Majority of Americans Oppose Climate Change Prosecution

299

A comprehensive look at the 2016 Democratic Party Platform reveals a host of startling policies, but the party’s official approach to climate change may be the most disturbing of all of them.

“The Committee unanimously adopted a joint proposal from Sanders and Clinton representatives to commit to making America run entirely on clean energy by mid-century, and supporting the ambitious goals put forward by President Obama and the Paris climate agreement,” reads the platform.

That’s the standard line from the Democratic Party, but the unnerving part is in the paragraph that follows:

“Another joint proposal calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of the fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent.”

This isn’t something to be ignored; several Democratic attorneys general announced in April that they would soon be turning their prosecutorial attention to companies like ExxonMobil, who they say are guilty of fraud due to their denial of man-made global warming. Leftists are moving away from the “propaganda” stage of this hoax and into the “legal enforcement” stage, much as they did in the fight for gay marriage.

On this one, though, they may encounter more public resistance than they expect.

According to a new Rasmussen Reports poll, 69% of likely U.S. voters reject the idea of letting the government investigate and prosecute companies or individuals that question the consensus view of climate change. Only 15% of those surveyed said they would support such investigations.

Interestingly, this idea does not even have widespread support among registered Democrats. The poll shows that only 21% of Democratic voters support prosecuting climate change “deniers.” In fact, the poll reveals that only 28% of Democrats believe that the scientific debate about climate change is settled.

Clearly, there’s quite a gap between the liberal extremists who have taken over the Democratic Party and the voters who keep voting these clowns into office.

And really, that gap is what gave rise to the unusual 2016 election. It’s not just the gap between the liberal elite and the average Democrat; it’s the gap between Washington’s ideology and that of the average American. The endless propaganda worked for a while, but people are smarter than these politicians always thought.

You see a lot of dismay among liberals who despise Donald Trump. They see his rise as evidence that the country hasn’t made as much “progress” as they thought.

In truth, though, Trump’s rise was caused by precisely the opposite problem: There has been too much “progress” over the last decade. Legally and “culturally” (meaning the fictitious mainstream culture presented by the media), we’ve suddenly found ourselves in a world we don’t recognize. That’s the gap.

Instead of waiting for Americans to catch up to these wild changes (or, you know, actually asking us if we want these changes), Democrats are gunning the engine and racing toward their ideal future with reckless abandon.

At some point, maybe they’ll realize they left everyone behind.

299 Comments
  1. The Grump says

    You just can’t fix stupid. These people are truly insane.

    1. gotabgood says

      Stupid is as stupid does..

      1. mac12sam12 says

        Oh look! Bill and Hillary at the Clinton library and massage parlor!

    2. Mike Burkett says

      Maybe we could convince them to go vote November 9th.

  2. Hoosier Mo says

    Climate is always changing, and has been since the beginning of time. It hasn’t been changed by fossil fuels or dinosaur flatulence, but is part of the natural cycles of weather over the ages. If we hadn’t had “global warming” several million years ago, this country would still be under a thick layer of ice. The climate change (aka global warming) radicals just want to use the fact that temperatures normally fluctuate over time in order to control as much of this country as possible.

    1. gotabgood says

      You first have to distinguish between weather and climate.. weather is your back yard or in the country community, your state, or in the global community, your country. Climate takes the whole world… our home. Places you have never seen or maybe never heard of are already feeling the affect of raising waters. Islands have sunk!
      But to bring it closer to home..

      1. JB says

        Exactly. So even if the US did all they’re proposing, it would be infinitesimal in significance unless all the other countries “causing” even more damage than we supposedly are, do at least the same. We don’t have a dome we can put around us. And the other countries will not- and in many cases cannot, financially- make the proposed changes.

        1. gotabgood says

          Not sure of your solution or recommendation… Since we can’t fix it all with one brush stroke.. we will sit down lite up a cigar, go buy an SUV and live it up?

          1. JB says

            You made the huge assumption that I think there exists a problem of the magnitude proposed by certain groups and politicians. I don’t. But already millions of dollars have been spent on “solutions” that haven’t made a dent and will not bc of the reasons I stated. Obama has instituted 600 major regulations in roughly 7.5 years, which is 20 percent more than the previous president did in eight years. His administration is set to impose new greenhouse gas standards for heavy-duty trucks at a price of $31 billion, and efficiency standards for manufactured housing that will cost $4.1 billion. ??
            We don’t exist in a vacuum separate from other countries. Our millions have not and will not made a difference; other countries don’t have millions to throw at it. Even if it did exist as they portray it.
            We did not create this world; we will not be the ones to end it. It’s Creator will.

          2. gotabgood says

            But already millions of dollars have been spent on “solutions” that haven’t made a dent and will not bc of the reasons I stated
            You’re right, there are many reasons why we haven’t gained more ground than we have… I can show you one reason RIGHT NOW… jump up and run into the bathroom and look into the mirror.. YEP! You are a problem. Instead just sitting on the side lines and let progress leave you in the dust… you have to do all you can to spread BS.
            Do you know there is a solar plane that can fly at night? In fact it flew around the world.
            Is it fast? Nope! Can it hold a 100 passengers? Nope But it stayed in the air a helluvalot longer than the Wright Brothers flight did and they used less fuel in the process. Plus the Wright brothers plane did not have 100 passengers either, nor did it fly very fast or for a long distance.
            We have wind turbines without propellers.
            Things are happening.. you just have to pull your head out of………………… and look around.

          3. JB says

            Yup, and if the people talking about going green and climate change and climate summits and all that would use public transportation, that would make a difference too. No, all the celebs talking about it still drive around in SUVs and fly around in private jets. The Pres and most members who attended the summit flew there in private planes. Hypocrisy at its best.

            I’m aware of improvements we’ve made; I’ve also aware of the vast millions those improvements will cost to implement, with little improvement to the atmosphere because, again, we don’t live in a dome.

            You know nothing about me. As a Christian I believe in being a good steward of what we’ve been given, so I do what I can to take care of the earth, use resources responsibly and be that good steward. That doesn’t mean I think this “climate change” or “global warming” exists as anything other than a normal change in the grand cycle of our planet. Go tell the hypocrites and frequent users of private transport to look in the mirror.
            I get my cues from God, not you and definitely not politicians.

          4. gotabgood says

            Common sense is required here… got to think just a little. Your job… or office requires you to be in one place ‘most’ of the time. Let’s take the president and Al Gore. They do not have a 9 to 5 job, 5 days a week. They have to go to meetings half way around the world to talk peace and to create green energy. to safe our world in two different ways, but both necessary.
            As for you claiming to be a Christian… then God’s command was to take care of the earth. NOT to pollute the ocean or fresh water. We were to take care of the beast of the field not to push them out of the way and slaughter them for our convenience and pleasure and some are extinct because of it. We were to take care of the earth, to cultivate and plant, not to bury radioactive substance in the ground to pollute and destroy. He buried the fossil fuel, not for us to blow the mountain tops off to get at it and pollute the water below. Or drill in the ocean or under ice.
            Our air quality is suppose to sustain life not to cause cancer and all sorts of respiratory problems. Do a quick google for ” Photos Smog in our cities”… never mind I will do it for you…. https://www.google.com/search?q=Photos+Smog+in+our+cities&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJ7f6F-srOAhVHW5QKHbPDDksQsAQINQ&biw=1081&bih=604

            You may not believe everything you read or told about climate change…. but these photos are MAN-MADE..
            Someday.. you people will wake up… yes people are making money off climate change… so are the coal/oil companies and they are causing the problems. doctors also make money off your cancer. Auto manufactures also make money as the pollute our environment.. We can’t cure it all with the snap of your fingers… it takes time, one step at a time… but to deny and be critical of those making money off from it, is just plain stupid!
            By the way in Genesis 1;29 Gods directions for our body to run smoothly is not to eat meat. No excuse to kill..

          5. JB says

            You don’t address my points at all, simply argue that it must be done. If all those people who truly believe would do what they ask us to do, for example, ride around in hybrids not SUVs, never use private planes, cycle down electricity, etc then maybe they’d have more credibility. Has nothing to do with their jobs; when they’re flying around to parties and fundraisers and golfing trips? No, I’m sorry, those things aren’t necessary and if they REALLY believed we are as in crisis as they say, they wouldn’t do it. Sure it may be necessary on occasion, but be honest and realize how often they do it when it is NOT necessary.
            I never said I was FOR polluting the air or the oceans etc. We are talking about “climate change” not the environment as a whole; more specifically, we’re talking about prosecution of those who don’t believe in climate change. Totally separate issue.

            Again, you have no idea how I live. I do what I can to be responsible with resources. But you mention things that industry and policy makers do, yet you cite Christianity as a reason for them not to- surely you don’t expect them to follow those principles, as they are not neccessarily Christians, some definitely not. Yes, if we lived as God intends, the world would be a better place, but you would also realize that our climate is not what we should be focused on.
            Genesis 1:29 is not about NOT eating meat. In Leviticus it talks about what kind of meat they were and were not to eat, so there was no directive to not eat meat. And besides all of this was NT; everything changed with the coming of Jesus in the NT and beyond.

          6. gotabgood says

            I did address your point.. you want all who are pushing for green energy to practice what they preach and I can agree with that to a point. If they are traveling to, as you say play golf, but with some country leader… while golfing he can bring up the need for change. After his round of golf, he has a meeting in another country the following day, making commercial flights impossible. One more thing. They have algae jet fuel now… not saying they use it, but maybe they do!

            Climate change is a direct cause of CO2, methane, volcanic ash, forest fires .. basically anything that isn’t breathable. When we do that.. we put suet on the glaciers in the Arctic, which absorbs heat instead of reflecting heat, which causes ice to melt. The pollutes in the air hold the heat in, which makes the whole globe warmer. So polluting and climate change are connected.
            As you pay attention to the flooding that is right now going on in Louisianan, you can pass it off as bad storm.. it happens.. when high tide comes in on a beach in California and floods the parking lot, you can say.. why did they build a parking lot where it floods? Or in Miami, where they are spending millions of dollars on water pumps, or in Norfolk, or explain why villages in Alaska now have to move to get away from the water. Or explain why Our Glacier National Park had 150 glaciers in 1850 and when certified a park in 1910 they still had 150 glaciers… TODAY???? only 25.. something changed from 1910 till now…. man got automated.

            As far as the meat eating goes. When you buy a car, the manufacture tell you what kind of gas to burn for the most efficiency, power and long lasting life. After sin, after the flood, all vegetation was wiped out. God said of the unclean animals bring 2, of the clean bring 7… this is after sin. If you recall before the flood, men lived extremely long lives. After the flood, life span was cut drastically.
            God said fruits, nuts and grains is the best meal you can eat for health, efficiency, and longer life. There will be some that will argue the point and tell of someone they know who ate nothing but pork all their life to 110. But they are coming out now and tell you.. if you have a heart attack… no dairy, no red meat, why? Because that is what got you in that position in the first place.
            Meat takes longer to digest than veggies, which allows for more bacteria to form, which can cause allergies and all sorts of problems, that we cure by operations or pain medications, which they will in themselves cause additional problems else where.
            Enough of that…

          7. JB says

            Haha he wasn’t golfing with some other country’s leader. Stop giving him a pass. And if they wanted to, these people could make their schedules work. If it was as DIRE as they claim, flying in private jets would be UNTHINKABLE. And, with all the time our Pres spends golfing, he apparently has plenty of flex time (or he just cares more about his golf game than, oh, I don’t know, flooding in Louisiana).
            Why still bringing up other issues? This isn’t about eating meat or not. Where did that come from? And we are told to eat all in moderation, which I do. I also stay away from preservatives and artificial gunk. But again, why are we talking about this?
            I agree that many industrial policies can and should be changed, but not many of the ones being implemented by the government WITHOUT OUR INPUT. Millions have been spent on things that will have no discernible effect, and even if it did, it would only be significant if every country were to do it.
            But enough, this was about whether we can be forced to believe in a theory and then be prosecuted if we don’t. That goes against everything our country is about.
            I do appreciate you not getting nasty, as some on here do.

          8. gotabgood says

            You said……. “around in hybrids not SUVs, never use private planes, cycle down electricity, etc then maybe they’d have more credibility. Has nothing to do with their jobs; when they’re flying around to parties and fundraisers and golfing trips? No, I’m sorry,
            You painted a scenario that didn’t happen…. I followed along your same scenario, saying things do happen. Just like when Obama goes to Asia, he normally stops at least a couple of different countries… killing 2 birds with one stone as the saying goes.
            Not feeling well today… hurts my head to type… and to think….

          9. JB says

            Just sayin…
            “Hillary Clinton says climate change is an “urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time,” and we should do all we can to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Well, that is unless she’s got a fundraiser nearby to get to quickly:
            The presidential candidate, who is endlessly trying to tell factory workers in Ohio and Pennsylvania that she’s one of them, jetted approximately 20 miles from Martha’s Vineyard — where she was last night partying with President Obama — to Nantucket for a fundraiser on Saturday.
            Candidate of the people! But Hillary did at least wave at the peasants on the Vineyard-to-Nantucket ferry (what? She couldn’t take the ferry?) as she flew overhead.”

          10. gotabgood says

            There are many ways to describe urgent.
            If you are in a VW traveling 60 MPH and you see a block away there is a red light, with kids crossing the street. No real urgency there. Supposing you were in a freight train 100 cars in tow, traveling 60 MPH and you see a block ahead a red light and kids are crossing the tracks. You have an urgent situation on your hands.
            5 years ago we were in the VW… today we are in the freight train!
            it sounds to me she was on a pretty tight schedule.

            Let me try and guess the reasoning behind your pathetic post. “Do as I say not as I do”….
            I agree we should all do our part, walk when we can take the ferry when we can, replace our incandescent light bulbs.. take cooler, shorter showers and the list is long.. we as individuals should do that. The biggest polluters are the power plants. Why don’t you walk over to the CEO of the closest power plant and tell him to change fuels. First place you would not get to see him, and if you did get to see him, he would laugh in your face. The guy shoveling coal has no clout to get into the office of the CEO and tell him to change. Hillary could get into see him and carry a little authority when she says change your fuel. She has to go places you can’t, see people you can’t see, talk to people you can’t talk to… is that a fair policy? Probably not, but it is reality.
            While you go to work at your.. well any more it is more like 9 to 9 job, she is in a meeting with Putin or Jinping discussing why there was no snow at the winter Olympics in Russia and what to do about Shanghai being the most vulnerable major city in the world to serious flooding. Could you talk to either of them??? NO! So, my little jb friend.. do your part, which I ‘hope’ you understand and let other people do their job which they do understand the seriousness of global warming. See you are still in denial… for you cannot wrap your tiny little brain cell around the idea that man can destroy our world… that is why you have a shovel and Hillary has a pen..

          11. JB says

            You will obviously concoct scenario after scenario to excuse ANYTHING Hillary does or does not do. Really pathetic.
            She was out partying with obama in Martha vineyard one night and going to a fundraiser the next day, 20 miles apart. These are not big important things that required her to use a private plane to get to, especially when she had just been bemoaning climate change and when there was a ferry she could’ve taken easily. Probably could’ve even arranged to use it privately, God forbid she mix with the commoners. You must see this or YOU my little friend are in a great state of denial.
            You come up with these scenarios in which she or Obama just possibly can’t have time to do such and such and us little peons just can’t possibly understand it. Reality tells us a different story. She was close to her next destination and neither was so urgent or time-sensitive that she couldn’t have taken other transportation than a private plane WE paid for with our taxes. When are you going to realize that the changes they propose are changes only WE are expected to make? Not them.
            And btw, her “tight schedule” allowed her to take multiple days of rest yet completely ignore flood victims in Louisiana.
            What’s the excuse now? I’ll give it to you. Louisiana has nothing to offer the Dems; it’s not a battleground state, it will go to the Repubs. In addition, the victims are low-income residents of the poorest state in the country, so no one will be writing a Clinton campaign check; nothing to be gained by Hillary (or Obama, who also couldn’t be bothered to interrupt his vacation). But keep telling yourself “they care.”
            I thought you were someone who could have a logical, meaningful debate without getting nasty and condescending; now I see I was wrong to think that. Blocked.

      2. TheBlues says

        Atlantis the bustling island/continent sank a few thousand years ago. Must have been climate change ! ! ! Bwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh! ! !

        1. gotabgood says

          Atlantis… they ever find it? They have photos of it? How do we know it is real?

          Maybe it can be found here…

  3. David Stewart says

    There is no climate change; simply variations that have occurred forever. The same morons that tout change are the people all fired up about zika, big deal, maybe 100 people affected? Check the daily traffic deaths if you want a soap box!

    1. Mathew Molk says

      But there is and always has been climate change,,,,Just not the BS they are telling us we are causing. Climate change is and always will be a natural thing .Nothoing you can do about it but LIVE WITH IT!

      1. gotabgood says

        Your back yard does not count for climate..

        1. mac12sam12 says

          I live 30 miles from the ocean and I’m looking forward to beach front property!!

          1. gotabgood says

            I hope you are single and that kid your holding does not belong to you… because I truly hope you get that beach front property… oh please, please please, let it happen.

          2. mac12sam12 says

            Before man was on Earth New England was under one mile of ice. What caused climate change then? crickets…crickets…crickets…

      2. gotabgood says

        Nah…. it is global warming and climate change, but they are the same.. it just seemed you didn’t get into a hissy-fit when using the term climate change… you still get climate confused with weather, so that is probably the reason behind the more acceptance of climate change.

        1. paulrph1 says

          Denial and manipulation so typical of a liberal. Next we will see playing the victim.

        2. Mike Burkett says

          Planet Earth is not balanced and through 365 rotations during the annual revolution around the Sun, the North/South pole axis orientation is shifted by a infinitesimal percentage of a degree. Besides, taking steps to curb America’s productivity to influence these trends won’t be conclusively validated for 85 years making this politically movement safe for the One-Worlders to promote the release of United States sovereignty to the UN.

        3. riverstrat . says

          Global Warming and climate change are the same thing?
          ☺☺☺ Yes , I see Cold Is Hot Blue is the new Red and
          of course day is night.
          Yea , it’s all the same , don’t you see, “do you all want to die?”
          ☺☺☺ LO FKG ASS’S OFF….☺

          1. gotabgood says

            Must be a full moon… all the dummies are coming out… you don’t know the answer so you get all bent out of shape and start calling names.

          2. riverstrat . says

            Sky is falling…..really.

      3. Sandy0 says

        There IS no “living with it”. But there is DEATH with it unless we attend to climate change NOW.
        I would prefer to live. Anyone else?
        But all the facts fall on deaf ears.

        1. TheBlues says

          Guess what ! You and I are going to DIE ! ! ! ! ! Does it really matter now or later? No if, ands, or buts about it.

        2. riverstrat . says

          The sky is falling!!!!!!!!!!
          We need more Cherie picked data and lies from the
          Globalists to convince us, we need bigger and better lies
          from Liberals. Keep lying to us, eventually we will start
          to believe Black is White, Day is Night, Man has been controlling
          the weather since the 1800’s.
          The Ice age really came in the 1970’s
          The increased Polar Bear population should be viewed as a decrease.
          The massive increased Antarctic Ice Caps should be viewed
          as ‘decreases’ .

      4. patrick says

        How else could gore make his millions?

    2. Retired says

      Then there are the people who annually die of medical mistakes, they outnumber gun death and car death.

      1. gotabgood says

        There will be millions losing their homes… and soon they will be knocking on your door.
        Oh!! Not from some far off distant land.. from from all our own coastal cities… know that extra room you have been putting off??? Better build it soon.

        1. TheBlues says

          I will be dead, what about you?

          1. gotabgood says

            Careful what you wish for… the process is speeding up. each hunk of ice that falls into the warming waters increases the speed of the next melt..

      2. hum4me says

        this whole about black lives matter is nothing but a slimy way to protest and destroy everything in their path, with no consequences. Who is paying these people to do this, I would bet that either Hillary or Obama is connected to that , amongst Soros.

    3. gotabgood says

      Yep that is what they said in Alaska too.

      1. bruceco says

        2yrs in 43yrs, 4 in 86, 8 in 172, 16 in 344, 32 in 688, 64yrs in 1376yrs, and on and on!
        just a little simple addition to prove you can only see past the end of your nose if your head isn’t up your fourth point of contact!

        1. gotabgood says

          I am talking about something that actually happened. The race has NOT been going on for over 43 years.. so anything beyond that is speculation at best and total BS at worse.
          If you want to do math
          1971 was the first race. It took 32 years for the first no snow event in 2003. The next no snow was only 11 years later in 2014. So with the passing of time the no snow events are coming at a faster rate.. so I hope you can see why just doubling the years is impossible to figure that way. you need a little more math knowledge and understand that the earth is warming at a faster rate than when first calculated, so that brings in new numbers, how fast did it heat up between 1971 to 2003 and was the ration the same between 2003 and 2014. And since 2013 we have broken heat records each year and it looks like 2016 will break 2015 record… so your first grade math will not work…

          1. Mike Burkett says

            Actual current records indicate a cooling period in climate. You are confusing temperatures with precipitation. The mushers still bundle up to stay warm and the dogs did not suffer heat-strokes to the scale of garnering liberal climate-change attention.

          2. patrick says

            How do you explain that the south pole is growing, that means it’s getting bigger!

          3. gotabgood says

            Well I can’t, but I have heard that it is gaining in ice, but not as thick as it should be and it is not keeping up with the melting that is occurring around the world, so the ocean is still raising.
            Maybe I will look into that so next time I will have an answer.

          4. TheBlues says

            Why do you think god gave us fossil fuels? You think to shove them up our behinds for a laxative effect. That’s how liberals reason.

          5. gotabgood says

            Is that what you think?? God gave us fossil fuel ??? Is that way he buried it deep in the ground… deep in the ocean floor, deep beneath the frozen glaciers? So you can deface his earth, by blowing mountain tops off, drilling and polluting the ocean. drilling in the ground so to pollute the food we eat, the air we breath and the water we drink… yeah I am sure that is what God had in mind when he buried it.. quite unlike the other energy sources he gave us, like wind, sun, and currents.

    4. TheBlues says

      And check the murders in Chicago this year, which are now in the thousands. Makes Zika really small.

