Leland. Despite that I consider those credentials to be very serious handicaps, I see that he is intelligent enough to recognize that the AGW movement is a fraud.
    For that they have shunned him, fired him and generally, done him wrong. In my opinion, he is just now seeing what stepping out of the Communist Line will get him.
    Welcome to reality, Dr. Rossiter.

  13. I got fity says the first thing we from the left about him is that he’s a ________… Fill in the blank for your bet of left wing intolerance demonstrated and submit your form at the window before the race begins.

  14. File this article under ” I read it on the internets so it must be true”!!! NOT. I see many very misinformed people in these comments. Look at how this article is written – very partisan- US citizens (conservative party) have made a big mistake by turning this into a political issue.

    1. lol Always in denial, a very intellectual way of disproving something right. And you people wonder why you are being referred to as a cult.

  15. I saw Dr. Rossiter speak in person last week. While undoubtedly still on the Left, he has “seen the light” about the Global Warming Hoax.
    Welcome to the good fight, Doctor.

  16. So many have gone along with the few who were at the heart of alarm over CO2 that the leadership of many scientific institutions such as the Royal Society have felt empowered to jump on the bandwagon. But any scientist or statistician or computer modeller who digs into the issue with an open mind can scarcely fail to see just how weak the case for alarm is. Prof Rossiter has done this. It is a pity that more people of his calibre do not make the same sort of investigation and think for themselves rather than continue giving ‘the few’ such great benefit of the doubt.

  17. I can certainly accept that we have a difference of opinion in politics. I learned a long time ago that equally intelligent people will see social issues in entirely different ways. Myself, I’m libertarian – so I conflict with nearly everyone.

    At least we are seeing some liberal thinking Americans who can throw away party politics and call a spade a spade.

    Dr Rossiter’s personal integrity is on the line and he passed the test. Wish more would.

    Bully on you Caleb. Well done.

  18. Yeah, I think climate change is primarily anthropogenic. But the amount of change (and especially the model projections) are ‘way, ‘way to high.

    1. Obviously, Evan, you failed to considered recent discoveries regarding this factor in your opinion.
      Please keep up to date on the issue before voicing inaccurate judgements.

        1. Surely you not only looking at models?
          Be careful what you ask for, Evan, those positive feedbacks are staring you in the face.

          1. I am up to my eyeballs in the data itself, both raw and at all stages of adjustment. Net positive feedback must show up in the data. That is the only way it can possible stare anyone in the anywhere. But it simply hasn’t. Not even in the hugely upwardly adjusted version of the data.

            1. Of course. And the data, either raw or adjusted, satellite or surface, severely diverges from the CMIP IPCC models. Dr. Curry’s models seem to fit , though. So do Dr. Otto’s (he and his team are IPCC lead scientists). And both of them are much lower than CMIP 3 or 5.

                1. The Arctic is warming (though we have now seen three years of strong ice recovery). Look for UAH and DMI for Arctic Data. The Antarctic temp is flat, net, with record sea ice, especially recovering around the peninsula.

                  But partly thanks to negative PDO, global temps are flat since 1997 using satellite data (either RSS or UAH6.0). There will be El Nino/La Nina blips, but expect basically flat temps until the PDO flips positive again.

                  1. For whatever reasons it is warming and at a faster rate, producing those so called “beneficial” changes you like to term them as, in actuality they are producing a positive feedback loop that will create more warming due to the absorbsome surface of the fauna.
                    Evan, please you are embrassing yourself, have you no shame?

                    1. No it hasn’t. It has been flat for well over a decade. The CO2 upward forcing is constant, but it is being counteracted by negative PDO. PDO was positive from 1977-1998, peaking at 2007. That was a “double-warming” artifact, just as the current flat phase is a flat artifact. The average (which is modest) is the true warming signal.

                    2. Here we go again with the denial ‘pretzel’ twisted view….is that YOUR ‘science”?
                      What you mean is only the surface temps are…right on Evvie…the planet is 70% water and if you kept up to date you would have read about where the warming is rising.
                      Please continue…I enjoy exposing you for what you truly are…. A failure.