  4. Daniel Mount says

    Our Sun and we are in very big trouble. These earth size UFO’s are draining our sun of it’s plasma that can cause our sun to expand and then turn into a supper Nova. That is why NASA and our government and other governments are moving so desperately to go to mars.

    1. gotabgood says

      Yeah… everything is so far far away, no need to worry about anything here…

  5. Daniel Mount says

    Mars will just be a stepping stone to prepare for an even farther trip to an even farther trip too a new Galaxy because if our sun were to blow up going to mars just is not fare enough away because the entire Milky way will be gone in an instant.

    1. Francisco Machado says

      Don’t give them ideas. We’re dealing with a bunch of ideologues who have latched onto the idea that man has some control over the climate. If you think they’re bad now, wait ’til they grab the idea that things humans are doing can affect the Sun. It’s really not that big a leap for ideologues who decide ahead of time what the results of studies will be, then manipulate the data to get things to come out that way. They represent a global Jim Jones phenomenon and are trying to prosecute anyone who won’t drink the Kool Aid.

      1. Daniel Mount says

        OOPS! Your right.

        1. Francisco Machado says

          As unpleasant as the thought may be, it is worth keeping in mind that all too often, delving back into prehistory, the means by which the climate gods are to be mollified has been human sacrifice. The means by which humans are to be sacrificed has changed, but the human sacrifice concept remains intact.

          1. gotabgood says

            Any one for a dip? or how about a fish dinner caught fresh out of Lake Eerie?

          2. glenn398 says

            Lake Eire used to be so bad it used to catch fire so they have done a lot to clean it up.

          3. gotabgood says

            Really? This photo was taken in 2014

      2. gotabgood says

        You are soo very good… you are paranoid about the Mexicans and Muslims but don’t fear the real thing… is that just ignorance??

        1. glenn398 says

          Hope you are walking and biking everywhere you go so you are not adding to the climate change problem

          1. gotabgood says

            Actually I do not own a car and I am fortunate enough to where I live close by everything. I walk to my bank, walk to shop, even if I want to take in a movie, I walk. Once a month I go to Costco and I take public transportation. So I pretty much am living a green life..Can I do better? Sure, but I am getting better over the years.

          2. glenn398 says

            Then take it you live in a place like New York City as very few cities have what you are describing.

          3. gotabgood says

            Not true, you can get all you need if you live close by any mall. Then once a month I go buy my bulk items.
            but, I do not live any where close to NY.

  6. Charlie says

    Who are these people? What makes them think they can prosecute anybody for what they believe? Man these people have a lot to learn. Bringing charges against someone for what they believe or disbelieve is unconstitutional and against American values.

    1. gotabgood says

      We are scientist, people with an education, someone who can see beyond their nose, someone that can add and subtract using actual figures..
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqPuKxXUCPY

      1. Sandy0 says

        THANK YOU for providing some substantial science in place of the stolid neo-medievalism here from others. THE EARTH IS ROUND, FOLKS. That’s apparently news, too, to those who oppose progress.

        1. curmudgeon VN Veteran says

          You are living proof that brainwashing really works. What color is the sky on your planet?

        2. Skyhawk says

          And the sun shines every day. Even if it is cloudy. And the ice age was over many centuries before mankind’s arrival.

        3. patrick says

          The earth goes through cycles of heating & cooling, has been doing this for eons! The hole in the ozone has been there way before the industrial age!But you whiners have to WHINE about some thing,OOOOH NOOOOO the sky is falling!!!!!!

      2. Tired... says

        This is an excellent video and reflects the view of a rational individual rather than the hysterical vision painted by the more extreme elements of the environmental movement/religion. If you watched the video you will note that near the end Dr. Muller drew a clear distinction between Global Warming and Climate Change despite the best efforts of the interviewer to equate the two concepts. Because this distinction was not the focus of the interview, he did not explain how he differentiated between the two, but it would be interesting to hear his perspective. Dr. Muller is a real scientist who welcomes debate related to his study because he is invested in learning rater than an agenda. It was enjoyable to watch him push back against the biases of the interviewer in pursuit of a more rational approach.

      3. glenn398 says

        How about addressing the real problem which is over population as the earth is nothing but a spaceship and can only support just so many.

        1. Tube Steak Nopantz says

          If you read the United Nations Agenda 21 your question about the planet’s over population will be answered for you. And it’s not a pretty picture either. You can google it too.

          1. glenn398 says

            Trouble is the over population is being produced by helpless and low I.Q. people

          2. Tube Steak Nopantz says

            That sounds a bit biased to me. Maybe you should think that statement over. What basis in fact do you back that statement on?

        2. gotabgood says

          Really there is a lot of truth to what you say.. not so much over population, but misuse of the land.
          Included are charts and website.
          I was a vegetarian for 20 years, so I know you do not need meat. I am also 6’2″ and 255, so it didn’t hurt my growth any… but the charts reveal some other things you talk about.

          http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/environment.html

          1. glenn398 says

            You seem on the heavy side for 6’2″ especially being a vegetarian but not knowing your age or physical make up can only hope it is more muscle. Yes I have always known what it takes to raise animals as most of my relatives were farmers and went to visit them and help farm at times.

          2. gotabgood says

            Well… er…. yeah… age is not a graceful thing to carry..Love ice cream.. hahaha
            I am not such a strict vegetarian any more, I have dairy, eggs and eat some chicken and fish. I broke away from strict vegetarian in the year 2000. I figured if the world was going to end (Y2K) I was going to go out with a steak dinner, so New Years Eve, went out and had a steak dinner…. the world didn’t end… but mine almost did.. 2 weeks later I was in the hospital with a busted appendix… maybe just a coincident… but I still blame the meat… smile

          3. glenn398 says

            Now will tell you the other side of the story. Married a woman 10 years younger than me figuring she would be taking care of me in my old age. Eat very little vegetables and mostly meat products. One night she was really on my case for not eating as she called it healthy vegetables. Later that night she said something was wrong and needed to go to the hospital. They had to do an emergency operation and take out a foot of her colon. Today she is on blood pressure medicine, pain, nerve and a bunch of others don’t even know what they are. So at 76 years old have to do all the cooking, house cleaning, wash, all the outside things, shopping and running to get her medicines. I am not on any medicine except pain medicine because in 1963 was rear ended by a drunk going 65 miles an hour that totaled 4 vehicles. What no one seemed to find out was my neck was now curved backward and by the time one doctor figured it out was too late to do anything about it so have to live with it. If you lived to an older age with your appendix you were lucky and still have mine but most do not.

          4. gotabgood says

            We all know that smoking is bad for you.. if nothing else it makes you short winded, but will kill you many different ways than just lung cancer.. But we all know of one 95 year old little lady that has smoked since she was 14 and still alive.
            The same with vegetables vs meat.
            I do not know if you are religious or not… but this is what diet plan God made for you.. and since he is the manufacture he has the right to tell you to burn leaded or unleaded fuel… one will allow for more trouble free mileage.
            Genesis 1:29 God also told them, “Look! I have given you every seed-bearing plant that grows throughout the earth, along with every tree that grows seed-bearing fruit. They will produce your food.

          5. glenn398 says

            The diet plan God made was before man changed the original plants and burned the soil up with chemicals. Today those fruits and vegetables hold a fraction of the value they used to.

          6. gotabgood says

            That is true.. After the flood all vegetation was wiped out, And also at the same time mans expectant life spam was drastically cut.
            But the animal you eat, for the most part is a vegetarian itself and lives off the plants you say has lost it nutrient value. Basically we are eating already-been-chewed-up veggies.
            So what sustains a 1000 pound cow,,, should also sustain us…. wouldn’t you think?

          7. glenn398 says

            Like the scientist say look at the teeth of the animal and it tells you what it was made to eat and human teeth were not made to eat grass.

          8. gotabgood says

            I would say grain, fruits and nuts over grass.. but to each their own.
            Take a look at the set of teeth the Gorilla has…. those choppers could be interchanged with a lion easily…
            But you are arguing with the wrong guy… God told us what to eat… not me..

          9. glenn398 says

            I don’t call debating arguing but guess you do and when we put a debate between two people as arguing then there is no debate anymore.

          10. GODBlessRealAmerica#1 says

            She looks good

      4. mac12sam12 says

        The climate has always changed. What made it change before man existed? crickets..crickets..crickets..

      5. TPM says

        This clown wasn’t a real skeptic. He, like most university scientists, take millions from global warming advocates and produce bogus studies. I call these liars “grant whores.”
        When global warming advocates resort to changing historic temperature readings to create the (false) illusion of global warming … you know they’re full of it.

        1. gotabgood says

          He took the Koch Brothers money… they gave it to him to disprove global warming..
          If NASA’s Schmidt is right, 2016 will be the the third consecutive year to set a new global heat record—the first time that’s ever happened. So far, 15 of the hottest 16 years ever measured have come in the 21st century.
          http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-18/earth-s-relentless-warming-just-hit-a-terrible-new-threshold

      6. pineapple says

        “We are scientist, people with an education, someone who can see beyond
        their nose, someone that can add and subtract using actual figures..”

        What, may I ask are your qualifications?

        Plus: Science group ‘reviewing its stance on global warming’ after 160 physicists sign petition

        By: HYPERLINK “http://www.climatedepot.com/author/marcmorano/” o “Posts by Marc Morano” Marc Morano – HYPERLINK “http://www.climatedepot.com” Climate DepotNovember 2, 2009 5:43 AM
        The following letter signed by five physicists was sent to all 100 U.S. Senator’s on October 29, 2009. The letter is reproduced in full below:
        A GAGGLE IS NOT A CONSENSUS
        You have recently received a letter from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), purporting to convey a “consensus” of the scientific community that immediate and drastic action is needed to avert a climatic catastrophe.
        We do not seek to make the scientific arguments here (we did that in HYPERLINK “http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/11/02/team-of-scientists-open-letter-to-us-senators-claim-of-consensus-is-fake/a/1745/Scientists-Write-Open-Letter-to-Congress-You-Are-Being-Deceived-About-Global-Warming–Earth-has-been-cooling-for-ten-years” an earlier letter, sent a couple of months ago), but simply to note that the claim of consensus is fake, designed to stampede you into actions that will cripple our economy, and which you will regret for many years. There is no consensus, and even if there were, consensus is not the test of scientific validity. Theories that disagree with the facts are wrong, consensus or no.
        We know of no evidence that any of the “leaders” of the scientific community who signed the letter to you ever asked their memberships for their opinions, before claiming to represent them on this important matter.
        We also note that the American Physical Society (APS, and we are physicists) did not sign the letter, though the scientific issues at stake are fundamentally matters of applied physics. You can do physics without climatology, but you can’t do climatology without physics.
        The APS is at this moment reviewing its stance on so-called global warming, having received a Team of Scientists’ Open Letter To U.S. Senators: petition from its membership to do so. That petition was signed by 160 distinguished members and fellows of the Society, including one Nobelist and 12 members of the National Academies. Indeed a score of the signers are Members and Fellows of the AAAS, none of whom were consulted before the AAAS letter to you.
        Professor Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
        Professor Fred Singer, University of Virginia
        Professor Will Happer, Princeton University
        Professor Larry Gould, University of Hartford
        Dr. Roger Cohen, retired Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil
        List of 160 signers of the APS petition available at HYPERLINK “http://tinyurl.com/lg266u” http://tinyurl.com/lg266u
        Climate Depot’s Related Links:
        HYPERLINK “http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/11/02/team-of-scientists-open-letter-to-us-senators-claim-of-consensus-is-fake/a/1745/Scientists-Write-Open-Letter-to-Congress-You-Are-Being-Deceived-About-Global-Warming–Earth-has-been-cooling-for-ten-years” Scientists Write Open Letter to Congress: ‘You Are Being Deceived About Global Warming’ — ‘Earth has been cooling for ten years’ – July 1, 2009
        HYPERLINK “http://climatedepot.com/a/2213/Climate-Revolt-Worlds-Largest-Science-Group-Startled-By-Outpouring-of-Scientists-Rejecting-ManMade-Climate-Fears-Clamor-for-Editor-to-Be-Removed” Climate Revolt: World’s Largest Science Group ‘Startled’ By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears! Clamor for Editor to Be Removed! – July 29, 2009
        HYPERLINK “http://www.examiner.com/x-7422-Cobb-County-Conservative-Examiner%7Ey2009m8d14-Prominent-scientists-push-to-revise-physics-society-climate-statement” American Physical Society to review its current climate statement after a group of 80 prominent physicists petitioned APS revise – May 1, 2009
        American Physical Society editor conceded a HYPERLINK “http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_consensus_and_no_warming_either” “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists – 2008
        HYPERLINK “http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/Polish-Academy-of-Sciences-Questions-Gores-Man-Made-Global-Warming-Theory-43618922.html” Polish National Academy of Science ‘published a document skeptical of man-made global warming’ – April 2008
        HYPERLINK “http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/02/global-warming-pause-print.html” Climate Fears RIP…for 30 years!? – Global Warming could stop ‘for up to 30 years! Warming ‘On Hold?…’Could go into hiding for decades,’ peer-reviewed study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009
        March 2009 U. S. Senate Report: HYPERLINK “http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3” ‘More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims’
        HYPERLINK “http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=09DF614E-802A-23AD-46C9-8A90FCB5569A” India Issued a report challenging global warming fears – 2008
        HYPERLINK “http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=865DBE39-802A-23AD-4949-EE9098538277” Canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled” – 2008
        Japan Geoscience Union symposium 2008 survey HYPERLINK “http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25182520-2703,00.html” ‘showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report’
        HYPERLINK “http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/08/report-from-33d-intl.html” Skeptical scientists overwhelm Prestigious Geologist conference in Norway in 2008: ’2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ & see full reports HYPERLINK “http://www.rightsidenews.com/200808191759/energy-and-environment/global-warming-skeptics-prominently-featured-at-international-scientific-meeting.html” here & HYPERLINK “http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2008/08/another-prominent-scientist-dissents.html” here
        HYPERLINK “http://www.oism.org/pproject/” Petition signed by over 31,000 American scientists: ‘There is no convincing scientific evidence that greenhouse gasses are causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating’ – 2009

        1. gotabgood says

          So far I don’t get your point at all.. one of your webpages said this in big headlines.
          Bloomberg News: Olympic Athletes Challenged by New Opponent: ‘Global Warming’ – Athletes ‘will succumb to extreme temperatures & lose concentration’
          Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/#ixzz4HDQfWkN9.

          I am not going to play the he said/she said game with you.
          I have seen things with my own eyes, I have posted videos from islands, to Alaska to Miami to California.
          It looks like you devoted some time to disprove global warming.
          So I did go to some pages to honor your work… but I stopped when I seen your “scientist”, (saying that very loosely).
          I was curious to who the 31,000 scientist were, so I went to this page.. ( http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p333.htm )
          I picked on the very fist name..
          Earl Aagaard, PhD
          and then I went to his page..
          http://www.faithfortoday.tv/article/143/programs/archives/the-evidence/episodes/episode-111-darwin-s-dilemma/guest-information/earl-aagaard-phd
          Faith for today????
          And this is what he said about himself.
          Earl Aagaard, PhD

          Stairway to Hell
          by Earl Aagaard, PhD
          Professor of Biology, Pacific Union College
          In 1988, the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs affirmed that even profoundly damaged humans have a right to be affirmed as ends, and not means; at least after their birth. Now, in 1995, the Council recommends we abandon that bit of wisdom, and add newborn anencephalic babies to the list of those who will not be so protected.
          I am not going through your list of 31,000 names and judging from my first experience with your reference… I will give you an E for effort, but an E is a failing grade.

          Here is what a list of climate scientist look like,
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

      7. GODBlessRealAmerica#1 says

        hahahahhahahahahhaha soon baby PRESIDENT TRUMP 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      8. GODBlessRealAmerica#1 says

        You see beyond her nose now that’s funny hahhahaha

    2. Mike Burkett says

      If Hillary is elected, she has several constitutional amendments she would like to change or eliminate all together.
      1st constitutional right: See Hillary’s failed Supreme Court challenge to stop Citizens-United
      documentary of Hillary’s criminal activity/misdeeds.
      Now greenhouse-deniers (intelligent citizens) thought-control prosecution.
      2nd constitutional right: See Hillary’s Gun Control attempts to thwart the founding father’s attempt
      to stifle Tyranny in the United States by arming United States citizen’s.
      10th constitutional right: See Obama/Hillary democrap attempts to eliminate all State Sovereignty.

    3. paulrph1 says

      The thought police have arrived and trying to take charge. 1984 anyone?

      1. riverstrat . says

        Yes, sadly we are way beyond already, we can stand together though
        and beat these NWO Clowns into the sand.

    4. Skyhawk says

      As well as being stupid and destructive to America.

    5. patrick says

      They don’t wear those Jack Boots for nothing!!!!

    6. TPM says

      So much for freedom of speech. Democrats have become fascists.

    7. sox83cubs84 says

      Sad to say, Communist Democraps don’t respect the Constitution or American Values the way real Americans like you, me, and most of the folks on this site do.

  7. riverstrat . says

    The False Religion of Global Warming is the first big step to fully fund the NWO.
    If any of its disciples were serious about solutions they would plant forests, they are
    not interested in solutions, they want TRILLIONS IN CO2 taxes to fund their agenda.
    This will be the first of hundreds of taxes imposed on every human being under one
    central command, the end of freedom and sovereignty of all Nations.
    The roll out of the UN should have opened our eyes, we should have said no UN, not
    for America.
    We let the Camel get its head into the Tent , now we are in trouble, stand together
    and we can defeat the Globalists.

    1. gotabgood says

      It is a religion now?? Is there a church to go to… I want to go. The world knows there is global warming but there is a tiny little group tucked away mostly in the southern USA and they call themselves rightwingers… the world calls them, dumb, ignorant. deniers… or just arrogant that they didn’t se it coming first!

      1. TheBlues says

        The global warming alarmists continue flying their private jets all over the planet. I don’t have to name them. You know who they are. They are telling the poor to stop using fossil fuels as they are destroying “their” planet. HaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaHaaaaaaaaaaa! ! !

        1. gotabgood says

          Somebody has to get the word out to the brainless, ignorant, deniers of the Trump group..

          1. mac12sam12 says

            The Clintons in Arkansas at their annual family reunion!!

          2. GODBlessRealAmerica#1 says
    2. gonzales27 says

      Never confuse a Liberal with facts.I will believe it when we stop sending representatives from 200 countries in their private jets for a two week conference on global warming to discuss the issue and party.Don’t seem to be concerned about the CO2 generated from this trip.

      1. riverstrat . says

        Yes, Al Gore taught them well, corporate Jets, Private mansions and
        bungalows all over the globe, Carbon Footprints bigger than small
        countries, its like Hillary , will she give up her own guns? Hell no.
        The solution if there were any truth at all in GW, would be planting
        Forests, they DO NOT WANT SOLUTIONS, they want TRILLIONS
        IN World Taxes, this will/ would be only the first of 100’s if not
        thousands of new tax bases to feed the NWO.

    3. TheBlues says

      Correct. Their only intent is to collect more taxes to line their pockets. Corruption rages in the Democrats.

  8. riverstrat . says

    In the 70’s the biggest ‘experts’ tried to panic us into believing the ICE AGE was impending.
    Global Warming is such a fantastic hoax they have to keep changing their stories, Cherie
    pick data , and change the name to Climate Change.

    1. gotabgood says

      I have this chart that will point out the trend since 1880. You will notice the trend is up and since 1980 it has never looked back.
      The time period you refer to happened, but considered ‘spikes’, in another chart you will see why the drastic change and that is the CO2 and why it will never get cold again… better swap out your skis now while they are worth something.

      1. Tyler Krivan says

        Could show you a chart just like that from before the last Ice Age. So does that mean we will be going into another Ice Age?

        1. gotabgood says

          Here is my chart… let me see yours..

  9. Wildeagleone says

    These fuching Dems have to be stopped from completely destroying this nation. They are a Cancer, along with the RINOS in the Republican party
    Or we will be under a dictatorship of lawlessness as soon as the bitche from Lucifer’s Den is sworn in

    1. gotabgood says

      By the way do know what the RINO’s opinion is of you radical rightwingers?

      1. paulrph1 says

        Only a liberal would show such a disgusting act. But as is show we know where you mind is.

        1. Vern Davis says

          paulrph1 gotadbook thought it was a picture of Hillary.

      2. Skyhawk says

        Yep, they crap on the liberals.

      3. patrick says

        Hey” got”, your soup is ready!!! Douche bag!!!!!

      4. mac12sam12 says

        Oh look! Hillary taking a dump!

        1. riverstrat . says

          Hillary’s Cankles are noticeably larger, they would have
          to photo shop them in here to make it right☺

        2. ed28 says

          Trump made her eject her brain!

      5. TheBlues says

        If Hillary knew you showed her very personal “dumping photo”, we are most sure she would be thoroughly perturbed. She must have lost her $12,000 smock on the way to her dump. Maybe you could pick it up and wear it for her. Just lick off the muck with your hairy tongue and it will be good as new ! ! ! ! ! Trump 2016 ! ! ! M A G A ! ! !

    2. gotabgood says

      This is something to think about..

      1. Cadfael says

        How much cleaner water your EPA and regulations will get us we saw when they purposely polluted the Las Animas river so they could get another Superfund Slush fund site! I’d like to see things your way but my head doesn’t fit up such small openings!

        1. Tube Steak Nopantz says

          Don’t forget about the toxic waste the EPA dumped into the Colorado River. Twice!

      2. Skyhawk says

        No, I think if they were truthful and presented pacts, it might be up to 10% or less.

      3. John Williams says

        As usual you useful idiots fall right in line, 97% is the issue here. When you pick and choose which scientists you are going to poll, when they happen to be the same scientist who just happen to get their money from government grants, (the hand that feeds them) and you stack the cards, you will get the answer you want, the only question is how many useful idiots can you get to spread the BS. Twenty hand picked scientist = the following. 19 divided by 20 = 95%, see how easy it is to come up with the number you want? When you start with the answer you want and then adjust the formula to fit the answer, that is not science, when you keep adjusting your formula to stay on track for your predetermined answer, despite the facts showing something else, you lose your credibility and people are going to get wise to the scheme.

        1. River Song says

          Almost all scientists in academia get their funding from government grants. No scientist can get funding for a project that critically examines the governments climate change theories. No conspiracy needed. The government bureaucrats that fund scientific grants want to prove climate change or they believe in climate change, so they only fund proposals to prove climate change. Your research proves climate change or you don’t work any more. That’s why the only scientists speaking out about the climate change hoax are either retired or they work for private companies like the oil companies. The liberals want to shut down the only source of funding for actual objective research into their climate change power-grab/

          1. John Williams says

            I agree 100%

        2. Byron Claghorn says

          Yes 97% (Probably 100%) of all Scientist agree the Earth is undergoing “Climate Change” and it always has for the last ~4.8 Billion Years! And you may be surprised that that is just what the phony research reported.

          A great many of the thousands of actual Climate and other scientists included in the report were actually “Skeptics” & “Deniers” as another Progressive Deception intended to imply there is massive agreement with the Global Warming and Man-Made Climate Change hypothesis (not a theory since it has never been proven to be true using scientific methods, only broad claims, propaganda and man-made models based on flawed assumptions concerning CO2 — Models that predict warming, flooding, catastrophes and even warmer temperatures that never happened when the Global Warming Alarmists (GWA) predicted and WON’T happen!).

          In a congressional hearing, award-winning former NASA Scientist, Dr. Roy Spencer, responsible for the very accurate NASA Satellite Global Temperature Systems & Monitoring of the Earth’s Atmosphere testified that there is no global upper atmosphere warming as one would expect if CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases including the tiny amount by comparison emitted by Man & the use of fossil fuels & only a slightly higher amount of surface warming — All within natural variability! Dr. Spencer said he was surprised that he and many of his many “skeptical” colleagues were included in the 97%, except they certainly “Believe that Climate Change has always been present on Earth since its beginning, just NEVER caused by Man or CO2!”.

          John Williams, they did not “Poll” anyone, they just did an invalid and unscientific search of all literature abstracts regarding the Global Warming / Climate Change topics and merely included all the authors. You are right in assuming they would get more GWA hits since our government subsidizes just about any project that mentions “Global Warming” and denies and persecutes any science project that feature the Sun’s effect on Climate or show that CO2 does not cause significant warming (i.e., The Sun’s warming causes CO2 evaporation that increases its concentration while the Sun is responsible for the Temperature increases — The Opposite of the False Conclusions by Al Gore!).

          This is all explained in this video by Dr. Spencer and other real and honest scientists and the scam promoted by the progressive-movement politicians in an attempt to redistribute the wealth of the USA & Industrialized Nations via Cap & Trade plus control over Energy in the following excellent and truthful video Link:

          https://youtu.be/52Mx0_8YEtg

          1. John Williams says

            Thanks for the information, I will look at that. What these useful idiots like “gotabgood,” if indeed he is simply not a paid troll, fail to understand. Every despot and dictator, our despot in chief included, is drooling at the prospect of something that has the possibility to control every man woman and child on this planet, and the fools who fall for the BS are lining up like lemmings to jump off the cliff willingly.

          2. Byron Claghorn says

            John Williams: Please do look at the very honest and comprehensive video. In part #1 you will see the truth about Man-Made CO2 which is essentially a Non-Problem and how the GWA foundational premise based on CO2 is scientifically proven to be a false premise and assumption.
            Furthermore in part #5, I was surprised to understand how the GWA supposedly beneficial environmental efforts are actually working against the underdeveloped nations keeping them in poverty for their own “Self-Sustaining Energy” profiteering being rationalized on a completely contrived and false narrative of “Saving the World” based on assumptions and premises that are scientifically proven to be unfounded. This was a totally new and valid perspective that I had never considered before — I was simply angry and appalled by the Political Correctness corruption of Climate Science which used to be honorable, but Progressive Politics have totally corrupted it. What is a scientist to do when PC Politics control the funding of research projects, papers and the organizations such as universities, laboratories, NASA (Dr. Hanson is still there who started this GW scam in still a wheel at NASA), etc. Currently government scientists cannot be forthcoming while employed, but you find most of them join the GW/Man-Made Climate Change “Skeptics” movement once they move on or retire!! They are no longer under progressive governmental control and suppression for the most part. Now, to keep the lid on the GWA deception related to Man-Made Climate Change the DNC and others want to prosecute honest scientific inquiry and reporting — Back to the Days of the Prosecution of “Climate-Science” Heretics.
            Finally, Theories are never “Settled” or “Closed” to further scientific findings and truth and science is dead if they do — The Theory becomes a “Closed Religion”, as GWA are now attempting to do!!! The worst part is that the GWA and their ‘high priest’ Al Gore got it all WRONG and many of the GWA even know it, but continue the deception to further their own ambitions. Ambitions which are not to benefit the USA and the World as they would have you believe!

      4. mac12sam12 says

        35% believe in “global warming,” not 97%. The 35% are being paid by the government to push a scam for higher taxes. You loons are so naive.

        1. Elizabethjbly3 says

          <<hp. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!ir379m:….,….

      5. TPM says

        97% of scientists do NOT support this false science. THIS is another LIE, told by progressive government.

        1. gotabgood says

          Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
          http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
          >
          Study: Most Non-Climate Scientists Agree on Global Warming Too
          http://time.com/4051338/climate-change-scientists/

          1. ed28 says

            Screw the opinions. SHOW US THE DATA!!!!! You know, that stuff that real scientists study to come to conclusions.

            By the way, “agreement” is not a part of the scientific methods.

          2. gotabgood says

            “By the way, “agreement” is not a part of the scientific methods.”
            It most certainly is!
            Let’s say a group of us are examining you.. of course we are all doctors/scientist. After the exam we come together to discuss our findings. and we all agree you are crazy and a danger to society. And by you own confession you admit it, you’re crazy!
            “Screw the opinions. SHOW US THE DATA!!!!!”
            Right after I gave you two websites to check out.
            but one more time.

          3. ed28 says

            Agreement has no part in the scientific method. You are completely wrong on the point.

            Please apply your fabricated diagnosis to yourself where it is most appropriate.

          4. gotabgood says

            How could I expect any reasoning or common sense from a brain dead group of people who do not believe in science…

          5. ed28 says

            Now here is why you truly deserve the promotion to the title of Senior Dumbass.

            I will place my scientific credentials up against anyone else’s. The worst position I could come out in is a tie.

            You, you can’t even think like a scientist and it shows to those in the know.

            Again, I am either sorry for your problems or hoping you go get a real education which will teach you exactly what the scientific method entails.

          6. gotabgood says

            Careful, you will break your arm patting yourself on the back… I have heard of one other case of that happening… he was a rightwinger too…

            You may or may not be a scientist…. if you are… you need to broaden your research a little. Like I have been saying… you really don’t need a scientist to prove that the earth is warming and that man is playing a big part of it.
            Smog!
            Removing trees.
            replaced them with buildings and black top.
            I could see the difference in my own yard… I realize that is local… but the news will tell you it is happening locally all over the globe.

          7. River Song says

            That’s because if you don’t support climate change, you don’t get published. The propagandists have a stranglehold on the so-called scientific journals. Consensus is not part of science. No one agreed with Galileo or Einstein when they proposed their theories. The scientific method rests on the individual scientists challenging the existing consensus. Anyone who points to a poll of scientists as proof of anything doesn’t know a thing about science.

          8. gotabgood says

            Do you read???
            Or are you just forever stuck in the cesspool of BS??
            There are signs galore that something is happening.
            Do you know what the word “record” means?
            rec·ord
            noun
            ˈrekərd/
            1.
            a thing constituting a piece of evidence about the past, especially an account of an act or occurrence kept in writing or some other permanent form.
            “identification was made through dental records”
            synonyms: account(s), document(s), documentation, data, file(s), dossier(s), evidence, report(s); More
            2.
            the sum of the past achievements or actions of a person or organization; a person or thing’s previous conduct or performance.
            >
            At the Olympics they break records at every event. Swimmers are getting faster than they EVER WERE BEFORE. On the race track, runners are also breaking the fastest times that EVER WERE BEFORE.
            Our world is also breaking records.
            2012, 1000 heat records were broken in one week, in the USA.
            15 of the last 16 yearly heat records have been broken since 2000.
            We have a string of records being broken 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 is breaking the previous records.
            You know how long it has been since a global cold record has been broken? 90 years!
            Ask yourself some questions..
            Why is Miami installing huge water pumps?
            Why is Norfolk doing the same and building seawalls? Also stopping construction near the ocean.
            Why are villages in Alaska having to move and/or build seawalls?
            Where did a 125 glaciers go in our very own Glacier National Park. In 1910 we had 150 glaciers, today we have 25. what happened?
            You don’t need Al Gore or ANY scientist to tell you something is happening.. In fact if you are 50 or more… you have seen the change!!!!!!!!!

          9. River Song says

            Have you ever studied geology? The recorded weather history is an afternoon on the geologic timescale. We don’t know what “normal” is. The earth has had ice ages and warm ages. Dinosaurs once lived in Montana. The earth may be warming, although if the climate change supporters want to prove that, they need to quit changing the data. Look into how much of the data has been “adjusted” and the adjustments always make it seem hotter now. The very terminology change of “climate change” instead of “global warming” was made due to the inconvenient pause in warming for the last 15 years. The climate always changes. That’s the way it’s designed. Arctic ice is decreasing and Antarctic ice is increasing. Sea level changes. Hurricanes happen. The politics of climate change shortcut science and logic. The climate change believers have to prove a number of their current assumptions. 1. Is the earth as a whole getting hotter? That can be proven by science, but they can’t prove it by faking the records. 2. Is the change man-made or natural? That’s the biggest problem for the propagandists. The climate has swung back and forth from ice ages to warm periods long before humans or the industrial revolution. They have to rule out sunspots and other natural phenomenon. 3. Can we stop it? Even James Hansen, the discoverer of the greenhouse effect, has decided that trying to stop the climate from changing is impossible. He recommends that we stop screwing with carbon and use the money to deal with any ill effects of global warming. Water vapor is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and we can’t control water vapor. Even if we destroy modern industry (which will result in increased human starvation and decreased quality of life), we can’t stop the climate from changing. Humans trying to stop the Earth from warming is the height of arrogance. We don’t have the power and, if we did, we might trigger the next ice age which will kill a lot more people than global warming could. 4. Is controlling carbon dioxide by destroying industries and taxing businesses and individuals an effective solution? We can go on all day about that one. Have you paid any attention to China’s money-making scheme of building and destroying power plants? They build coal-burning power plants. Then, European companies gain carbon credits for their own plants by paying the Chinese government to destroy Chinese power plants. So the Chinese destroy them and build more. Lather, rinse, repeat. China has now surpassed the US as the global producer of carbon dioxide from industrialization. They haven’t signed up to make any changes to their industries. Kerry tried to claim that China’s agreement to measure their carbon dioxide production is meaningful. China’s people are still living on the edge of starvation. They aren’t going to let their people starve because of a manufactured crisis. If you want to stop global warming, then dump all of the air-borne particulate controls the EPA has imposed and encourage industry to pollute like crazy. That will stop the greenhouse effect by clouding the atmosphere. That idea has actually been proposed by some of the loonier climate scientists. I’m not even going to bother going into detail about how politicians both national and international and nongovernmental organizations are using this “crisis” to forward a whole host of personal agendas that have nothing to do with combating climate change. Go do some real research instead of relying on local effects and observations.

          10. gotabgood says

            Sorry, I am not going to read a novel, especially from a skeptic. More references and less opinions.
            Most of your thoughts can and have been proven… say in heat records from local newspapers. I read news from Australia, China, Europe, South America
            Here is a sample..
            >
            Heat records may be broken each day this week as Northeast sizzles
            Thousands of New Yorkers sweltered without power and people in Maryland faced the prospect of going without water as a punishing heat wave tightened its grip on the Northeast.
            With almost the entire country covered in red on the weather map — the Pacific Northwest and Mountain states were baking, too — forecasters warned Tuesday that the East wouldn’t get a break until Friday or Saturday.
            “Records may be broken each day,” said Kevin Roth, lead meteorologist for The Weather Channel. He said humidity and high temperatures would make it feel as hot as 105 degrees in the Northeast.

            Health commissioners in Philadelphia urged people to check on their elderly relatives and neighbors. Temperatures in the city could reach up to 103 degrees – well above the 84 degree average for this time of year.
            http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/16/19499160-heat-records-may-be-broken-each-day-this-week-as-northeast-sizzles?lite
            >
            Longest heatwave since 2006 – and no sign of a cool off
            The first “level three” heat wave alert of the season is expected to be issued later today, which will prompt direct action aimed at reducing casualties among high-risk groups.
            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10184392/Longest-heatwave-since-2006-and-no-sign-of-a-cool-off.html
            >
            • Heat wave shatters temperature records across B.C. – British …
            http://www.cbc.ca/…/story/2013/07/02/bc-heat-wave.html
            British Columbia didn’t quite live up to pre-Canada Day predictions of all-time record shattering heat, but while the mark for the highest-ever Canadian temperature …
            >
            • Record U.S. heat wave leads to 30 deaths – World – CBC News
            http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/…/07/08/united-states-heat-wave.html
            Record U.S. heat wave leads … heat that has killed at least 30 people across half the country. The heat sent temperatures … App Get a world of news with …
            >
            • Record Heat Wave Fuels Wildfires Across Australia – WSJ.com
            online.wsj.com/article/SB… Cached
            WORLD NEWS; January 7, 2013, 1:42 p.m. ET; Record Heat Wave Fuels Wildfires Across Australia Tuesday Forecast of 109 Degrees Creates ‘Worst Fire-Danger Day’
            >
            • Heat wave: 1,000+ records fall in USA in a week – USATODAY.com
            usatoday30.usatoday.com/…/heat-records/55874718/1 Cached
            http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/news/story/2012-06-27/heat-records/55874718/1
            It’s not a mirage. Across the United States, hundreds of heat … that’s a healthy heat wave … The week’s best weather photos from around the world.
            2013 Alaska Heat Wave: Record-Breaking Temperatures Bake 49th …
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/baked-alaska-unusual... Cached
            [Jun 19, 2013] 2013 Alaska Heat Wave: Record-Breaking Temperatures Bake … the African continent … every single peer reviewed science academy in the world,
            >
            Pakistan wilts under record heat wave – Features – Al Jazeera …
            http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/06/... Cached
            Pakistan wilts under record heat wave More common as a … 04 Jun 2013 13:59. … vice president for the Asia region at the World Meteorological Department, ..
            >
            • Heat Wave in India Triggers Power Outages, Exhaustion –NTDTV.org
            ntdtv.org/en/news/world/asia/2013-05-25/heat-wave-in… Cached
            A searing heat wave in India has caused power outages and showed no sign of abating on Thursday. Some tourists in Jammu and Kashmir said they had travelled from …
            >
            • Heat wave marks end of rainy season in Tokyo | The Japan Times
            http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/07/06/national/heat-wave...
            A heat wave enveloped much of Japan on Saturday, … World | ANALYSIS U.S. has spotty record on aid cuts after coups … 2013 Article history.
            Asia Sentinel – The 2013 Global Food Outlook
            http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=... Cached
            Does the world face another food crisis in 2013? … which experienced record heat waves and droughts in … We aren’t. Subscribe to Asia Sentinel. Click here to ..

            • Russian Heat Wave Breaking Records, Taking Toll on Lives, Crops
            http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/russian-heat-wave... Cached
            An unusually long heat wave in the Russian heartland, which has already ranked the summer among the three hottest on record, has taken a toll on lives and crops …

          11. River Song says

            As I said before, human weather records only cover a time period equal to an afternoon by geologic standards. Temperature records have been broken before and they will be broken again. Temperature records in individual areas, even areas as big as regions of the US, are no more meaningful than record cold temperatures in the winter. If the climate is actually changing there should be record warm temperatures during winter as well as record heat during summer. We haven’t been seeing record warm winters, certainly not where I live. But, arguing from weather events doesn’t say anything about the global climate. That’s why it’s no more meaningful to point to the “Al Gore Effect” of record cold and snow everywhere he goes in order to disprove climate change. I don’t think it’s unlikely that the climate is getting warmer. Despite the 15-year warming pause and the faked records by the NASA and other climate change believer, I think that global warming is probably occurring. However, now you have to prove that it’s man-made and not part of a natural cycle. Just proving that warming is occurring doesn’t get you anywhere close to prove the whole religion of climate change. You have to prove that warming is occurring, that it’s not part of a natural cycle, that the earth’s feedback systems won’t contain that warming as part of a reversible cycle, that warming is a net bad thing, that the damage/costs of warming is greater than the damage/costs of trying to stop it, that it can be stopped, that CO2 controls are an effective way to fight it (what about methane and water vapor?) and that the people, politicians, governments, and non-governmental organizations are truly focusing on fighting warming, not on gaining power or redistributing wealth. If you want to be honest, you have to prove all of those issues before people will give informed consent for changes to their quality of life. Currently the climate change believers are just screaming that we’re all going to die unless we give them all of our money. Didn’t work for Jim Bakker. Why should it work for them?

          12. gotabgood says

            As I said before, I do not want your opinions… they are worthless… and I give you many websites… NOT from a scientist point of view but from local news and I KNOW YOU DID NOT READ THEM!!!!
            If science cannot prove anything beyond recorded time… then neither can you. You have no idea what it was like 300 years ago, not a lone 2000 or more years ago. You cannot accept the scientific view on one point and discharge them on another… at least be consistent in views.
            No body is screaming you are going to die…. they are saying you are going to relocate… the people in Southern Florida will be knocking on your door for bed and breakfast..

          13. River Song says

            I am a professional scientist. I have studied chemistry, geology, and physics. I know about the fossil records. I have studied geologic history and climatology. Local news and weather events don’t prove anything about the global climate. Have you ever heard of the urban heat island effect? Look it up on Google. Cities change their local climate. They cause the local area to warm and they cause clouds to drop more rain. That’s proven meteorological fact. That’s not global climate change. Your own temperature graph above shows the pause in warming after 2001. Look at it carefully.

            I will even stipulate that the Earth’s climate is warming. Let’s set that aside. Now you have to prove that it’s man-made, not a natural cycle, that it’s caused by CO2 (which isn’t the only greenhouse gas because there’s also methane and water vapor), and that the warming can be stopped by changing human behavior. Look at the latest IPCC report. Even the International Panel on Climate Change is only talking about warming in tenths of a degree and sea level change of a few inches. A few inches of sea level change isn’t going to flood Florida. Even if it does, New Orleans, Venice and the Netherlands have been living below sea level for generations. Maybe it makes more sense to build dikes than to upend the industrial base. Maybe that discussion should be held instead of the single-minded drive to cripple industry that is more focused on controlling people than controlling the climate.

            Like it or not, the Earth isn’t operated for the benefit of humans. We evolved during a relatively calm period of climate. Climate swings from ice ages to warming periods are the norm. As the climate goes through it’s cycles we have to adapt. We can’t stop it. We need all of our industrial tools, money, and technical know-how to adapt to natural change.

          14. gotabgood says

            Excuse the length of this post. Your message brought out so many thoughts, I will answer in the body of your message
            I am a professional scientist. I have studied chemistry, geology, and physics. I know about the fossil records. I have studied geologic history and climatology. Local news and weather events don’t prove anything about the global climate. Have you ever heard of the urban heat island effect? Look it up on Google. Cities change their local climate. They cause the local area to warm and they cause clouds to drop more rain. That’s proven meteorological fact. That’s not global climate change.
            That IS manmade global warming to the letter ‘T’! The point I am trying to make and maybe the scientist too.. if nature didn’t cause it, man did. If you are going to have a marshmallow roast and build a fire, you are contributing, no matter how small, to 1) generating heat that normally wouldn’t be present. 2) the smoke you generate is not going anywhere. What we make, what we throw away, doesn’t just disappear. You being a scientist know better than I what things are and what aren’t biodegradable, CO2, plants, trees and ocean creatures, (can’t think of the name) eat CO2. And they try to keep things in balance. But with each new home built throughout the world, it takes a tree. With each news paper that rolls off the press, there goes a tree. Forest fires by nature or by man kill 1000’s of acres of forest. We have fires, which then turn into mud slides, to wash away the top soil into rivers and lakes. The cycle is endless.

            Your own temperature graph above shows the pause in warming after 2001. Look at it carefully.
            There is a ton of difference between climate and weather. If you notice on the chart it has spikes, one year extreme cold, the next year extreme heat, that is weather. If you notice the closer we get to the 21st century the cold temps, equal some of the high temps of just a few years ago… meaning the highs are higher and the colds are also higher. The trend is up!
            I will even stipulate that the Earth’s climate is warming. Let’s set that aside.
            With that in mind, let me tell you that it isn’t something that just occurred this week. In 1850 Our Glacier National Park had 150 glaciers. In 1910 when the park became official. It had 150 glaciers. So from those figures we can assume the temperatures remained pretty much even. They didn’t gain any glaciers and they didn’t lose any. Today we have 25 glaciers. From 1910 to this day something has changed to lose 125 glaciers. Nature has been the same for as long as we can remember… but man has changed. We became industrialized. With that came power plants either burning wood or coal. Coal is an extremely dirty pollutant. And wood, it is twofold the problem, first you cut the tree down and then burn it to add CO2. Then the automobiles, trains, trucks, buses, steel mills and on and on it goes. Where once was a forest/woods, there now is a shopping mall with a blacktop parking surface, which retains more heat than grass or dirt.