                  2. Strong Ice recovery? Ice “coverage” bounced back in winter after the RECORD low of 2012. No surprise there…that’s what winters do. However, total thickness (or integrated volume) of sea ice has not recovered and it’s looking very likely that 2015 may be another record setting low summer extent…as the ice continues it’s downwards trajectory. Data readily available.

                    Antarctic temp is flat – record sea ice is now freshwater sea ice (which freezes at a higher temperature from sea water) thus insulating the warming sea water. This effect was predicted and just published again this week.

                    Global temps not only haven’t been flat…2015 is now a record warm year for 6/7 months and on track to be the warmest year ever recorded. (Then again PDO flipped positive early last year and isn’t it interesting that in it’s first year of positive the earth is on track to have a record high temperature? ) Svalbard station readily dispels the notion that temps have been flat since 1997. Unless it’s poorly sited as well…

                    1. All the way back to 2009 levels. A ~40% recovery from the low point of the 2012 melt season. And AMO is set to flip. That will help ice on the European side. Meanwhile, Antarctica sea ice is doing great.

                      PDO did not flip positive last year, The PDO index went positive because of the el Nino. Those do occur during negative PDO.

                      The surface record is compromised. On land, by microsite/homogenization, by sea by the K15 manipulation (not showing up in satellite).

                    2. Here we go again
                      Evan, please reveal how thick (or I should write thin) the ice cover has reformed compared to just a short period ago. Hint: Don’t bring your ice skates).
                      You deniers are an odd bunch…only see what helps your “cause”, lukewarmer lol)

                    3. Over 40% volume increase at IceMin since the low record of 2012. Great increase in multi-year ice.

                    4. Evan, What did I ask you? OY!
                      You do have a mental deficiency issue.
                      I asked about the thickness of the layer.
                      Is that plain English enough for you, son?
                      Now, I suppose I will have to throw it in your face and rub it in real good.

                    5. Statistics teach us the difference between “common cause” variation and “Special cause” variation…one of which is systemic, the other random (or believed to be random).

                      Two common cause variations should not be conflated.

                      A pond can freeze over in winter to 1″ of ice across it, or 12″ of ice across it. The volume of the ice is dramatically different, the surface area is not. The total energy to thaw (or refreeze) those surfaces areas are markedly different from the total energy to thaw (or refreeze) the entire volume. Arctic scientists are pretty clear on the difference and understand that winter maximums aren’t a correlate to energy gained, or lost. In the antarctic they are…due to another common cause – fresh water infusion. See recent studies.

                      PDO definitely flipped positive. Review the charts.

                      Surface record may be compromised. Satellite continues to show upward trend through the current century. MAXIMUMS are not the determinant of trend…averages are. Minimums continue to climb as do rolling averages (showing up in satellite).

                  3. Speaking of the Antarctic…read this and weep Evan Jones:

                    , expanding Antarctic sea ice is precisely what you would expect to see if the Antarctic continent itself is losing a lot of ice mass from its vast ice sheet, adding to sea level rise.

                    The thinking goes like this: As ice shelves melt, and more inland ice slides towards the sea, a gigantic volume of cold, fresh water enters the ocean. This freshwater pulse, the researchers continue, promotes ocean “stratification,” in which a cold surface layer lies atop a subsurface warmer layer. The cold surface layer promotes more sea ice growth atop open water, while the warm lower layer sneaks beneath that ice and continues to melt submerged ice shelves, which plunge deep into the water at the fringes of the continent.

                    The fundamental physical reason for the expansion of sea ice in this scenario is that cold, fresh water is less dense than warmer, salty water. Or as the National Snow and Ice Data Center explains:

                    As deep ocean temperatures around Antarctic rise, they increase ice shelf melt, according to a study led by Richard Bintanja. This meltwater is creating a cool layer near the surface of the ocean that promotes sea ice production. In addition, the meltwater is fresh, or much less salty and dense than surrounding saline ocean layers. So fresher meltwater floats upward, mixing with the cold surface layer, lowering its density. As this fresh layer expands, it forms a stable puddle on top of the ocean that makes it easier to produce and retain sea ice.

                    In this sense, expanding Antarctic sea ice might be anything but good news.

            2. Evan, surely you have overlooked recent published data in science journal regarding positive feedbacks regarding fauna growth in the Arctic. Do I need to spoon feed you as far as the conclusions?