            Now you have to prove that it’s man-made, not a natural cycle, that it’s caused by CO2 (which isn’t the only greenhouse gas because there’s also methane and water vapor), and that the warming can be stopped by changing human behavior. Look at the latest IPCC report. Even the International Panel on Climate Change is only talking about warming in tenths of a degree and sea level change of a few inches. A few inches of sea level change isn’t going to flood Florida. Even if it does, New Orleans, Venice and the Netherlands have been living below sea level for generations. Maybe it makes more sense to build dikes than to upend the industrial base. Maybe that discussion should be held instead of the single-minded drive to cripple industry that is more focused on controlling people than controlling the climate.
            You have to realize, once again this has been going on for a 100 years. So a tenth of a degree a100 years ago, which coal burning was out of control, it only takes 10 years to have a full degree.. which by the chart it is easy to see that happening. Keep in mind this is global warming, not someone back yard or even a state or a country. In fact percentage wise the arctic is where the temps are rising at a faster rate. As for our coastal cities.. they are already being flooded. Miami has spent millions of dollars for water pumps, Norfolk and NYC are doing the same. Yes a few inches, what will that hurt, nothing, except those few inches are being added to the already rising waters. Islands have already sunk. Other islands villages are having to move. Parking lots by the ocean are being flooded. Keep in mind, they did not build a village, or cities or parking lots in the water, they built them on dry ground.. but now they are being flooded.

            Like it or not, the Earth isn’t operated for the benefit of humans.
            I guess that depends on how you look at things and how the earth came about. In either case our world has all the necessary elements to sustain life. None of our closest planets share this.
            We evolved during a relatively calm period of climate. Climate swings from ice ages to warming periods are the norm. As the climate goes through it’s cycles we have to adapt. We can’t stop it. We need all of our industrial tools, money, and technical know-how to adapt to natural change.
            Maybe.. I say again, maybe what you say is true, but we have to leave that at speculation at best. But let’s say the earth does go through these drastic changes every billion years or so. This cycle earth has a helper.. MAN! From the marshmallow roast to the coal burning power plant, we add heat and gases into an environment that has less CO2 eating plants/microorganism. Plus like you said we now have Methane gas being released by fracking, but also since the ice caps are melting in the Arctic, they have discovered the gas leaking from there too. On a cloud filled night, it is warmer than on a cloudless night, because the clouds hold the heat in. Smog over our cities will actually block the sun, much like the clouds do and will retain the heat also. Then add to that buildings, streets, highways, then the countless planes, trains, cars, farm equipment, earth movers, all giving out heat, all giving out pollution, power plants.. this is world wide. When you put your hands over your camp fire it gives off heat! You sit downwind of a fire the smoke will burn your eyes.. now multiply that by 400 zillion and you have what the USA contributes, now let’s add the rest of the world!!

          15. River Song says

            You are comparing apples and oranges and mislabeling them as well. We are discussing global climate change that is theoretically caused by increased greenhouse gases and that can be stopped by controls on burning fossil fuels. The urban heat island effect is a local effect, not global, that is caused by cities. The increased temperature around cities is caused by asphalt and concrete, instead of grasslands, and heat sources. It has nothing to do with carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. The graph that you copied above is global temperature and it shows the temperature leveling out about 2001, which is why the activists had to change the name from global warming to climate change. The pause in warming during a time that carbon dioxide has increased shows the problems with assuming that global warming is caused by industrial activity.

            Have you ever studied history or geology? The natural cycles of ice ages and warm periods isn’t something that I have made up. It’s fact, based on the fossil record, ice cores, and other evidence. How can you claim to support science but ignore basic geology? Look at historical accounts. People used to ice-skate on the Thames River as it passed through London, during the Medieval cold period.

            You really need to do some research. The Earth has gone through temperature cycles ever since it existed. It’s not proven that human activities have any effect on those cycles. There are a lot of environmental problems that can be attributed to human activity, but global warming isn’t proven to be one of those. If you look at the research, smog – consisting of particulates – actually shades the Earth and decreases warming. You don’t have the background or knowledge to know what you’re talking about. You are just looking at isolated events and making assumptions as to the cause.

          16. gotabgood says

            I am not comparing apples to oranges. If you will, we live in a sphere. What goes on inside this sphere affects the whole sphere, nothing escapes, it can be diluted, with water or atmosphere, but it is still here. In the case of CO2, it can be food and then converted back O2.
            Ever had the privilege of heating with a wood stove? It is a central heat and as the stove heats up it radiates heat to different areas of the house. That house, if you will can act like our sphere of the world. If your wife burns the pancakes, the smoke and smell in the kitchen is strong, but it also travels to the back bedrooms and the kids come out and say I smell something burning.
            Everything in that house affects the whole house. If you fart in the bedroom, you hope it gets diluted enough so other will not smell it, smile.. but it is still there.. it didn’t vanish.
            Same with the campfire. It adds heat and smoke to the sphere! There is no such thing as doing something locally and have it not affect the whole.
            Here is a good example of something that happened locally and a lot of Europe was exposed..Chernobyl. It caused radiation alarms to go off in Sweden. Another local event affected the whole world.
            The May 18, 1980 eruptive column at Mount St. Helens fluctuated in height through the day, but the eruption subsided by late afternoon. By early May 19, the eruption had stopped. By that time the ash cloud had spread to the central United States. Two days later, even though the ash cloud had become more diffuse, fine ash was detected by systems used to monitor air pollution, (unseen by the eye, but was still there), in several cities of the northeastern United States. Some of the ash drifted around the globe within about 2 weeks.
            As for what happened 1,000 or 1,000,000 years ago.. Your religion has to be science… I mean you surrender to it, believe it and maybe live it. The opposite is true in the Christian world, with the earth and all the happenings within a 6000 year period. I do not want this to go into a ‘evolution’ vs ‘creation’ thing. Nobody that we can talk to was an eye witness to either of the events.. We are here now. Life is a miracle which no one can deny and the brain of man… even the eye… astonishing. baffles the best of scientist. Maybe explain how it works, but to duplicate it…? a camera falls way short!
            The blacktop and well, cities in general have a ton to do with retaining heat.
            It is all about global warming. And particles in the air that hold the heat in… which in turn warms the planet up, causing ice to melt to fill the oceans.
            If you were to measure the temperature of the desert at night with a cloud filled sky, it would be cooler than that of the city under the same condition.
            I also realize that the same smog that holds the heat, will also shade the sun. But I think you will agree that day time temperatures are warmer than night time. The smog/clouds or CO2 particles retain the heat.
            They have suet covering the glaciers in the Arctic… which also retains heat, rather than reflect it away.
            This is getting way too long.
            By the way, I like the conversation… instead of you telling me I am a Will Penny or a nut case, you are presenting your case… I think it is called a debate…

          17. pineapple says

            FRAUD WILL COST US DEARLY

            Brian Sussman is a conservative radio talk show host in ultraliberal San Francisco, and a former award winning television meteorologist and science reporter.

            Global warming is caused by variations in the amount of radiant energy emitted by the sun, and happens about every 1500 years. (See “Unstoppable global Warming Every 1500 Years” by Fred singer and Dennis Avery.)

            Al Gore is profiteering from the global warming hoax.

            While campaigning for President, Senator O’Bama said that under his plan for cap-and-trade, electricity rates would “necessarily sky rocket.”

            He also said that coal companies would become bankrupt.

            Congress refused to approve a cap-and-trade bill, so President O’Bama by-passed Congress directed the EPA to declare carbon dioxide as a “pollutant.”

            The EPA is forcing coal fired power plants to shut down.

            Electricity will be rationed and the cost to consumers will be in the billions.

            Houses will be required to have remotely controlled thermostats which will be controlled by power companies in order to ration energy consumption.

            If you read Climategate, you will learn the following:

            GORE THE CHARLATAN
            Al Gore is a charlatan who has made millions on the global warming scare, and is poised to enrich himself further by trading carbon credits on the Chicago Carbon Exchange, along with President Obama.

            Also, Gore leaves a carbon footprint the size of a medium sized town, with his multiple mansions, SUVs, and his private jet which spews carbon dioxide as he flits around the globe attending global warming conferences.
            His movie “An Inconvenient Truth ”contains convenient lies.

            For example, his graph showing a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels corresponding to a rise in atmospheric temperature conveniently leaves out the fact that atmospheric temperatures rose several hundred years BEFORE atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose.

            This is because, as atmospheric temperatures rose, (due to increased radiant energy from the sun), ocean temperatures eventually rose, and the solubility of carbon dioxide in the oceans decreased, causing carbon dioxide to evolve from the oceans. Also, as atmospheric temperatures decreased,(due to decreased radiant energy from the sun), ocean temperatures eventually decreased, causing carbon dioxide to be reabsorbed by the oceans.
            The transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the oceans takes several hundred years due to the massive amount of water in the oceans.

            SETTLED SCIENCE?
            Al Gore said the science is “settled”, and that global warming is man-made.

            The 1992 Heidelberg Appeal was signed by 4,000 scientists, including seventy-two Nobel Prize winners—all skeptics of man-caused global warming. There is no consensus that global warming is man-made.

            Pseudo scientists who hype man-made global warming derive their incomes from government grants, thus they have an incentive to fan the flame of man-made global warming in order to continue to receive these government grants.

            Leading the charge in the fight against the climate liars is Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe.

            Included in Senator Inhofe’s roster is one of the dozen people who walked on the moon: Dr. Harrison Schmidt (Apollo 17, 1992). Schmidt, a Ph. D. geologist, shocked many by resigning from the highbrow Planetary Society that was founded by Carl Sagan. The society’s stated mission is “to inspire the people of the earth to explore other worlds, understand our own, and seek life elsewhere.” Predictably, this organization dove headfirst into the global warming tank.

            Unable to subject himself to such folly, Schmidt, who in the 1970’s also served as a U.S. Senator, presented a resignation statement.

            “As a geologist, I have Earth observations. But, it is ridiculous to tie this objective to a “consensus” that humans are causing global warming when human experience, geologic data, and history, and current cooling can argue otherwise.”

            The senator’s all star list includes a winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics, Dr. Ivar Giaever, who stated: “I am a skeptic….Global warming has become a new religion.”

            And the compilation of brain power reflects the thoughts of a former member of Greenpeace, Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland and author of more than 200 scientific publications: “So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.”

            Government scientist Stanlry B. Goldberg of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Hurricane Research Division, said : “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic (manmade) global warming.”

            Another prominent scientist to sign on to Inhofe’s report is Joanne Simpson, the first woman to receive a Ph. D. in meteorology. The preeminent Dr. Simpson, formerly of NASA, has authored more than 190 scientific studies. She, too, has had enough. :Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical….The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.”

            GREENHOUSE GASES
            It’s astounding to note that, of the gases on our atmosphere, the amount of carbon dioxide is almost imperceptible. By percentage, the gases are ordered as follows:

            Nitrogen 78.1%
            Oxygen 20.9%
            Water vapor 0.40%
            Argon 0.90%
            Carbon dioxide 0.038%
            Neon 0.002%
            Helium 0.005%
            Methane 0.002%
            Krypton 0.001%
            Hydrogen 0.0005%
            Nitrous oxide 0.0003%
            Ozone 0.000004%
            Carbon monoxide trace

            Carbon dioxide only accounts for a scant 38 thousandths of a percent of our planet’s atmosphere. It is known as a variable gas because, like water vapor, is has historically fluctuated. And what percentage of the miniscule amount of CO2 is produced by the activities of man, including the utilization of fossil fuels? According to a thorough analysis by the Carbon dioxide Information Analysis Center, a research wing of the U.S. Department of Energy, it is only 3.207 percent.(Stated another way, man-made carbon dioxide constitutes only .00126 % of the earth’s atmosphere.) All of this hoopla over an atmospheric component so minute, it is difficult to comprehend.
            Allow me to repeat this critical fact;

            Carbon dioxide comprises 38/1000ths of the earth’s atmosphere, and of that amount, a mere 3 percent is
            generated by mankind.

            Furthermore, nitrous oxide is 310 times more capable of retaining the sun’s heat than carbon dioxide.
            However, nitrous oxide is not vilified by global warming alarmists as is carbon dioxide. The reason for this is that nitrous oxide can not be attributed to fossil fuels and is also more difficult to measure and tax like carbon dioxide.

            GLOBAL COOLING
            According to the U.S. Historical Climatology Network archives, the temperature has warmed only 0.5 degrees F since the mid-1980s.

            Tossing out corrupted USHCN data, there has actually been a net-cooling since 1930—during the same period in which atmospheric CO2 has noticeably increased.

            Since 2007, global temperatures are engaged in a significant downward spiral, with government data illustrating a bit more than a one degree F (0.65 degrees C) drop in temperature between 2007 and 2008 alone.

            MEDIEVEL WARMING PERIOD
            A warming period occurred during the middle ages, during which ice melted in Greenland to such an extent that Norse settlers were able to establish farms in Greenland. This Medieval warming period was followed by a mini-ice age, during which rivers in Europe froze over. These events occurred before the advent of fossil fuels, and thus can not be blamed on the use of fossil fuels.

            Global warming alarmists published the infamous “hockey stick” graph which purportedly “proved” man-made global warming, beginning with the use of fossil fuels. This graph was manipulated to exclude the medieval warming period and the subsequent mini ice- age.

            FOLLOW THE MONEY
            Sussman was provided information from a friend “Dave” who wanted to remain anonymous.
            As I sifted through the details Dave provided, my convictions were confirmed; many of those fiercely peddling anthropogenic (manmade) global warming are consumed by the love of money and stand to profit greatly from the perpetuation of this fraud.
            I believe such motives are currently driving General Electric (GE). GE is a major manufacturer of SmartMeters, the leading global manufacturer of wind turbines, and one of the nation’s premier appliance manufacturers.
            They also have an influential hand in solar panel production and are the primary producer of those obnoxious, toxic, curlicue compact fluorescent bulbs. The global warming scam continues, and will continue, to be the best thing that’s happened to GE since its founder, Thomas Edison, invented the incandescent light bulb that revolutionized the entire world; an incredible irony, given his invention has since been vilified and, thanks to the federal 2007 Energy Independence Act, is set to be outlawed by 2020.

            Cries of climate change are bailing out GE’s otherwise
            Lackluster business enterprise and their lobbying efforts clearly demonstrate their dependence on this environmental hoax for survival. In the fourth quarter of 2008, as the company’s stock fell 30%, GE spent $4.26 million lobbying Congress to get their share of the then-forthcoming stimulus aid and global warming legislation anticipated to be signed into law under incoming President O’Bama—that equals $46,304 of daily lobbying , including weekends and holidays. All told, GE’s 2008 lobbying bill
            amounted to $18.66 million. And, NBC, GE’s television network, has devoted millions of dollars of free air-time to further the global warming deception.

            Without the boost they’re getting from the global warming scare, GE would likely go the way of Westinghouse—into the tomb of once-great American companies that crashed and burned because of poor management. But give GE politically- correct credit their CEO, Jeff Immelt, played his crony cards perfectly. He was a big supporter of O’Bama and, consequently, was awarded with a seat on the president’s White House Economic Recovery Advisory board.

            MY SILICON VALLEY MOLE
            In chapter 5, I briefly introduced you to a man (Dave) with whom I was acquainted through a charity to which we both contributed.
            Germane to the premise of this book, Dave fully grasps what is about to happen to his country, my country, our country.
            “The coming energy shortage is about controlling our lives, and a host of complicit players, who believe such control is necessary and appropriate, are working with government to assure this.” , he told me over coffee in Cupertino, just a few blocks from Apple’s headquarters in the heart of Silicon Valley. “These players are big fish from the financial world and from here in the Valley: Goldman Sachs, Kleiner Perkins, Google, GE, Microsoft, IBM.”
            “What are their motives?” I asked.

            “It’s two-fold. For some, it’s a pure profit play. They’re privy to the analyses that don’t make it into the Wall Street Journal. The global economy is teetering on the brink of collapse, nearly every country on the planet is over leveraged, and these money guys are looking at perhaps the last big opportunity of their lifetime.”

            “Like a ‘green bubble’, instead of the Internet bubble of the ‘90s,” I interjected.

            “Exactly. Private entrepreneurs with little a slick Power Point presentation, a star-studded board of director, and an unproven idea for saving the environment will be funded by the venture guys. The valuations of the newly-funded companies will increase, eventually they’ll get purchased by a bigger company, and the venture guys will get paid back handsomely. A few years down the line, the bigger company will discover the business they bought is worthless, or they’ll just fold and go under—like 80 percent of the Internet companies did. It’s a bubble where jobs in Sand Hill Road [ where many of the Silicon Valley’s venture firms are located] will score.

            “But the government’s plans for things like the SmartGrid, keeping us from drilling for our own oil and natural gas, stopping nuclear energy, cap-and-trade—how can these money guys be so willing to let America go-to-hell?”

            I’ve heard you talk about Marx’s Laws of Matter on the radio—these people are elitists. They believe Marx had some good ideas.”

            “What about global warming, are they believers?”

            “They are just like Al Gore—they believe in money.”

            Our conversation concluded with Dave reaching into his satchel and retrieving a stack of documents tow inches thick.

            “I’ve heard your theories on the SmartGrid. They are spot on. The government will be able to control every electrified component of your house. “Now’, he said, handing me the stack, “here’s some paperwork on the money trail associated with the grid, plus who’s going to become rich from cap-and-trade. There’s a lot here about my ‘pal’ Al too. I’m not giving you anything that’s classified; it’s all pretty much open source. This’ll just save you a couple years worth of research,” he exclaimed with a hearty laugh.

            IT STARTS WITH YOUR THERMOSTAT

            During the first week of January in 2008, a caller to my radio program alerted me to proposed revisions in the gargantuan, 230-page California Building Code. The changes, he said, were being stealthily concocted by the California Energy Commission, and mandated that remotely controlled home thermostats be installed in all new or remodeled homes or in existing homes in which the furnace or air conditioner was being replaced.
            Conducting an immediate investigation, I learned the caller was correct. The plan involved a new technology known as the Programmable Communication Thermostat, or PCT. Embedded within the PCT is an FM radio receiver, which would allow energy authorities to control home temperatures.

            SMARTGRIDDERS: GOOGLE, MICROSOFT, AND IBM
            Within Dave’s stack of stuff were documents revealing the significant stakes technology giants Google, Microsoft, and IBM have in developing components critical to the completion of the national SmartGrid. My own personal research indicated that personnel at these three companies were also financially in bed with Obama, and, in some cases, advisors to his campaign and presidency.

            According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Google employees and family members contributed more than $790,000 to Obama’s campaign, Microsoft’s people gave more than $806,000, and those working for IBM contributed more than $518,000. In contrast, Republican presidential nominee John McCain received about $20,000 from Google employees, $63,000 from Microsoft’s, and $52,000from IBM’s.

            Because of his business interests, Dave has spent considerable time on the Google campus. According to his description of the search engine’s corporate culture, their belief in anthropogenic (manmade) global warming is almost cult-like–and for obvious reasons. For starters, Al Gore is on their advisory board. Dan Reicher, Google’s Director of Climate Change (they actually have such a division) reportedly assisted with the Cleantech for Obama committee, which raised about $2 million in campaign contributions. Reicher was also a member of the Obama transition team and is thought to have been on the shortlist for the energy secretary position. Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt, who also vigorously campaigned for Obama, has attended White House economic summits and reportedly was considered for the administration’s technology czar.

            O’BAMA AND THE CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE

            “The CCX (Chicago Climate Exchange) is an institution created with the sole purpose of being ready for the day when carbon trading in the United States will be the law of the land, complete with federal rules and regulations, much like the way carbon trading is conducted in Europe on the European Exchange.” , Dave told me. “Betting on CCX to become the designated carbon trading depot is as easy as picking the sun to rise in the east tomorrow morning, especially since Obama and Gore have ties to the company.

            It’s true, Research reveals Obama and Gore ARE in on this. While living in Chicago, Obama served as a board member of the radical, nonprofit Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2001. Joyce is perhaps the foremost advocate of trying to suck the individual right to bear arms from the Second Amendment. According to Ed Barnes of Fox News, in 2000 and 2001 “the Joyce Foundation gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were instrumental in developing and launching the privately owned Chicago Climate Exchange.”

            When the foundation made its first grant to the Climate Exchange, Joyce’s president was Paula DiPerna. DiPerna left the organization in 2001 to become a founding executive vice president of CCX. In 2009, Barnes interviewed DiPerma and asked about Obama’s role in the 2000 and 2001 grants. She replied that, as a director, Obama “read the proposal and voted on the grant.”

            And some of America’s biggest moneymakers are lining up to get in on this new Chicago-based cash cow by skimming a cut right off the top.

            “Every time a carbon credit is sold or purchased, “Dave explained to me, “somebody will get a slice of the transaction—a fee. And, just like the way they trade in the commodities market, these smart investors will buy bulk-loads of credits on the cheap, and then position themselves to sell the credits to needy businesses for great profit. Carbon dioxide will be the new currency.”

            While perfectly legal because the law will allow it, as it always does when immorality is legislated, these greedy, conscienceless investors will rape and plunder our once-great nation with hearty political approval. And, of course, at the front of the line is Al Gore, in perfect position to cash in on his decades-worth of global warming hysteria. Dave agrees with reports that indicate the Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Gore.

            CAPPED AND PLAYED
            The rush to build and implement the SmartGrid is timed to coincide with the coming planned mass energy shortage known as cap-and-trade. Cap-and-trade will eventually eliminate America’s energy suppliers, dismantle our manufacturing base, increase every citizen’s day-to-day living expenses, and be used as the honey pot for a host of welfare projects. It will enable the elitists to accomplish their goal to “de-develop” the United States.

            Every oil refinery, natural gas producer, electric utility company—any entity involved in the production of energy—will be limited by the EPA as to their allowable amount of CO2 emissions. That’s the “cap”, and the cap will decrease each year. Likewise, other major carbon emitting industries, such as steel, cement, glass, paper, lumber, mining, welding, airlines, trucking, and manufacturing, will also be hit wit a cap based on an annual estimate of the tons of carbon dioxide each business releases into the atmosphere. Businesses will be assigned carbon “permits” corresponding to the EPA-determined standards. One can only imagine the tremendous opportunity for graft, corruption, and favoritism carbon permits will allow and encourage.
            If it is determined that any company in these carbon-emitting industries has exceeded their annual carbon permit quota, they may purchase “emission credits” from the government-approved exchange to offset their CO2 emissions — that’s the “trade”.

            GULF POWER CO.

            Representatives of the Gulf Power Co. say that the EPA’s new global warming mercury emissions rules could result in the shuttering of three of its current coal-fired power plants and bring higher energy prices to consumers.
            According to Gulf Power official Jeff Rogers:
            “We won’t know what the impact will be until the new rules come out and we can actually evaluate them. But our feeling is that coal-fired plants would be at risk.”
            The new rules could cost Gulf Power up to $2.5 billion and other divisions of the company as much as $18 billion to comply. The 400,000 customers of Gulf Power would see their electricity rates go up.
            Gulf Power recently spent $500 million to build a scrubber plant in Pensacola that removes 80% of oxidized mercury. The new EPA standard could be 90%. The new scrubber plant wasn’t built to remove 90%
            If the EPA is so concerned about mercury emissions, why not ban mercury filled CFL bulbs? These bulbs will end up in landfills where the mercury will leach into rivers, underground aquifers, and eventually into the food chain.

            It appears that the EPA is more concerned about pushing cap and trade restrictions than protecting the environment.

            In Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Maryland six coal-fueled power plants are being shut down by first Energy because the retrofitting the power plants will have to undergo to satisfy the EPA’s draconian rules is just too expensive to justify.

            These shutdowns will cause the loss of over 500 jobs initially.

            Douglas Gotham, director of the State Utility Forecasting Group, for instance, says that rate hikes are on the way in Indiana, as well, and all because of Obama’s onerous new EPA regulations.

            This is exactly what Obama wants. In 2007, he sat down with the San Francisco Chronicle and said that he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry and that our rates would “necessarily skyrocket”?

            This does not bode well for hybrid cars which rely on electricity, especially since 45% of U.S. power plants use coal.

            Last September, EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution rule cost 500 jobs in Texas.

            In his testimony, EPA Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus admitted last April that jobs are not part of their determinations.

            The EPA has declared carbon dioxide as a “pollutant”.
            If carbon dioxide is a “pollutant”, then each time we exhale, we are “polluting“ the environment. If the “pollutant”, carbon dioxide, is removed from the atmosphere, then photosynthesis will cease and plants will die. Without plants to produce oxygen, animals (including humans) will also die.

            Ironically, global warming will still continue every 1500 years due to cyclic variations in the radiation emitted from the sun. (See “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years” by Fred singer and Dennis Avery.)

            President O’Bama and global warming zealots are destroying the U.S. economy under the false guise of reducing global warming.

            THE UTILITY MACT RULE
            The following are excerpts from “Alabama Currents” magazine. The author is Fred D. Clarke Jr., president of Alabama Municipal Electric Authority.

            “So here we go again. On Dec. 21, 2011, EPA released its final rule requiring maximum achievable control technology for mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from power plants. The rule, called the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (known in the electricity industry as the “utility MACT rule”) will impose additional significant costs to consumers.

            Here are some main points of concern:
            It is one of the most expensive rules that EPA ever proposed.
            I would take one of our nation’s most abundant energy resources—coal—off the table as a source of energy for new power plants.
            EPA is moving too fast, and its rush included numerous data and technological errors.
            EPA underestimates the costs of the rule. Significant emissions reductions are already being achieved uder current regulations.

            The utility MACT rule “is expected to be the most expensive rule the agency has ever imposed on our nation’s power sector.” the Energy Commerce Committee said on its website. EPA’s estimates “do not provide the total ‘sticker price’ of the rule, but only a share of those costs assigned to three select years: $9.4 billion in 2015, $8.6 billion in 2030, and $7.4 billion in 2030. EPA documentation states that annualized estimates assume utilities would take 30 to 40 years to pay off compliance costs.

            Customers and communities in the Southeast have been struggling with the economic recession and unacceptably high unemployment rates. This unprecedented, and ill-timed transformation of the nation’s electricity infrastructure will only impede the U.S. economic recovery, reduce our ability to create jobs and add to the economic burdens of our customers.”

          18. gotabgood says

            I am sorry… on a better day I would spend more time on your novel. So forgive me… but you are wrong.
            What Al Gore did or did not say doesn’t interest me at all. He was the first one with a loud voice that said, “We have to change”. And since that time period, we haven’t, but the earth has. And if you would spend half as much looking at why this is happening NOW.. not 1500 or 15,000 years ago. It would be very plain that this world is changing. Since we have been keeping records IN OUR LIFE TIME. around 1880-1910, we have set 14 out of 15 years, (ALL IN THE 21st CENTURY),GLOBAL heat records… soon to be 15 out of 16, 2016 is on course to break last years records.
            We can talk about a million years ago, or a billion years ago, this same exact thing happened.. well then it should be a giant warning to us all, for that civilization or animal kingdom or insect rule, is GONE!
            There are more jobs in renewable energy than in oil, gas, and coal combined (notice.. reference) http://grist.org/business-technology/there-are-more-jobs-in-renewable-energy-than-in-oil-gas-and-coal-combined/
            Fossil fuel is and long past due of joining its ancestors deep in the ground to live out their eternity together, buried! They served their purpose.
            A billion years ago, we have NO WAY of knowing, but maybe that civilization was more advanced than ours and had ways to test the particles and gases in the atmosphere and even gave warnings, maybe Albert Gorbert was the leader back then… and we had a Republican party that love to make fun of him and laugh at all his warnings, because things didn’t happen EXACTLY like he said it would…. but they are gone now.
            When we cut down, burn our oxygen plants, the CO2 converters to O2 called trees and the rest of the plant life that converts also… that means we have an excess of HARMFUL CO2.. go breath an exhaust pipe if you differ from that remark.
            Furthermore, nitrous oxide is 310 times more capable of retaining the sun’s heat than carbon dioxide. You mean the laughing gas which is harmless?? The dentist used it or use to.
            It is easy to write down BS and when you combine sooooooo much into a novel as you wrote to me and then I have to spend my time looking up each of your statements WITHOUT any references…. I could be a week just on your post and then my reply would most likely be longer than yours… so.. no thanks. Especially when you want to go back 1500 years or more. It reminds me of the blind men being lead to an elephant and told to describe the elephant before them. One has an ear, the other a leg, another the trunk, another the side, Is what they describe an elephant? partly true, but there is so much more to their “speculation”!
            Beijing uses coal fired power plants. They boast they will be coal free by 2020. But in the mean time.. this is what the people have to put up with. That is SMOG.. there was no help from Mother Nature in making that… totally man-made! Now you can go there and analyze all the different gases if you want.. I am satisfied knowing it is man-made, we call it smog and it is harmful to our respiratory system.
            People built homes and villages all over this world close to the water… BUT on dry land! Now those people wish they had built somewhere else. Islands have sunk/sinking, villages have to move and/or building seawalls. Large cities are installing water pumps at the tune of millions of dollars. Louisiana is disappearing right before our eyes, parking lots near beaches are being flooded by “HIGH TIDES” not storms.
            Now you can sit back and say this has all happened before and nothing to worry about…. you will have refugees knocking on your door for a dry room…. refugees not from some far off distant country, but from our own coastal cities.
            Don’t do the ostrich thing…

          19. pineapple says

            For your edification concerning the global warming hoax, I recommend that you read the following books.
            “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years” by S. Freed Singer and Dennis T. Avery
            “Warming and Environmentalism” by Christopher Horner
            “The Really Inconvenient Truths” by Ian Murray
            “Climategate” by veteran meteorologist Brian Sussman.
            “Red Hot Lies” by Christopher C. Horner.
            Since you will probably choose to remain ignorant and not read any of these books, I offer the article below. (I gave credit to the author lest you accuse me of plagiarism again.)

            Your Move, Global Warming Alarmists, Science has Exposed Your Unwarranted Hysteria.
            By Peter Ferrara
            Who will decide American public policy on the issue of potentially catastrophic man caused global warming? The answer is you and me, through the democratic process that governs our country.
            So spare me the comments saying Shut Up, you are not a scientist and your commentary here is not peer reviewed scientific literature, so you have no business even talking about it. That is an anti-democratic, brown shirt tactic meant to foreclose public discussion and debate, which has been the dominant strategy of those trying to force their unwelcome ideological agenda on the rest of us through this issue. What does that alone tell you about who is right about the actual science?
            But citizens participating in the democratic process do have a responsibility to become informed about the scientific debate over global warming. And that is my function here in focusing on the publication this week of Climate Change Reconsidered II, authored by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and published by the Heartland Institute. The NIPCC
            “is an international panel of scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. NIPCC has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency. It is wholly independent of political pressures or influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations. NIPCC seeks to objectively analyze and interpret data and facts without conforming to any specific agenda. This organizational structure and purpose stand in contrast to those of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solution.”
            I can attest to you that the team of 50 scientists producing the 1,200 pages of calm, reasoned, dispassionate science in the report did achieve their goal of objectively analyzing and interpreting data and facts without conforming to any specific agenda. They carefully demonstrate the inconvenient facts about the world’s climate discussed below, and when you have that any politicization would just detract from the presentation, as Al Gore shows in his global warming political harangues.
            The report is “comprehensive, objective, and faithful to the scientific method.” Moreover, it is “double peer reviewed,” in that it discusses thousands of peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals, and is itself peer reviewed. That is in sharp contrast to President Obama’s own EPA, which issued its “endangerment finding” legally authorizing regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, without submitting the finding to its own peer review board established by federal law precisely for that purpose. What were they so afraid of if 97% of scientists supposedly agree with them? That violation of federal law has now been challenged in court, and is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. But this would not be the first time that the Administration of this lawless President has openly flouted the law.
            Check out Climate Change Reconsidered II for yourself. It is the top, No. 1, presentation of the other side to the Democrat Party’s controlled media on the issue. If you want to see what that is, this is your one stop source. If you personally want to believe that using the traditional, carbon based energy sources that have fueled the Industrial Revolution and modern prosperity will destroy the planet, and that we can fuel the modern economy with windmills and dancing on sunbeams at minimal net cost, then it is your personal right to pursue your alternative reality fully ignorant of your errors.
            The authors of the report do not deny that there is some effect of warming the planet from mankind’s emissions of CO2, primarily from use of traditional carbon fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas. The argument is over how big of an effect that is, how that compares to natural causes of climate change, and whether the human caused effect threatens a catastrophe, or even severe distress, to human civilization and the environment. The conclusion of the report is that the U.N.’s IPCC has exaggerated the amount of global warming likely to occur due to mankind’s emissions of CO2, and the warming that human civilization will cause as a result “is likely to be modest and cause no net harm to the global environment or to human well-being.” The primary, dominant cause of global climate change is natural causes, not human effects, the report concludes. “The hypothesis of human-caused global warming comes up short not merely of ‘full scientific certainty’ but of reasonable certainty or even plausibility,” the report states.
            The fundamentals of the argument is that CO2 is not some toxic industrial gas, but a natural, trace gas constituting just 0.038% of the atmosphere. For readers disadvantaged by excessive exposure to the party propaganda organ called the New York Times, that is less than 4/100ths of one percent. The report states, “At the current level of 400 parts per million, we still live in a CO2-starved world. Atmospheric levels (of CO2) 15 times greater existed during the pre-Cambrian period (about 550 million years ago) without known adverse effects,” such as catastrophic global warming.
            Moreover, CO2 is actually essential to all life on the planet. Plants need CO2 to grow and conduct photosynthesis, which is the natural process that creates food for animals and fish at the bottom of the food chain. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere that has occurred due to human emissions has actually increased agricultural growth and output as a result, causing actually an increased greening of the planet. So has any warming caused by such human emissions, as minor warming increases agricultural growth. The report states, “CO2 is a vital nutrient used by plants in photosynthesis. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere ‘greens’ the planet and helps feed the growing human population.”
            In addition, the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically. Or as the report says, “Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)…exerts a diminishing warming effect as its concentration increases.” That means there is a natural limit to how much increased CO2 can effectively warm the planet, as the effect of more and more CO2 ultimately becomes negligible as CO2 concentration grows. Maybe that is why even with many times more CO2 in the atmosphere in the deep past, there was no catastrophic global warming.
            What has been devastating to the theory of catastrophic, man caused, global warming is that there has been no significant increase in global temperatures for 16 years, even a slight cooling in more recent years. Yet, during that time mankind’s emissions of CO2 that were supposed to be causing global warming continued to explode, with one third of all CO2 added to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution occurring during this period. The Economist magazine shocked the global warming establishment with an article in March that began with this lede:
            “OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, ‘the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade. . . .’”
            The facts recounted above are not in actual dispute, even though several commenters relying on too much party controlled media were shocked to hear last April that anyone could think that global warming stopped 16 years ago. But these facts already demonstrate that the theory of catastrophic, anthropogenic, global warming is dubious at best.
            Climate Change Reconsidered II explains the argument of the UN’s IPCC that the world is still threatened with global warming catastrophe, which will be repeated in the next IPCC report in a few weeks. What is shocking is to see is how meager the argument is for the great, global warming bogeyman. You are welcome to check out the UN report to see for yourself.
            The supposedly scientific foundation for the IPCC argument is based on the temperature projections of 73 global climate models developed by various scientists favored by the IPCC. These climate models are not science. They are literally speculative stories about the climate, especially since exactly zero of the models have been validated by past temperature experience. The scientific method involves testing a falsifiable hypothesis with experiments and evidence. Speculative model projections do not involve any such falsifiable hypothesis, and are not an exercise of the scientific method.
            Even the modelers themselves recognize and admit that their models are not even designed to produce predictions of future temperatures, but just “what if” projections of the results of unproven assumptions, to provide some indications, not scientific proof, of possible future scenarios. The Climate Change Reconsidered report states, “The science literature is replete with admissions by leading climate modelers that forcings and feedback are not sufficiently well understood, that data are insufficient or too unreliable, and that computer power is insufficient to resolve important climate processes.”
            Moreover, none of the models take into account the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean temperature cycles resulting from the churning of colder water from the deep to the surface, where it is warmed by the sun, which have been shown to affect global temperatures. None of the models take into account as well solar activity cycles such as variations in solar magnetic fields or in the flux of cosmic rays, which are also known to significantly affect climate, and have produced major climate changes of the past, such as the Little Ice Age, particularly pronounced from roughly 1650 AD to 1850 AD, the Medieval Warm period from about 950 AD to 1250 AD, during which global temperatures were higher than today, and the early 20th century Warming Period from 1910 to 1940 AD.
            These are the reasons why the projections of all of these models have now diverged so strongly from the actual temperatures experienced over the past 15 years, and further back for most all, even back to the 1980s, as shown in the nearby graph. The actual atmospheric temperatures as recorded by U.S. weather satellites and weather balloons are shown by the two lines at the bottom of the graph, connecting the squares or the circles. The average of the temperature models is the solid line going through the spaghetti of lines representing the projections of each of the models, well above the real world temperatures, with the divergence growing and growing. The source of that graph is Dr. Roy Spencer, award winning NASA scientist monitoring the global atmospheric temperatures as measured by U.S. satellites, and a contributor to Climate Change Reconsidered, as produced for testimony before the Environment and Public Works Committee of the United States Senate. Spencer, R.W. 2013. Statement to the Environment and Public Works Committee, 19 July 2013, Washington, DC. This sharp divergence of the projections of the IPCC models has been another devastating development for the theory of catastrophic, man caused, global warming.
            Besides the models, the UN’s IPCC tries to argue that circumstantial evidence is consistent with its theory of catastrophic, man caused global warming if it were true. This again is not the scientific method. As Karl Popper explained, “observations in science are useful to falsify hypotheses, and cannot [rigorously] prove” any hypothesis is correct. In other words, the true scientific method involves a null hypothesis which is the logical opposite of the hypothesis being explored, and is assumed correct until the evidence proves it false. That is because experimental or physical evidence can only rigorously prove something false, not prove it true.

            But as Climate Change Reconsidered explains, “the IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis [catastrophic, man-caused global warming is real] is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and make plausible arguments in the hypothesis’s favor.” This is political science, not actual science.
            Climate Change Reconsidered shows that it is the evidence that the IPCC tries to marshall in favor of its catastrophic, man caused, global warming hypothesis that is false, falsifying the hypothesis. The Climate Change report states, “Global sea ice cover remains similar in area to that at the start of satellite observations in 1979, with ice shrinkage in the Arctic Ocean since then being offset by growth around Antartica.” In other words, polar ice is not melting or disappearing globally. The report adds, “The data on global glacial history and ice mass balance do not support the claims made by the IPCC that CO2 emissions are causing most glaciers today to retreat and melt.”
            The report also states, “Sea level rise is not accelerating. The global average sea level continues to increase at its long term rate of 1-2 millimeters per year….Unusual sea-level rise is therefore not drowning Pacific coral islands, nor are the islands being abandoned by ‘climate refugees.’” In other words, yeah, the sea level has been rising. Exactly the same as it has been for thousands of years, since the end of the last actual Ice Age. It has nothin
            Moreover, the pattern of global temperature change has not followed rising atmospheric CO2 since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. It follows instead the up and down patterns of ocean churning temperature cycles and of solar activity, such as sun spots that were so influential in causing the Little Ice Age that ended roughly a couple of hundred years ago. That is one reason why Climate Change Reconsidered concludes that natural causes, not human factors like CO2 emissions, have predominated in causing climate change.
            Indeed, the Climate Change Reconsidered report states, “The recently quiet Sun and extrapolation of solar cycle patterns into the future suggest a planetary cooling may occur over the next few decades.” That follows my own reporting in recent columns in this space of the potential rise of a long term temperature decline based on these solar trends, which is the first reporting on such developments anywhere near the establishment press in increasingly repressed America. Much of our national press these days behaves voluntarily in regard to the Obama Administration the way that the old Soviet press used to do under compulsion in regard to the old communist dictatorships in the now dissolved old Soviet Union.
            One small town California columnist published a criticism of one of my previous columns on this subject in this space using a chart fed to him by a local environmental propagandist. The hapless local dutifully published the chart fed to him showing a line supposedly representing global temperatures in the 20th century with a sharp upward slope. The line was drawn through the real temperature history of cyclical ups and downs representing the actual cyclical natural causes of global temperature changes. But the overconfident local columnist, gleefully repeating that the graph proved man caused ultimately catastrophic global warming was real, also failed to notice that the scale on his graph was in tenths of a degree. He should go back to his source and ask for a graph of 19th century global temperature increases on the same scale, which would show a far sharper upward slope. Were CO2 emissions higher in the 19th century than in the 20th? Or maybe the dominant factor was the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century, a natural not human cause.
            Enough has been discussed already to logically and indeed scientifically disprove, or falsify, the invasive theory of catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming. But Climate Change Reconsidered provides another 1200 pages of logical and scientific argument, backed up by thousands of peer reviewed citations that could not all be discussed here. If your head hurts at this point because of overexposure to the New York Times and the resulting disconnection or alienation from reality, Climate Change Reconsidered is the cure for what ails you.

          20. gotabgood says

            Sorry…you and your so-called “scientist” are full of BS..
            Anyone with a ounce of intelligence can look around you and see for yourself it is happening. It is visual.. If only the bad part of global warming was smog… that in itself should cause alarm to you nitwits…. it is not breathable!!!

          21. pineapple says

            Do you believe in global warming?
            >
            > Worth reading!
            > This is very interesting—(no one has challenged this)
            >
            > Author’s credentials:
            > Ian Rutherford Plimer
            > is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at
            > the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the
            > University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral
            > exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific
            > papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.
            >
            > Born
            > 12 February 1946 (age 68)
            > Residence
            > Australia
            > Nationality
            > Australian
            > Fields
            > Earth Science,Geology,Mining Engineering
            > Institutions
            > University of New England,University of Newcastle,University of
            > Melbourne,University of Adelaide
            > Almamater
            > University of New South Wales, Macquarie University
            > Thesis
            > The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern
            > Australia(1976)
            > Â
            > Notable awards
            > Eureka Prize (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal(2003), Clarke Medal(2004)
            >
            > Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
            > Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
            > If you’ve read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.
            >
            > PLIMER: “Okay, here’s the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in
            > Iceland. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR
            > DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five
            > years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you. Of
            > course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying
            > to suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant
            > requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us
            > humans and all animal life. I know it’s very disheartening to
            > realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have
            > accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of
            > driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till
            > midnight to finish your kids “The Green Revolution” science
            > project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies,
            > using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your
            > toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing
            > at home instead of abroad. Nearly getting hit every day on your
            > bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00
            > light bulbs.
            >
            > Well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the
            > tubes in just four days. The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s
            > atmosphere in just four days – yes, FOUR DAYS – by that volcano in
            > Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to
            > reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active
            > volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time –
            > EVERY DAY. I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but
            > I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the
            > Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the
            > atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years
            > on earth. Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over One year –
            > think about it. Of course, I shouldn’t spoil this ‘touchy-feely
            > tree-hugging’ moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic
            > activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and
            > cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely
            > insignificant efforts to affect climate change. And I do wish I had
            > a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the
            > matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and
            > Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon
            > in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every
            > year. Just remember that your government just tried to impose a
            > whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus ‘human-
            > caused’ climate-change scenario. Hey, isn’t it interesting how
            > they don’t mention ‘Global Warming’ anymore, but just ‘Climate
            > Change’- you know why?
            >
            > It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past
            > century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their
            > pants down. And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an
            > Emissions Trading Scheme – that whopping new tax – imposed on you
            > that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It
            > won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure. But,
            > hey, relax and have a nice day anyway.

          22. gotabgood says

            Actually I appreciate what you have done.
            Volcanoes are a natural happening been around since the earth was formed. CO2 then was caused by nature.. no man around then… or at least cars and power plants.
            But coming up to the 21st.. the volcanoes have help now. The volcanoes can rest while we pump pollution into the air 24/7/365, from power plants. And not just from one continent, but from all continents, all day and every day. Then forest fires.. adds heat, pollute and destroys our oxygen manufactures…. trees and plants. Not just from the natural fires such as in lightening strikes. I am talking about clearing the Rain Forest, or a careless camper.. or in some cases we have nut cases who start fires on purpose. Yes Mother Nature has a helper now.. a big helper… man!

          23. Jumpin' Jack Flash says

            The Hilt/Onummer
            For Prison 2016 !!!

          24. pineapple says

            For your edification concerning the global warming hoax, I recommend that you read the following books.
            “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years” by S. Freed Singer and Dennis T. Avery
            “Warming and Environmentalism” by Christopher Horner
            “The Really Inconvenient Truths” by Ian Murray
            “Climategate” by veteran meteorologist Brian Sussman.
            “Red Hot Lies” by Christopher C. Horner.
            Since you will probably choose to remain ignorant and not read any of these books, I offer the article below. (I gave credit to the author lest you accuse me of plagiarism again.)