            3. he message for policymakers is that we have a global crisis that calls for international cooperation to reduce emissions as rapidly as practical,” wrote the authors.

              Their projections are based on an anticipated accelerated melting of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica due to rising atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. The melting ice sheets will put more cold, fresh water into the oceans, changing circulation patterns and ultimately causing even more melting of the ice sheets — thus causing sea levels to rise much, much faster than other projections have forecast.

              “We conclude that continued high emissions will make multi-meter sea level rise practically unavoidable and likely to occur this century,” the scientists wrote. “Social disruption and economic consequences of such large sea level rise could be devastating.”
              WASHINGTON — One of the nation’s most recognizable names in climate science, Dr. James Hansen, released a new paper this week warning that even 2 degrees Celsius of global warming may be “highly dangerous” for humanity.

              The paper, which will be published online in the European Geosciences Union journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussion later this week, projects sea levels rising as much as 10 feet in the next 50 years.

              The paper notes there is evidence indicating that average temperatures just 1 degree Celsius warmer than today caused sea levels to rise 16 to 30 feet and fed extreme storms thousands of years ago.

              Speaking of “papers”, Where is YOURS?!

              1. Too bad the SPM is not even supported by WG1. To say nothing of the recent deluge of papers showing ECS to have been severely overestimated.

                The models have simply utterly failed to match the empirical data. Basing estimates on them would be poor science and poor policy.

                1. That’s not what the real data is showing in the field…ha ha

                  study published Monday shows that warm, tropical air masses are accelerating the melting of Greenland’s ice sheets, exacerbating a problem that already is contributing to rising sea levels around the globe.
                  The Greenland Ice Sheet currently covers more than 650,000 square miles, an area three times the size of Texas. Previous studies have documented rapid melting on the periphery of the ice sheet, which is losing mass at a rate 30 percent faster than in the late 1970s.

                  But the new research shows that tropical systems that hit Greenland in the autumn months cause a sharp spike in thawing. Unusually warm topical air and rainfall melt the surface ice and speed up the movement of glaciers at a time when the Arctic is normally turning colder, according to the new study in the journal Nature GeoScience.

                  So much for your soot theory

                  And more
                  Significant changes in one of the Earth’s most important ecosystems are not only a symptom of climate change, but may fuel further warming, research suggests.

                  One of the biggest studies to date of key vegetation in the Arctic tundra provides strong evidence that dramatic changes in the region are being driven by climate warming.

                  Studies of tundra shrubs – which act as a barometer of the Arctic environment – show that they grow more when temperatures are warmer. Increased shrub growth, driven by recent and future warming in the Arctic, could cause more warming in tundra ecosystems and for the planet as a whole.

                  Taller shrubs prevent snow from reflecting heat from the sun back into space, warming the Earth’s surface. They can also influence soil temperatures and thaw permafrost. Increased shrubs can change the cycling of nutrients and carbon in soil, affecting its decomposition and the amount of carbon released to the atmosphere. All these factors can contribute to climate warming both in the Arctic and on a global scale.

                  Shrub species in wet landscapes at mid-latitudes of the Arctic are the most sensitive to climate warming, the study found. These areas are vulnerable to change as they store large amounts of carbon in frozen soil, which could be released by warming and permafrost thaw.

                  An international team of scientists at 37 sites in nine countries, led by the University of Edinburgh, studied records of shrub growth spanning 60 years by analysing annual growth rings in the plant stems, to explore links between climate and vegetation change.

                  The study, published in Nature Climate Change, was funded by the International Arctic Science Committee. The findings will help improve models of future changes to tundra ecosystems and the impacts of these changes on the global climate.

                  Hey, please read more and avoid all this embrassment ….
                  Pretty pitiful that you still insist on being what you are..a/denier

  19. The folks who brought you the VA scandal, used the IRS as a political tool ànd said the Benghazi attacks were due to some unheard of little video now want to be taken seriously on Global Warming. Aren’t we all still waiting for our $2,500 ObamaCare savings?

  20. It’s just another demonstration that government is simply way, way, way too big as well as the hubris of power, that our constitution inherently seeks to regulate.

Leave a Reply