            Your Move, Global Warming Alarmists, Science has Exposed Your Unwarranted Hysteria.
            By Peter Ferrara
            Who will decide American public policy on the issue of potentially catastrophic man caused global warming? The answer is you and me, through the democratic process that governs our country.
            So spare me the comments saying Shut Up, you are not a scientist and your commentary here is not peer reviewed scientific literature, so you have no business even talking about it. That is an anti-democratic, brown shirt tactic meant to foreclose public discussion and debate, which has been the dominant strategy of those trying to force their unwelcome ideological agenda on the rest of us through this issue. What does that alone tell you about who is right about the actual science?
            But citizens participating in the democratic process do have a responsibility to become informed about the scientific debate over global warming. And that is my function here in focusing on the publication this week of Climate Change Reconsidered II, authored by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and published by the Heartland Institute. The NIPCC
            “is an international panel of scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. NIPCC has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency. It is wholly independent of political pressures or influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations. NIPCC seeks to objectively analyze and interpret data and facts without conforming to any specific agenda. This organizational structure and purpose stand in contrast to those of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solution.”
            I can attest to you that the team of 50 scientists producing the 1,200 pages of calm, reasoned, dispassionate science in the report did achieve their goal of objectively analyzing and interpreting data and facts without conforming to any specific agenda. They carefully demonstrate the inconvenient facts about the world’s climate discussed below, and when you have that any politicization would just detract from the presentation, as Al Gore shows in his global warming political harangues.
            The report is “comprehensive, objective, and faithful to the scientific method.” Moreover, it is “double peer reviewed,” in that it discusses thousands of peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals, and is itself peer reviewed. That is in sharp contrast to President Obama’s own EPA, which issued its “endangerment finding” legally authorizing regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, without submitting the finding to its own peer review board established by federal law precisely for that purpose. What were they so afraid of if 97% of scientists supposedly agree with them? That violation of federal law has now been challenged in court, and is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. But this would not be the first time that the Administration of this lawless President has openly flouted the law.
            Check out Climate Change Reconsidered II for yourself. It is the top, No. 1, presentation of the other side to the Democrat Party’s controlled media on the issue. If you want to see what that is, this is your one stop source. If you personally want to believe that using the traditional, carbon based energy sources that have fueled the Industrial Revolution and modern prosperity will destroy the planet, and that we can fuel the modern economy with windmills and dancing on sunbeams at minimal net cost, then it is your personal right to pursue your alternative reality fully ignorant of your errors.
            The authors of the report do not deny that there is some effect of warming the planet from mankind’s emissions of CO2, primarily from use of traditional carbon fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas. The argument is over how big of an effect that is, how that compares to natural causes of climate change, and whether the human caused effect threatens a catastrophe, or even severe distress, to human civilization and the environment. The conclusion of the report is that the U.N.’s IPCC has exaggerated the amount of global warming likely to occur due to mankind’s emissions of CO2, and the warming that human civilization will cause as a result “is likely to be modest and cause no net harm to the global environment or to human well-being.” The primary, dominant cause of global climate change is natural causes, not human effects, the report concludes. “The hypothesis of human-caused global warming comes up short not merely of ‘full scientific certainty’ but of reasonable certainty or even plausibility,” the report states.
            The fundamentals of the argument is that CO2 is not some toxic industrial gas, but a natural, trace gas constituting just 0.038% of the atmosphere. For readers disadvantaged by excessive exposure to the party propaganda organ called the New York Times, that is less than 4/100ths of one percent. The report states, “At the current level of 400 parts per million, we still live in a CO2-starved world. Atmospheric levels (of CO2) 15 times greater existed during the pre-Cambrian period (about 550 million years ago) without known adverse effects,” such as catastrophic global warming.
            Moreover, CO2 is actually essential to all life on the planet. Plants need CO2 to grow and conduct photosynthesis, which is the natural process that creates food for animals and fish at the bottom of the food chain. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere that has occurred due to human emissions has actually increased agricultural growth and output as a result, causing actually an increased greening of the planet. So has any warming caused by such human emissions, as minor warming increases agricultural growth. The report states, “CO2 is a vital nutrient used by plants in photosynthesis. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere ‘greens’ the planet and helps feed the growing human population.”
            In addition, the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically. Or as the report says, “Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)…exerts a diminishing warming effect as its concentration increases.” That means there is a natural limit to how much increased CO2 can effectively warm the planet, as the effect of more and more CO2 ultimately becomes negligible as CO2 concentration grows. Maybe that is why even with many times more CO2 in the atmosphere in the deep past, there was no catastrophic global warming.
            What has been devastating to the theory of catastrophic, man caused, global warming is that there has been no significant increase in global temperatures for 16 years, even a slight cooling in more recent years. Yet, during that time mankind’s emissions of CO2 that were supposed to be causing global warming continued to explode, with one third of all CO2 added to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution occurring during this period. The Economist magazine shocked the global warming establishment with an article in March that began with this lede:
            “OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, ‘the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade. . . .’”
            The facts recounted above are not in actual dispute, even though several commenters relying on too much party controlled media were shocked to hear last April that anyone could think that global warming stopped 16 years ago. But these facts already demonstrate that the theory of catastrophic, anthropogenic, global warming is dubious at best.
            Climate Change Reconsidered II explains the argument of the UN’s IPCC that the world is still threatened with global warming catastrophe, which will be repeated in the next IPCC report in a few weeks. What is shocking is to see is how meager the argument is for the great, global warming bogeyman. You are welcome to check out the UN report to see for yourself.
            The supposedly scientific foundation for the IPCC argument is based on the temperature projections of 73 global climate models developed by various scientists favored by the IPCC. These climate models are not science. They are literally speculative stories about the climate, especially since exactly zero of the models have been validated by past temperature experience. The scientific method involves testing a falsifiable hypothesis with experiments and evidence. Speculative model projections do not involve any such falsifiable hypothesis, and are not an exercise of the scientific method.
            Even the modelers themselves recognize and admit that their models are not even designed to produce predictions of future temperatures, but just “what if” projections of the results of unproven assumptions, to provide some indications, not scientific proof, of possible future scenarios. The Climate Change Reconsidered report states, “The science literature is replete with admissions by leading climate modelers that forcings and feedback are not sufficiently well understood, that data are insufficient or too unreliable, and that computer power is insufficient to resolve important climate processes.”
            Moreover, none of the models take into account the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean temperature cycles resulting from the churning of colder water from the deep to the surface, where it is warmed by the sun, which have been shown to affect global temperatures. None of the models take into account as well solar activity cycles such as variations in solar magnetic fields or in the flux of cosmic rays, which are also known to significantly affect climate, and have produced major climate changes of the past, such as the Little Ice Age, particularly pronounced from roughly 1650 AD to 1850 AD, the Medieval Warm period from about 950 AD to 1250 AD, during which global temperatures were higher than today, and the early 20th century Warming Period from 1910 to 1940 AD.
            These are the reasons why the projections of all of these models have now diverged so strongly from the actual temperatures experienced over the past 15 years, and further back for most all, even back to the 1980s, as shown in the nearby graph. The actual atmospheric temperatures as recorded by U.S. weather satellites and weather balloons are shown by the two lines at the bottom of the graph, connecting the squares or the circles. The average of the temperature models is the solid line going through the spaghetti of lines representing the projections of each of the models, well above the real world temperatures, with the divergence growing and growing. The source of that graph is Dr. Roy Spencer, award winning NASA scientist monitoring the global atmospheric temperatures as measured by U.S. satellites, and a contributor to Climate Change Reconsidered, as produced for testimony before the Environment and Public Works Committee of the United States Senate. Spencer, R.W. 2013. Statement to the Environment and Public Works Committee, 19 July 2013, Washington, DC. This sharp divergence of the projections of the IPCC models has been another devastating development for the theory of catastrophic, man caused, global warming.
            Besides the models, the UN’s IPCC tries to argue that circumstantial evidence is consistent with its theory of catastrophic, man caused global warming if it were true. This again is not the scientific method. As Karl Popper explained, “observations in science are useful to falsify hypotheses, and cannot [rigorously] prove” any hypothesis is correct. In other words, the true scientific method involves a null hypothesis which is the logical opposite of the hypothesis being explored, and is assumed correct until the evidence proves it false. That is because experimental or physical evidence can only rigorously prove something false, not prove it true.

            But as Climate Change Reconsidered explains, “the IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis [catastrophic, man-caused global warming is real] is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and make plausible arguments in the hypothesis’s favor.” This is political science, not actual science.
            Climate Change Reconsidered shows that it is the evidence that the IPCC tries to marshall in favor of its catastrophic, man caused, global warming hypothesis that is false, falsifying the hypothesis. The Climate Change report states, “Global sea ice cover remains similar in area to that at the start of satellite observations in 1979, with ice shrinkage in the Arctic Ocean since then being offset by growth around Antartica.” In other words, polar ice is not melting or disappearing globally. The report adds, “The data on global glacial history and ice mass balance do not support the claims made by the IPCC that CO2 emissions are causing most glaciers today to retreat and melt.”
            The report also states, “Sea level rise is not accelerating. The global average sea level continues to increase at its long term rate of 1-2 millimeters per year….Unusual sea-level rise is therefore not drowning Pacific coral islands, nor are the islands being abandoned by ‘climate refugees.’” In other words, yeah, the sea level has been rising. Exactly the same as it has been for thousands of years, since the end of the last actual Ice Age. It has nothin
            Moreover, the pattern of global temperature change has not followed rising atmospheric CO2 since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. It follows instead the up and down patterns of ocean churning temperature cycles and of solar activity, such as sun spots that were so influential in causing the Little Ice Age that ended roughly a couple of hundred years ago. That is one reason why Climate Change Reconsidered concludes that natural causes, not human factors like CO2 emissions, have predominated in causing climate change.
            Indeed, the Climate Change Reconsidered report states, “The recently quiet Sun and extrapolation of solar cycle patterns into the future suggest a planetary cooling may occur over the next few decades.” That follows my own reporting in recent columns in this space of the potential rise of a long term temperature decline based on these solar trends, which is the first reporting on such developments anywhere near the establishment press in increasingly repressed America. Much of our national press these days behaves voluntarily in regard to the Obama Administration the way that the old Soviet press used to do under compulsion in regard to the old communist dictatorships in the now dissolved old Soviet Union.
            One small town California columnist published a criticism of one of my previous columns on this subject in this space using a chart fed to him by a local environmental propagandist. The hapless local dutifully published the chart fed to him showing a line supposedly representing global temperatures in the 20th century with a sharp upward slope. The line was drawn through the real temperature history of cyclical ups and downs representing the actual cyclical natural causes of global temperature changes. But the overconfident local columnist, gleefully repeating that the graph proved man caused ultimately catastrophic global warming was real, also failed to notice that the scale on his graph was in tenths of a degree. He should go back to his source and ask for a graph of 19th century global temperature increases on the same scale, which would show a far sharper upward slope. Were CO2 emissions higher in the 19th century than in the 20th? Or maybe the dominant factor was the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century, a natural not human cause.
            Enough has been discussed already to logically and indeed scientifically disprove, or falsify, the invasive theory of catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming. But Climate Change Reconsidered provides another 1200 pages of logical and scientific argument, backed up by thousands of peer reviewed citations that could not all be discussed here. If your head hurts at this point because of overexposure to the New York Times and the resulting disconnection or alienation from reality, Climate Change Reconsidered is the cure for what ails you.

          25. pineapple says

            Global Cooling? Great Lakes Experiencing Deepest Freeze in 25 Years
            Share
            By Timothy H. Lee
            Thursday, January 23 2014
            [G]lobal temperatures are constantly warming and cooling, as the geological history of the Great Lakes shows

            Want to stump a global warming alarmist?

            Just ask him to describe how the Great Lakes were originally formed.

            At over 94,000 square miles, the Great Lakes
            constitute the largest group of freshwater lakes on Earth, and possess
            fully 21% of its surface fresh water. Lake Superior alone is the
            world’s largest continental lake, while Lake Michigan claims the title
            of largest freshwater lake entirely within one nation’s borders.

            And how were those enormous lakes formed? By
            fluctuating climate change approximately 10,000 years ago, as the Ice
            Age ended and giant glaciers receded so dramatically that they carved
            massive basins into the continental crust. In other words, long before
            the first internal combustion engine or coal-fired electrical plant, the
            planet experienced a global warming period so pronounced that the
            world’s largest freshwater lakes were formed. Imagine the hysteria and
            politicized attempts to place blame if that was underway today.

            That geological history regained relevance this
            week, as another severe winter freeze descended upon the nation amid the
            ongoing climate change cacophony. Specifically, the Great Lakes are
            currently experiencing their greatest level of freezing in 25 years.
            That was several years before Al Gore inflicted “Earth in the Balance”
            upon the public.

            The continually discredited Al Gore aside, The Wall Street Journal detailed the surprising magnitude of the new global cooling crisis this week:

            “The Midwest hasn’t
            had this much ice on the Great Lakes and other bodies of water this
            early in the season for decades, and another blast of cold is expected
            this week. Wind chills as low as 40 degrees below zero are forecast for
            the Upper Midwest, according to the National Weather Service… About
            60% of the Great Lakes will be under ice cover for the months of January
            and February, predicts George Leshkevich, a scientist with the Great
            Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, part of the National Oceanic
            and Atmospheric Administration. During the past three decades, the
            average maximum freeze-over has only been about 50% each year. Last
            year, it was roughly 38%. It has been 25 years since the lakes have had
            this much ice this early, said Mark Gill, director of vessel traffic
            services with the U.S. Coast Guard in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, which
            hit minus-16 degrees on January 3.”

            Over at the National Aeronautics and Space
            Administration (NASA), meanwhile, climatologists also confirmed that the
            nearly two-decade plateau in global surface temperatures continued in
            2013. According to Gavin Schmidt, a scientist at NASA’s Goddard
            Institute for Space Studies, “The trends over the last ten to fifteen
            years compared to the trends before that do appear to be lower than they
            were.” He continued, “We’ve been looking at this in separate work, and
            partially it seems to be a function of internal variability in the
            system, so the fact is that we’ve had more La Nina-like conditions over
            the last few years compared to earlier in the 2000s or in the late
            1990s.”

            According to climate change alarmists, however, that should not have happened.

            Consider that in the two decades since 1997, when
            that temperature plateau began, China, India and other undeveloped
            nations have industrialized on a massive scale, meaning enormous
            increases in human carbon output. The United States, Europe and other
            industrialized nations have also continued to grow, continuing their
            carbon output levels as well. Yet none of the parallel and consequent
            increase in global temperatures has occurred, despite confident
            predictions from global warming alarmists.

            “Given that the estimates that the average decadal
            increase in global surface temperature is 0.2 degrees Celsius, the
            world is now 0.3 degrees cooler than it should have been,” said BBC
            astrophysicist and science editor David Whitehouse. “The pause in
            global surface temperature that began in 1997, according to some
            estimates, continues,” he added. “Statistically speaking, there has
            been no trend in global temperatures over this period.”

            So we’ve now experienced a global temperature
            plateau more enduring than the brief warming period that triggered the
            current politicized global warming movement in the first place. As
            illustrated by infamous high-profile reports from The New York Times,
            Paul Ehrlich, Newsweek and Time in the mid-1970s, global cooling was
            the supposed climate crisis that decade. Yet an even longer period of
            temperature stability hasn’t moderated their confidence or rhetoric.

            Perhaps they’ll simply begin claiming that climate stability is its own crisis.

            Regardless, global temperatures are constantly
            warming and cooling, as the geological history of the Great Lakes
            shows. It’s something for climate alarmists to reconsider, as they ice
            skate over portions that haven’t been this frozen since Ronald Reagan
            was still in the White House and Al Gore was just a Senator.

          26. pineapple says

            You appear to be an expert on this subject. What, may I ask are your scientific qualifications?

          27. gotabgood says

            I search a lot… read a lot and mostly just pay attention to what is happening….
            Like for instance, they have a hurricane that will be traveling up the Eastern coast. I will be watching and listening to the things that take place…. so should you…

          28. pineapple says

            You dodged the question.

          29. gotabgood says

            No I didn’t. I answered it.
            I just didn’t answer it the way you wanted me too… such is life.
            Watch the storm, you might learn something.

          30. pineapple says

            I would like to thank you for giving me a forum to expose global warming zealots like you for what they really are, namely: shrill, dogmatic, pedantic, condescending, illogical, and without a shred of scientific credibility. Also, all have a hidden agenda, namely to push for one world order, and to tax the living hell out of consumers with carbon cap and trade schemes. They also use personal insults to divert attention away from the fact that they can not support their position with facts and logic.
            You people are a cult whose high priest is Al gore. This cult’s objective is to redistribute the wealth of Americans to third world countries by means of cap and trade laws applied on an international scale. The Kyoto Accords are a prime example of this chicanery.
            Supposedly, the proceeds from these carbon taxes were to be distributed to third world countries as compensation for not having a high standard of living like the U.S. The motive is to punish the U.S. and other countries for having a high standard of living when other countries do not.
            European nations who blindly signed this accord are having second thoughts. Luckily, Bush and the Republicans did not go along with this idiotic scheme, which would have made the current recession even worse.
            Unfortunately, Obama fell for this scheme, and promised that, under his plan, electricity rates would “necessarily skyrocket”.
            He has allowed the EPA to shut down coal fired power plants by imposing regulations that are impossible to meet.
            He also got the wimpy Supreme Court to declare CO2 to be a pollutant. This means that each time we exhale, we are “polluting” the atmosphere. If only liberals would just stop exhaling, there would be much less CO2 “pollutants” entering the atmosphere. Also the world would be better off in many other ways.
            Meanwhile, Obama pushes for the replacement of incandescent bulbs with mercury filled bulbs, which will really pollute the environment with mercury. (Bush started this, but Obama has made it worse.)

            Concerning the books I recommended for you to read, you call the authors “con men”. Some hold Doctorate Degrees, not just Masters Degrees. They are all much better versed on the subject of global warming than you are, or ever will be.

            I see where your friend and mentor, Al Gore, has a solution to the so called global warming crisis. See the following article.
            Al Gore once again suggests ‘fertility management’ to fight global warming
            Posted on HYPERLINK “http://conservativebyte.com/2014/01/al-gore-suggests-fertility-management-fight-global-warming/” o “1:18 pm” January 28, 2014
            Liberals want to control every aspect of your life and will use whatever lie they can come up with as an excuse.
            Check it out:
            Former Vice HYPERLINK “http://patriotdepot.com/anti-obama-shirts/” t “_blank” President Al Gore raised eyebrows last week when he suggested that “fertility management” was the key to fighting global warming and promoting economic development in poor countries. Gore’s comments drew criticism from free-marketeers who said his remarks amount to “eco-imperialism.”
            “Gore’s agenda for saving the world from global warming has always included population control,” Myron Ebell, director of global warming and international environmental policy at the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, told The Daily Caller HYPERLINK “http://patriotupdate.com” t “_blank” News Foundation. “Advocating population control specifically for Africa is just another form of imperialism. Gore’s eco-imperialism is uncomfortably close to the original racist goals of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who advocated population control in order to control the number of black and brown people in the world.”
            The world is expected to have more than 9 billion people by 2075, with much of that growth coming from developing countries in Africa. This is alarming to environmental activists like Gore, who argues that “fertility management” is needed to address a whole slew of global development issues, including mitigating global warming.
            HYPERLINK “http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/27/al-gore-once-again-suggests-fertility-management-to-fight-global-warming/” o “Al Gore once again suggests ‘fertility management’ to fight global warming” t “_new” Continue Reading on dailycaller.com …

            Read more at HYPERLINK “http://conservativebyte.com/2014/01/al-gore-suggests-fertility-management-fight-global-warming/” l “6mtWVJulWJBZ5356.99” http://conservativebyte.com/2014/01/al-gore-suggests-fertility-management-fight-global-warming/#6mtWVJulWJBZ5356.99

            P.S. I am tired of doing your damn research. From now on , you will have to do your own.

          31. gotabgood says

            I would like to thank you for giving me a forum to expose global warming zealots
            I didn’t get past this sentence… you start out your BS with talk like this…. and I know the rest can’t get any better..

          32. pineapple says

            You dodged the question probably because you have no scientific qualifications.

          33. Jumpin' Jack Flash says

            Hey Pin Head
            The Sky is Falling !
            Duck !!!

          34. gotabgood says

            Are you trying to be a dictator?

          35. Jumpin' Jack Flash says

            Looks like your lunch !

      6. pineapple says

        For your edification concerning the global warming hoax, I recommend that you read the following books.
        “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years” by S. Freed Singer and Dennis T. Avery
        “Warming and Environmentalism” by Christopher Horner
        “The Really Inconvenient Truths” by Ian Murray
        “Climategate” by veteran meteorologist Brian Sussman.
        “Red Hot Lies” by Christopher C. Horner.
        Since you will probably choose to remain ignorant and not read any of these books, I offer the article below. (I gave credit to the author lest you accuse me of plagiarism again.)

        Your Move, Global Warming Alarmists, Science has Exposed Your Unwarranted Hysteria.
        By Peter Ferrara
        Who will decide American public policy on the issue of potentially catastrophic man caused global warming? The answer is you and me, through the democratic process that governs our country.
        So spare me the comments saying Shut Up, you are not a scientist and your commentary here is not peer reviewed scientific literature, so you have no business even talking about it. That is an anti-democratic, brown shirt tactic meant to foreclose public discussion and debate, which has been the dominant strategy of those trying to force their unwelcome ideological agenda on the rest of us through this issue. What does that alone tell you about who is right about the actual science?
        But citizens participating in the democratic process do have a responsibility to become informed about the scientific debate over global warming. And that is my function here in focusing on the publication this week of Climate Change Reconsidered II, authored by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and published by the Heartland Institute. The NIPCC
        “is an international panel of scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. NIPCC has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency. It is wholly independent of political pressures or influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations. NIPCC seeks to objectively analyze and interpret data and facts without conforming to any specific agenda. This organizational structure and purpose stand in contrast to those of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solution.”
        I can attest to you that the team of 50 scientists producing the 1,200 pages of calm, reasoned, dispassionate science in the report did achieve their goal of objectively analyzing and interpreting data and facts without conforming to any specific agenda. They carefully demonstrate the inconvenient facts about the world’s climate discussed below, and when you have that any politicization would just detract from the presentation, as Al Gore shows in his global warming political harangues.
        The report is “comprehensive, objective, and faithful to the scientific method.” Moreover, it is “double peer reviewed,” in that it discusses thousands of peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals, and is itself peer reviewed. That is in sharp contrast to President Obama’s own EPA, which issued its “endangerment finding” legally authorizing regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, without submitting the finding to its own peer review board established by federal law precisely for that purpose. What were they so afraid of if 97% of scientists supposedly agree with them? That violation of federal law has now been challenged in court, and is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. But this would not be the first time that the Administration of this lawless President has openly flouted the law.
        Check out Climate Change Reconsidered II for yourself. It is the top, No. 1, presentation of the other side to the Democrat Party’s controlled media on the issue. If you want to see what that is, this is your one stop source. If you personally want to believe that using the traditional, carbon based energy sources that have fueled the Industrial Revolution and modern prosperity will destroy the planet, and that we can fuel the modern economy with windmills and dancing on sunbeams at minimal net cost, then it is your personal right to pursue your alternative reality fully ignorant of your errors.
        The authors of the report do not deny that there is some effect of warming the planet from mankind’s emissions of CO2, primarily from use of traditional carbon fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas. The argument is over how big of an effect that is, how that compares to natural causes of climate change, and whether the human caused effect threatens a catastrophe, or even severe distress, to human civilization and the environment. The conclusion of the report is that the U.N.’s IPCC has exaggerated the amount of global warming likely to occur due to mankind’s emissions of CO2, and the warming that human civilization will cause as a result “is likely to be modest and cause no net harm to the global environment or to human well-being.” The primary, dominant cause of global climate change is natural causes, not human effects, the report concludes. “The hypothesis of human-caused global warming comes up short not merely of ‘full scientific certainty’ but of reasonable certainty or even plausibility,” the report states.
        The fundamentals of the argument is that CO2 is not some toxic industrial gas, but a natural, trace gas constituting just 0.038% of the atmosphere. For readers disadvantaged by excessive exposure to the party propaganda organ called the New York Times, that is less than 4/100ths of one percent. The report states, “At the current level of 400 parts per million, we still live in a CO2-starved world. Atmospheric levels (of CO2) 15 times greater existed during the pre-Cambrian period (about 550 million years ago) without known adverse effects,” such as catastrophic global warming.
        Moreover, CO2 is actually essential to all life on the planet. Plants need CO2 to grow and conduct photosynthesis, which is the natural process that creates food for animals and fish at the bottom of the food chain. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere that has occurred due to human emissions has actually increased agricultural growth and output as a result, causing actually an increased greening of the planet. So has any warming caused by such human emissions, as minor warming increases agricultural growth. The report states, “CO2 is a vital nutrient used by plants in photosynthesis. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere ‘greens’ the planet and helps feed the growing human population.”
        In addition, the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically. Or as the report says, “Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)…exerts a diminishing warming effect as its concentration increases.” That means there is a natural limit to how much increased CO2 can effectively warm the planet, as the effect of more and more CO2 ultimately becomes negligible as CO2 concentration grows. Maybe that is why even with many times more CO2 in the atmosphere in the deep past, there was no catastrophic global warming.
        What has been devastating to the theory of catastrophic, man caused, global warming is that there has been no significant increase in global temperatures for 16 years, even a slight cooling in more recent years. Yet, during that time mankind’s emissions of CO2 that were supposed to be causing global warming continued to explode, with one third of all CO2 added to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution occurring during this period. The Economist magazine shocked the global warming establishment with an article in March that began with this lede:
        “OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, ‘the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade. . . .’”
        The facts recounted above are not in actual dispute, even though several commenters relying on too much party controlled media were shocked to hear last April that anyone could think that global warming stopped 16 years ago. But these facts already demonstrate that the theory of catastrophic, anthropogenic, global warming is dubious at best.
        Climate Change Reconsidered II explains the argument of the UN’s IPCC that the world is still threatened with global warming catastrophe, which will be repeated in the next IPCC report in a few weeks. What is shocking is to see is how meager the argument is for the great, global warming bogeyman. You are welcome to check out the UN report to see for yourself.
        The supposedly scientific foundation for the IPCC argument is based on the temperature projections of 73 global climate models developed by various scientists favored by the IPCC. These climate models are not science. They are literally speculative stories about the climate, especially since exactly zero of the models have been validated by past temperature experience. The scientific method involves testing a falsifiable hypothesis with experiments and evidence. Speculative model projections do not involve any such falsifiable hypothesis, and are not an exercise of the scientific method.
        Even the modelers themselves recognize and admit that their models are not even designed to produce predictions of future temperatures, but just “what if” projections of the results of unproven assumptions, to provide some indications, not scientific proof, of possible future scenarios. The Climate Change Reconsidered report states, “The science literature is replete with admissions by leading climate modelers that forcings and feedback are not sufficiently well understood, that data are insufficient or too unreliable, and that computer power is insufficient to resolve important climate processes.”
        Moreover, none of the models take into account the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean temperature cycles resulting from the churning of colder water from the deep to the surface, where it is warmed by the sun, which have been shown to affect global temperatures. None of the models take into account as well solar activity cycles such as variations in solar magnetic fields or in the flux of cosmic rays, which are also known to significantly affect climate, and have produced major climate changes of the past, such as the Little Ice Age, particularly pronounced from roughly 1650 AD to 1850 AD, the Medieval Warm period from about 950 AD to 1250 AD, during which global temperatures were higher than today, and the early 20th century Warming Period from 1910 to 1940 AD.
        These are the reasons why the projections of all of these models have now diverged so strongly from the actual temperatures experienced over the past 15 years, and further back for most all, even back to the 1980s, as shown in the nearby graph. The actual atmospheric temperatures as recorded by U.S. weather satellites and weather balloons are shown by the two lines at the bottom of the graph, connecting the squares or the circles. The average of the temperature models is the solid line going through the spaghetti of lines representing the projections of each of the models, well above the real world temperatures, with the divergence growing and growing. The source of that graph is Dr. Roy Spencer, award winning NASA scientist monitoring the global atmospheric temperatures as measured by U.S. satellites, and a contributor to Climate Change Reconsidered, as produced for testimony before the Environment and Public Works Committee of the United States Senate. Spencer, R.W. 2013. Statement to the Environment and Public Works Committee, 19 July 2013, Washington, DC. This sharp divergence of the projections of the IPCC models has been another devastating development for the theory of catastrophic, man caused, global warming.
        Besides the models, the UN’s IPCC tries to argue that circumstantial evidence is consistent with its theory of catastrophic, man caused global warming if it were true. This again is not the scientific method. As Karl Popper explained, “observations in science are useful to falsify hypotheses, and cannot [rigorously] prove” any hypothesis is correct. In other words, the true scientific method involves a null hypothesis which is the logical opposite of the hypothesis being explored, and is assumed correct until the evidence proves it false. That is because experimental or physical evidence can only rigorously prove something false, not prove it true.

        But as Climate Change Reconsidered explains, “the IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis [catastrophic, man-caused global warming is real] is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and make plausible arguments in the hypothesis’s favor.” This is political science, not actual science.
        Climate Change Reconsidered shows that it is the evidence that the IPCC tries to marshall in favor of its catastrophic, man caused, global warming hypothesis that is false, falsifying the hypothesis. The Climate Change report states, “Global sea ice cover remains similar in area to that at the start of satellite observations in 1979, with ice shrinkage in the Arctic Ocean since then being offset by growth around Antartica.” In other words, polar ice is not melting or disappearing globally. The report adds, “The data on global glacial history and ice mass balance do not support the claims made by the IPCC that CO2 emissions are causing most glaciers today to retreat and melt.”
        The report also states, “Sea level rise is not accelerating. The global average sea level continues to increase at its long term rate of 1-2 millimeters per year….Unusual sea-level rise is therefore not drowning Pacific coral islands, nor are the islands being abandoned by ‘climate refugees.’” In other words, yeah, the sea level has been rising. Exactly the same as it has been for thousands of years, since the end of the last actual Ice Age. It has nothin
        Moreover, the pattern of global temperature change has not followed rising atmospheric CO2 since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. It follows instead the up and down patterns of ocean churning temperature cycles and of solar activity, such as sun spots that were so influential in causing the Little Ice Age that ended roughly a couple of hundred years ago. That is one reason why Climate Change Reconsidered concludes that natural causes, not human factors like CO2 emissions, have predominated in causing climate change.
        Indeed, the Climate Change Reconsidered report states, “The recently quiet Sun and extrapolation of solar cycle patterns into the future suggest a planetary cooling may occur over the next few decades.” That follows my own reporting in recent columns in this space of the potential rise of a long term temperature decline based on these solar trends, which is the first reporting on such developments anywhere near the establishment press in increasingly repressed America. Much of our national press these days behaves voluntarily in regard to the Obama Administration the way that the old Soviet press used to do under compulsion in regard to the old communist dictatorships in the now dissolved old Soviet Union.
        One small town California columnist published a criticism of one of my previous columns on this subject in this space using a chart fed to him by a local environmental propagandist. The hapless local dutifully published the chart fed to him showing a line supposedly representing global temperatures in the 20th century with a sharp upward slope. The line was drawn through the real temperature history of cyclical ups and downs representing the actual cyclical natural causes of global temperature changes. But the overconfident local columnist, gleefully repeating that the graph proved man caused ultimately catastrophic global warming was real, also failed to notice that the scale on his graph was in tenths of a degree. He should go back to his source and ask for a graph of 19th century global temperature increases on the same scale, which would show a far sharper upward slope. Were CO2 emissions higher in the 19th century than in the 20th? Or maybe the dominant factor was the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century, a natural not human cause.
        Enough has been discussed already to logically and indeed scientifically disprove, or falsify, the invasive theory of catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming. But Climate Change Reconsidered provides another 1200 pages of logical and scientific argument, backed up by thousands of peer reviewed citations that could not all be discussed here. If your head hurts at this point because of overexposure to the New York Times and the resulting disconnection or alienation from reality, Climate Change Reconsidered is the cure for what ails you.

        1. gotabgood says

          My move? Simple, I am not going to go buy some books just to prove you are wrong.
          I have a suggestion…. keep it entertaining and make the list a little shorter, give me one or two of your favorite websites and I will check them out. I will not however, spend a week on a wild goose chase like your last post sent me on. Stick with Scientist that know what they are talking about. and Eye, Ear, Nose specialist is not qualified to be talking Global warming. I have probably studied more than him/her.
          These videos are not only full of information, but beautiful scenery..
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIZTMVNBjc4
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsRSqPAL7Mc
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kteMXaUNvlc
          Enjoy… very pretty…. very informative.

        2. ed28 says

          ” I am not going to go buy some books just to prove you are wrong.”

          BAK BALK BAK BAK chicken sh*t!

          You just proved that ignorance is your ecstasy. So sorry for your problems.

      7. daveveselenak says

        I don’t know about 97% but those pseudo-scientists on the Left definitely want to ruin what little is left of the “TRANSFORMED & TRANSGENDERED” AMERIKA, not to understand this is to be a fool, an enslaved fool at that!

        1. gotabgood says

          All these countries are wrong and the itty-bitty teaparty are the one who has it right??? hahahahahaha
          List of Parties that signed the Paris Agreement on 22 April
          http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/04/parisagreementsingatures/

          1. daveveselenak says

            I’ll be perfectly blunt, blue and true – FUK YOU, USEFUL IDIOT OF THE LEFT!

          2. gotabgood says

            You were easy… glad to get you out of the way..
            But there is nothing about you BLUE and true… As of this day, throw away all your blue pants, blue shirts, you are not qualified to wear that color..

          3. daveveselenak says

            Not as easy as you! You have no game, just mindless Leftist rhetoric – go over to the “Bluffington Boast” with your kind – useful idiot Kool Aid drinking zombies that are good lap dogs for the tin-pot despots!

          4. GODBlessRealAmerica#1 says

            Are you on drugs or Democrack?
            You sound liberally racist and arrogant!

          5. ed28 says

            Dumbass, all those countries are in it for a piece of America’s financial ass. Of course they would lie and sign the agreement. Don’t you understand that they want a reason to fine us Americans for being successful? What is wrong with you?

          6. Shelly Shannon says

            And don’t forget that Hillary Clinton will corruptly find a way to launder much of those fines back into her foundations. Just like they did when they tried to convince us they gave 10 percent of their money to charity. That was a load of crap. And it is absolutely untrue that 97 percent of scientists believe there is adequate proof of climate change. These liberals and progressives need a damn wake-up call.

          7. gotabgood says

            “What is wrong with you?”
            Evidently I am not as paranoid as you. And still have some common sense which you totally lack any.

          8. ed28 says

            Evidently you are not as educated as me. You just go on being smug in you ignorance and continue to call others names. Very funny, but very sad for you..

          9. gotabgood says

            Your memory can only last as long as your brain cells which is one.
            Do you remember a whole 10 days ago, you said this to me? “ed28 gotabgood • 10 days ago. Dumbass,”
            so you call me ‘smug’, ‘ignorance’ because I call you names??
            I did not call you ANY name, I did say you haven’t any common sense and I stand by that.
            And by the way you have no humor, so it isn’t funny… you also have no compassion, so nothing is sad to you.. STOP LYING!!

          10. ed28 says

            In all reality, I did not lie when I called you a Dumbass. It is a completely truthful statement.

            Now on the other hand, I called out for the data. You sent me, with your insulting commentary, a chart. Just for your edification, a chart is NOT THE DATA. The chart is a statistical representation of some set, subset or manipulated set of data. It is nearly useless unless the reader is informed of all the gyrations and manipulations through which the data has been washed. Which happens to be an occurrence for which the WARMISTS are famous.

            They have been called out more than once for their “churn the data until you get the trend you want” methods.

            P.S. You know nothing of my “memory”, “common sense”, “humor” or my “compassion”. But like a streyotypical liberal, you allow your self the perverse luxury of making sh@t up and calling it gospel.

            So sorry for your problems.

          11. gotabgood says

            You fling your BS around and call the references I give manipulated at best, while you give me nothing!!! As I have been saying all along you don’t need a scientist…
            why are the ski resorts closing?
            Why did they move the dog sled race in Alaska FURTHER North?
            Why are islands sinking?
            Why are villages moving?
            Why is Miami and other cities installing water pumps
            Why are parking lots being flooded at high tide?
            Why is Louisianan losing ground daily?
            What happen to 125 glaciers i n Glaciers National Park?
            Along with 14 out of the last 15 years the hottest on record.
            More forest fires.
            You are living in your high an mighty self appointed scientific position you gave yourself.. which if true, you have your head up your ass and living in denial..

          12. River Song says

            Every party involved has a dog in the fight. The UN is funding NGOs and other organizations to support climate change. The governments are signing on because they either don’t intend to do anything except get PR brownie points (China and India), they are getting paid by the 1st world countries (pretty much everyone else), they have looney lefties in power and they are politicians that want more power over their country’s economies (Kerry, Obama, and the US), they plan to use (and have used) all of this BS to hamstring the US economy so that they can compete (all of the European countries) or they are well-meaning lefties caught up in the hoax (Canada and Japan). Look at the Kyoto treaty. First the Europeans set the baseline year so that they could take credit for shutting down all of the Soviet-style industries in East Germany. Then, they set the conditions to try to cripple the US economy (That’s why they wouldn’t allow the US to take credit for reforestation). Finally, when they still couldn’t live up to what they had agreed to, they just ignored the treaty and pretended it never happened.

            Are you a watermelon in good standing? Green on the outside, red on the inside. Just like Al Gore, Obama, and Kerry?

          13. gotabgood says

            I will make one comment on your hee haw attitude about climate change.
            China. Look where China is on the believe chart.
            I lived there for 5 years. Even some of the older apartment complexes are installing solar hot water on the roofs. For hot water and heating. They have several hi-speed trains and building subways. They are the biggest users of coal fired power plants, but Beijing said by 2020, they would be coal free. Many, many bicycles and electric scooters. I don’t think you can buy an incandescent light bulb there, maybe industrial.. China has passed USA in green energy. They have electric buses. They have a super long ways to go… but unlike USA they have no idiots blocking the way and they are gaining.
            Also thanks to the idiots in the rightwing… in this chart.. we are DEAD LAST!!!!!

          14. River Song says

            Beijing has a lot of environmental problems that aren’t related to climate change. Look at their air pollution problem. They have a lot more cars than bicycles now and people are dying from the air pollution. Of course they are going to support electric vehicles, subways, and electric buses. The Chinese government also has a lot more ability to force people to change their behavior than the US government. I have nothing against alternative energy sources where they make economic sense. If it makes economic sense, industry and people will make the change voluntarily. If it doesn’t make economic sense, then the government has to take money from us to push the water uphill. Increased gas mileage is also great, unless it comes from making lighter cars and more people dying. A lot of people in the US are installing solar power and windmills. Unfortunately, many of these installations only make economic sense for the consumers because they’re being subsidized by taxpayers and utility customers. For large-scale power production, wind and solar power still have to be backed up with old-fashioned fossil-fuel-burning power plants since wind and solar aren’t scalable, on-demand, or available 24/7/365. If you really believe in climate change as a crisis, then prove it and support nuclear power. Nuclear power is the only clean, renewable, on-demand power available in any quantities needed. If environmentalists truly believed they were all going to die from climate change, they would be pushing for nuclear power plants to be built all over the country. Instead, they’re shutting down the ones currently operating.
            First of all, “belief” has nothing to do with science. You don’t believe in gravity, you test and prove it. Secondly, Americans, Brits, and Australians don’t believe in climate change because they’re literate, educated, and think for themselves which makes them resistant to propaganda. They also understand that the plan is to transfer large amounts of money from them to other countries. The other countries are mice voting to bell the cat.

          15. John Williams says

            Consider the fact that “climate change” is the wet dream of dictators and despots everywhere, name one other idea they have come up with that would give them total control over every man, woman and child on the planet, these guys are running down both legs with anticipation over this. The NWO folks are as gleeful as they can be and you useful idiots are falling right in line. I see you had to single out the Tea Party on this, I don’t even think they were mentioned, but it does show your paranoia about someone exposing your BS. The following from the above article should scare the crap out of anyone with more than 2 brain cells, ” letting the government investigate and prosecute companies or individuals that question the consensus view of climate change,” that is the sound of your and my first amendment rights being destroyed, when the government seems to think that “if someone does not agree with them then the government can prosecute.” If you and the rest of the useful idiots cannot see the end result of such thinking, you are not only a useful idiot you are a freaking fool.

          16. gotabgood says

            I have two questions….. Both of these came from the government.. all you have to do is say “good idea” or “bad idea” you don’t even have to explain your choice… one requirement… blow off the dust in your “honest” brain cell. and tell the truth.
            Seat belts?
            Emission controls on Vehicles?

      8. pineapple says

        For your edification concerning the global warming hoax, I recommend that you read the following books.
        “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years” by S. Freed Singer and Dennis T. Avery
        “Warming and Environmentalism” by Christopher Horner
        “The Really Inconvenient Truths” by Ian Murray
        “Climategate” by veteran meteorologist Brian Sussman.
        “Red Hot Lies” by Christopher C. Horner.
        Since you will probably choose to remain ignorant and not read any of these books, I offer the article below. (I gave credit to the author lest you accuse me of plagiarism again.)

        Your Move, Global Warming Alarmists, Science has Exposed Your Unwarranted Hysteria.
        By Peter Ferrara
        Who will decide American public policy on the issue of potentially catastrophic man caused global warming? The answer is you and me, through the democratic process that governs our country.
        So spare me the comments saying Shut Up, you are not a scientist and your commentary here is not peer reviewed scientific literature, so you have no business even talking about it. That is an anti-democratic, brown shirt tactic meant to foreclose public discussion and debate, which has been the dominant strategy of those trying to force their unwelcome ideological agenda on the rest of us through this issue. What does that alone tell you about who is right about the actual science?
        But citizens participating in the democratic process do have a responsibility to become informed about the scientific debate over global warming. And that is my function here in focusing on the publication this week of Climate Change Reconsidered II, authored by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and published by the Heartland Institute. The NIPCC
        “is an international panel of scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. NIPCC has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency. It is wholly independent of political pressures or influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations. NIPCC seeks to objectively analyze and interpret data and facts without conforming to any specific agenda. This organizational structure and purpose stand in contrast to those of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solution.”
        I can attest to you that the team of 50 scientists producing the 1,200 pages of calm, reasoned, dispassionate science in the report did achieve their goal of objectively analyzing and interpreting data and facts without conforming to any specific agenda. They carefully demonstrate the inconvenient facts about the world’s climate discussed below, and when you have that any politicization would just detract from the presentation, as Al Gore shows in his global warming political harangues.
        The report is “comprehensive, objective, and faithful to the scientific method.” Moreover, it is “double peer reviewed,” in that it discusses thousands of peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals, and is itself peer reviewed. That is in sharp contrast to President Obama’s own EPA, which issued its “endangerment finding” legally authorizing regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, without submitting the finding to its own peer review board established by federal law precisely for that purpose. What were they so afraid of if 97% of scientists supposedly agree with them? That violation of federal law has now been challenged in court, and is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. But this would not be the first time that the Administration of this lawless President has openly flouted the law.
        Check out Climate Change Reconsidered II for yourself. It is the top, No. 1, presentation of the other side to the Democrat Party’s controlled media on the issue. If you want to see what that is, this is your one stop source. If you personally want to believe that using the traditional, carbon based energy sources that have fueled the Industrial Revolution and modern prosperity will destroy the planet, and that we can fuel the modern economy with windmills and dancing on sunbeams at minimal net cost, then it is your personal right to pursue your alternative reality fully ignorant of your errors.
        The authors of the report do not deny that there is some effect of warming the planet from mankind’s emissions of CO2, primarily from use of traditional carbon fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas. The argument is over how big of an effect that is, how that compares to natural causes of climate change, and whether the human caused effect threatens a catastrophe, or even severe distress, to human civilization and the environment. The conclusion of the report is that the U.N.’s IPCC has exaggerated the amount of global warming likely to occur due to mankind’s emissions of CO2, and the warming that human civilization will cause as a result “is likely to be modest and cause no net harm to the global environment or to human well-being.” The primary, dominant cause of global climate change is natural causes, not human effects, the report concludes. “The hypothesis of human-caused global warming comes up short not merely of ‘full scientific certainty’ but of reasonable certainty or even plausibility,” the report states.
        The fundamentals of the argument is that CO2 is not some toxic industrial gas, but a natural, trace gas constituting just 0.038% of the atmosphere. For readers disadvantaged by excessive exposure to the party propaganda organ called the New York Times, that is less than 4/100ths of one percent. The report states, “At the current level of 400 parts per million, we still live in a CO2-starved world. Atmospheric levels (of CO2) 15 times greater existed during the pre-Cambrian period (about 550 million years ago) without known adverse effects,” such as catastrophic global warming.
        Moreover, CO2 is actually essential to all life on the planet. Plants need CO2 to grow and conduct photosynthesis, which is the natural process that creates food for animals and fish at the bottom of the food chain. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere that has occurred due to human emissions has actually increased agricultural growth and output as a result, causing actually an increased greening of the planet. So has any warming caused by such human emissions, as minor warming increases agricultural growth. The report states, “CO2 is a vital nutrient used by plants in photosynthesis. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere ‘greens’ the planet and helps feed the growing human population.”
        In addition, the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically. Or as the report says, “Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)…exerts a diminishing warming effect as its concentration increases.” That means there is a natural limit to how much increased CO2 can effectively warm the planet, as the effect of more and more CO2 ultimately becomes negligible as CO2 concentration grows. Maybe that is why even with many times more CO2 in the atmosphere in the deep past, there was no catastrophic global warming.
        What has been devastating to the theory of catastrophic, man caused, global warming is that there has been no significant increase in global temperatures for 16 years, even a slight cooling in more recent years. Yet, during that time mankind’s emissions of CO2 that were supposed to be causing global warming continued to explode, with one third of all CO2 added to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution occurring during this period. The Economist magazine shocked the global warming establishment with an article in March that began with this lede:
        “OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, ‘the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade. . . .’”
        The facts recounted above are not in actual dispute, even though several commenters relying on too much party controlled media were shocked to hear last April that anyone could think that global warming stopped 16 years ago. But these facts already demonstrate that the theory of catastrophic, anthropogenic, global warming is dubious at best.
        Climate Change Reconsidered II explains the argument of the UN’s IPCC that the world is still threatened with global warming catastrophe, which will be repeated in the next IPCC report in a few weeks. What is shocking is to see is how meager the argument is for the great, global warming bogeyman. You are welcome to check out the UN report to see for yourself.
        The supposedly scientific foundation for the IPCC argument is based on the temperature projections of 73 global climate models developed by various scientists favored by the IPCC. These climate models are not science. They are literally speculative stories about the climate, especially since exactly zero of the models have been validated by past temperature experience. The scientific method involves testing a falsifiable hypothesis with experiments and evidence. Speculative model projections do not involve any such falsifiable hypothesis, and are not an exercise of the scientific method.
        Even the modelers themselves recognize and admit that their models are not even designed to produce predictions of future temperatures, but just “what if” projections of the results of unproven assumptions, to provide some indications, not scientific proof, of possible future scenarios. The Climate Change Reconsidered report states, “The science literature is replete with admissions by leading climate modelers that forcings and feedback are not sufficiently well understood, that data are insufficient or too unreliable, and that computer power is insufficient to resolve important climate processes.”
        Moreover, none of the models take into account the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean temperature cycles resulting from the churning of colder water from the deep to the surface, where it is warmed by the sun, which have been shown to affect global temperatures. None of the models take into account as well solar activity cycles such as variations in solar magnetic fields or in the flux of cosmic rays, which are also known to significantly affect climate, and have produced major climate changes of the past, such as the Little Ice Age, particularly pronounced from roughly 1650 AD to 1850 AD, the Medieval Warm period from about 950 AD to 1250 AD, during which global temperatures were higher than today, and the early 20th century Warming Period from 1910 to 1940 AD.
        These are the reasons why the projections of all of these models have now diverged so strongly from the actual temperatures experienced over the past 15 years, and further back for most all, even back to the 1980s, as shown in the nearby graph. The actual atmospheric temperatures as recorded by U.S. weather satellites and weather balloons are shown by the two lines at the bottom of the graph, connecting the squares or the circles. The average of the temperature models is the solid line going through the spaghetti of lines representing the projections of each of the models, well above the real world temperatures, with the divergence growing and growing. The source of that graph is Dr. Roy Spencer, award winning NASA scientist monitoring the global atmospheric temperatures as measured by U.S. satellites, and a contributor to Climate Change Reconsidered, as produced for testimony before the Environment and Public Works Committee of the United States Senate. Spencer, R.W. 2013. Statement to the Environment and Public Works Committee, 19 July 2013, Washington, DC. This sharp divergence of the projections of the IPCC models has been another devastating development for the theory of catastrophic, man caused, global warming.
        Besides the models, the UN’s IPCC tries to argue that circumstantial evidence is consistent with its theory of catastrophic, man caused global warming if it were true. This again is not the scientific method. As Karl Popper explained, “observations in science are useful to falsify hypotheses, and cannot [rigorously] prove” any hypothesis is correct. In other words, the true scientific method involves a null hypothesis which is the logical opposite of the hypothesis being explored, and is assumed correct until the evidence proves it false. That is because experimental or physical evidence can only rigorously prove something false, not prove it true.

        But as Climate Change Reconsidered explains, “the IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis [catastrophic, man-caused global warming is real] is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and make plausible arguments in the hypothesis’s favor.” This is political science, not actual science.
        Climate Change Reconsidered shows that it is the evidence that the IPCC tries to marshall in favor of its catastrophic, man caused, global warming hypothesis that is false, falsifying the hypothesis. The Climate Change report states, “Global sea ice cover remains similar in area to that at the start of satellite observations in 1979, with ice shrinkage in the Arctic Ocean since then being offset by growth around Antartica.” In other words, polar ice is not melting or disappearing globally. The report adds, “The data on global glacial history and ice mass balance do not support the claims made by the IPCC that CO2 emissions are causing most glaciers today to retreat and melt.”
        The report also states, “Sea level rise is not accelerating. The global average sea level continues to increase at its long term rate of 1-2 millimeters per year….Unusual sea-level rise is therefore not drowning Pacific coral islands, nor are the islands being abandoned by ‘climate refugees.’” In other words, yeah, the sea level has been rising. Exactly the same as it has been for thousands of years, since the end of the last actual Ice Age. It has nothin
        Moreover, the pattern of global temperature change has not followed rising atmospheric CO2 since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. It follows instead the up and down patterns of ocean churning temperature cycles and of solar activity, such as sun spots that were so influential in causing the Little Ice Age that ended roughly a couple of hundred years ago. That is one reason why Climate Change Reconsidered concludes that natural causes, not human factors like CO2 emissions, have predominated in causing climate change.
        Indeed, the Climate Change Reconsidered report states, “The recently quiet Sun and extrapolation of solar cycle patterns into the future suggest a planetary cooling may occur over the next few decades.” That follows my own reporting in recent columns in this space of the potential rise of a long term temperature decline based on these solar trends, which is the first reporting on such developments anywhere near the establishment press in increasingly repressed America. Much of our national press these days behaves voluntarily in regard to the Obama Administration the way that the old Soviet press used to do under compulsion in regard to the old communist dictatorships in the now dissolved old Soviet Union.
        One small town California columnist published a criticism of one of my previous columns on this subject in this space using a chart fed to him by a local environmental propagandist. The hapless local dutifully published the chart fed to him showing a line supposedly representing global temperatures in the 20th century with a sharp upward slope. The line was drawn through the real temperature history of cyclical ups and downs representing the actual cyclical natural causes of global temperature changes. But the overconfident local columnist, gleefully repeating that the graph proved man caused ultimately catastrophic global warming was real, also failed to notice that the scale on his graph was in tenths of a degree. He should go back to his source and ask for a graph of 19th century global temperature increases on the same scale, which would show a far sharper upward slope. Were CO2 emissions higher in the 19th century than in the 20th? Or maybe the dominant factor was the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century, a natural not human cause.
        Enough has been discussed already to logically and indeed scientifically disprove, or falsify, the invasive theory of catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming. But Climate Change Reconsidered provides another 1200 pages of logical and scientific argument, backed up by thousands of peer reviewed citations that could not all be discussed here. If your head hurts at this point because of overexposure to the New York Times and the resulting disconnection or alienation from reality, Climate Change Reconsidered is the cure for what ails you.

        1. gotabgood says

          ““CO2 is a vital nutrient used by plants in photosynthesis. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere ‘greens’ the planet and helps feed the growing human population.”
          Yes in an ideal world… that was true, back while we still had the Amazon Rain Forest…
          “Rainforests once covered 14% of the earth’s land surface; now they cover a mere 6% and experts estimate that the last remaining rainforests could be consumed in less than 40 years. Deforestation accounts for about 20% of global emissions of CO2” (notice this is called ‘reference’) http://www.thinkglobalgreen.org/deforestation.html
          >
          Pinning down exact numbers is nearly impossible, but most experts agree that we are losing upwards of 80,000 acres of tropical rainforest daily, and significantly degrading another 80,000 acres every day on top of that. Along with this loss and degradation, we are losing some 135 plant,/u>, animal and insect species every day—or some 50,000 species a year—as the forests fall.
          http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talks-daily-destruction/
          >
          Cutting Down Rainforests Also Cuts Down on Rainfall
          http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cutting-down-rainforests/
          >

          You see, you rightwingers are not good at thinking and looking beyond the here and now. There are consequences to PAY.. like cutting the security budget, you lose man power, cutting the budget in EPA you have a Texas fertilizer plant blow up. You cut trees down……. you lose the oxygen manufactures that sustain our life. we lose shade which helps keep our earth cooler and it cuts down on rain fall.
          Maybe that is why ski resorts are closing because of no snow!?!
          That is why they had to move the dog sled races in Alaska, no snow.
          It is time to stop reading the BS reports and LOOK around you.

          1. anibanib says

            Just to have my 10 cents say from Sweden………..over 99% of our energy, ie electricity and heat is from NON FOSSIL fuels…..and we use about the same amount per capita as the USA does about 15000 kwhs a year………energy comes from hydro, nuclear, and CHP plants, some also from wind and solar

          2. gotabgood says

            We are so far behind the other countries… we have this political party that is equipt with an amoeba brain cell. Reagan was the first idiot that took down the solar panels from the White House that Carter put up..and we have gone downhill ever since. Not just in green energy, but education, infrastructure and healthcare.. except military.. the rightwing takes care of the military…… except when they become vets, then they join the ranks of peons.
            Thanks for answering.
            You should tell of your country more often… something has to shake them hard enough that their head will fall out of that dark place they keep it tucked away in..

          3. anibanib says

            I do often talk about Sweden on the internet………we may be a very small country, less than 10 million, but we do a lot of good out in the World, havent been at war since 1812…………

          4. gotabgood says

            Thanks for your input… keep talking about your taxes, healthcare, green energy, education and paternity leave.
            Maybe it will sink in….. eventually……. someday… before we are living in houseboats..

          5. gotabgood says

            This will probably never happen… but it is always nice to know your options ahead of time.
            I have lived in China and Philippines, and I could live there as long as I kept my permit up to date, in China it was every 2 years. I got a year in Philippines.
            What would have to happen for me to live there?

          6. anibanib says

            Funny you should ask that. At this very moment we have a woman from New York visiting her mother……both are ex Romanians, however, she would love to come and live in Sweden, and as she now has US passport it is very tricky, one must have a job lined up, and somewhere to live, otherwise its a 6 month visa…….but a Quick look on the internet there are 100s of jobs for English speaking people……companies that obviously export……….and ev one gets a permanent resident permit……..we have a nice climate, all the 4 distinct seasons, in the South hardly any snow at all….last Winter we had snow on the ground for 6 Days, it is a huge country but only 9.8 mn people, Forests cover about 2 thirds and there are over 75000 lakes………drinkable water as well

    3. daveveselenak says

      They are not democ-rats, they are the Communist Party USA! REVOLUTION will be the SOLUTION – guaranteed! Communists never cede power peacefully once they have it!

    4. GuardianFlame says

      Oh, she’s not going to be sworn in because her journey is going to be rudely interrupted by our FBI and their investigative sources.

      Everyone thought she was “cleared” but she really wasn’t. She has so many suits against her but the biggest and most dangerous to her life long ambition of being president is the determination of finding the Criminal hiding inside her by the FBI. And they will and they have more incriminating documents tying both hillary and bill to illegal actions taken by their Clinton.Foundation.

      Personally, I see the FBI arresting them both before the election, eliminating her as the Democratic candidate and giving the election.to Donald Trump.

      Also, Hillary’s health and medical issues will not allow her to make critical decisions without impacting her physically or fatally. Remember her brain issue with the blood clot? Stress is a killer for someone suffering from reoccuring clot issues.

      So don’t worry. The American people will win this time…it’s hillary and bill’s turn to lose!

      1. Linda Pfister says

        To Guardian flame. First off ya need to have a brain in order to have a brain blood clot in the case of clinton no brain there and my 2nd point is I don’t believe that the f.b.i. will do any thing to the skank as the skank lynch has told them they can not prosecute her so between the Cock roach in the white house and the skank lynch they will just pardon her. She should be put in prison then HUNG FOR TREASON BUT I DON’T THINK THAT WILL HAPPEN OR @ LEAST MAYBE WHEN MR. TRUMP IS OUR PRESIDENT THAT HE WILL HAVE HER PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW WHICH HOPE FULLY MEANS BEING HUNG FOR TREASON RIGHT BESIDE THE COCK ROACH

  10. riverstrat . says

    Climate Change is the biggest hoax cast on upon the world,
    in the history of mankind.
    So big that they are lusting after shutting up any opposition, even willing to end
    FREE SPEECH, the 1st amendment, and the 2nd amendment whether you like
    guns or not are the only things standing between us and total fascism, I don’t have
    to like what you have to say to die protecting that right.
    Before democide, and or genocide and enslavement , governments always register citizens
    weapons, then confiscate them.

    1. gotabgood says

      When we just know it is a lie.. it is so much easier to deny and do nothing!! Isn’t it????

      1. Tyler Krivan says

        Al Gore also said all the coastal citis would be under water by 2015 and the ice caps on the North Pole would be gone.. I’m sure that hasn’t happened. Unless I missed something in the last twenty-four hours. How about the Sientist that went to Antarctica to prove that global warming (climate change) was happening and the got stuck in the ice for weeks. Yes that sure sounds like we are in trouble.

        1. gotabgood says

          You are the second person that I have read so far that have ask about the Antarctica and the gaining of ice… well I am not a scientist…. so I did what you should have done since you are curious about it… here is what I found, I gave you a couple of paragraphs the rest you can go to the website.. I GIVE REFERENCES!!!

          Antarctica Is Gaining Ice, So Why Is the Earth Still Warming? November 19, 2015 02:26pm ET
          This story was updated at 8:26 p.m. ET.
          NASA recently released a study suggesting that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is gaining more ice than it is losing — a finding that, at first blush, seems to contradict the idea of global warming. So, how can Antarctica be gaining ice mass in a warming world where ice sheets are collapsing and the melting is predicted to increase sea levels across the globe?
          It turns out that the two phenomena — a growing ice sheet and warming-related melting — are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, the NASA study, which was published Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology, does not disprove global warming.
          Rather, the researchers found that snow accumulation is adding more ice to East Antarctica (the huge chunk of the continent to the east of the Transantarctic Mountains) and the interior region of West Antarctica than is being lost as glaciers across Antarctica thin out. More snow accumulation is, counterintuitively, a sign of global warming; more precipitation happens when there is more moisture in the air, and more moisture in the air is a product of higher temperatures, said Elizabeth Thomas, a glaciologist with the British Antarctic Survey. [Infographic: Your Guide to Antarctica]
          http://www.livescience.com/52831-antarctica-gains-ice-but-still-warming.html

  11. tcinc says

    Chapter 2. Because the weather is constantly changing as does the natural patterns the weather will follow the wind patterns and some areas will have droughts and other areas will undoubtedly have floods. The U.S. Geological survey and others have been collecting data on every river and stream in the U.S. for over 100 years and can tell you in an instant where the floods and droughts have been and where they might be in the future. What I feel is that every year we face many deaths and ruined farmland, washed away, cities and homes washed out to sea along with ani mals, businesses, industries, etc.. So the obvious thing to do is to stop it. The government has tried to stop it by putting in all these earthen dams and gates all over the southern Mississippi river but then they get washed away too. So my idea is to dredge some holes in the areas where the smaller rivers, all the tributaries to the ole Miss dump into the Miss and pump the flood waters along the highways to the west and provide water to the drought areas in the west and southwest, so the people of California can take showers in Hollywood and they can get back to the job of growing our food. From the pumps and pipe systems west we can fill up all the thousands of dams and reservoirs in the mountains and fill the underground reservoirs. Every year the Miss floods and so do most of the tributaries, depending on the wind and the weather. We could kill so many stones with this idea, stop floods, save the water, stop droughts, cure employment for 50 years, use the dams and reservoirs for recreation, fishing, etc., and to generate hydropower when it is being dumped. For each hydropower plant (water power), in operation we can shutdown a coal plant or gas. The roads are in so the piping layout just follows all the roads and easy to maintain. We can also get the states to invest in the piping and private industry to invest in the power plants. The new dams and reservoirs would provide fish hatcheries for added protein foods and growth of vegis for all the wild animals, etc.

  12. gotabgood says

    “The Committee unanimously adopted a joint proposal from Sanders and Clinton representatives to commit to making America run entirely on clean energy by mid-century, and supporting the ambitious goals put forward by President Obama and the Paris climate agreement,” (200 countries support this plan!!)
    I truly don’t understand why you fight this so much. This is your home too!! You breathe the same air as those in China.. it is just mixed up a little better is all. What we have on earth is all we have!! No new shipments of ANYTHING coming in!!
    I ask you a question… when a city/village was first started, do you think they built that city in the water or on dry land? When villages were formed on islands do you think they did it while under water or dry land?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Il8Ehx_Zm8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7abSExQ-10
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCs-_4c6Kd0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7i9LBeZ1UU
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4THdX9KOZ_4

    1. glenn398 says

      Gotabgood guess they fight it for two reasons, the way they are going about it most people won’t be able to afford their electric bills and the second is the two countries doing the most polluting are China and India. Since those two countries have a population many times ours it will make little difference what we do as long as they continue to build coal generating electrical plants. India especially is set on building a lot of them so don’t drive us into the ground and let China and India go on their merry way.

      1. gotabgood says

        All of that is bad excuses. I get advertisements from AZ to hook up free to solar energy.
        And if you are going to chop a tree (CO2) down by using an ax. and you take a swing at it…. but it doesn’t fall down, just a few chips (CO2) were knocked out. You don’t quit because it is too hard or will take too long. each swing is that much closer to your goal, (total green).
        We all breathe the same air… so just because they don’t clean their air, we should stop trying and caring about the air we breathe?
        But China, I lived there, Have several hi-speed trains, their new constructions have solar heating on top, their buses are electric… many many bicycles and electric scooters. Their coal fired power plants are killing the people there. but they are changing that too. Many ways they are ahead of USA. We should follow a lot of other countries path in going green. Do you know what our anchor is? RIGHTWING!!
        >
        Germany Just Got Almost All of Its Power From Renewable Energy
        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-16/germany-just-got-almost-all-of-its-power-from-renewable-energy
        >
        China caps coal consumption at 5 billion tonnes by 2020 amid fears energy demand may rebound
        http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/1922913/china-caps-coal-consumption-5-billion-tonnes-2020-amid
        >
        China’s coal consumption to hit 4.3 bln tonnes in 2020
        http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2016-04/25/content_24833353.htm
        >
        Beijing To Ban Coal By 2020
        http://cleantechnica.com/2014/08/06/beijing-ban-coal-2020/
        >

        China’s Geothermal Energy Sector Demonstrates Great Growth Potential
        BEIJING — The first China Geothermal Forum, with a focus on innovation and leadership across the sector as well as on driving the sustainable development and utilization of the energy, was recently held in Beijing. According to data released by the forum, the country is expected to develop a heating and cooling area powered by the geothermal energy of up to 500 million square meters and increase installation capacity based on geothermal power generation to 100,000 kilowatts by 2015.
        http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2015/01/chinas-geothermal-energy-sector-demonstrates-great-growth-potential?cmpid=GeoNL-Thursday-January15-2015
        We are taking the back seat to many countries… now China, which was considered by many a 3rd world country just a few years ago. They have built modern Airports, have many high speed trains.

        1. glenn398 says

          Yes China is doing great that is why you see the air in their major cites looking like a heavy fog day. What China is doing now is like closing the gate after the cows are out. I live in Az and the so called free solar energy isn’t so free. They have also found out it is too hot for solar efficiency in areas like Phx and Tucson so now they are running cooling tubes below the solar. What’s so called free to some is shoving it up the A$$ of a lot of tax payer and electric users. If solar was efficient they wouldn’t have needed all the money support from the feds, state and rate payers. For all the believe though have some ocean front property in Arizona at a good price.

          1. gotabgood says

            Yes China is doing great… they are ahead of us in green energy. They a few more people to deal with and they are dirt poor in suburbs.
            And anything any body does to better our air quality is better that what the rightwing is doing… NOTHING!
            I also lived in AZ, and that is why I get those ads. I will pay attention next time and maybe do some checking on it. right now I don’t even know the name of the outfit.
            If is not “IF” solar is efficient… it “IS” efficient! Just like the oil business, been in business for decades, making billion dollar profits each quarter… but we still give them subsidies.. what are we doing that? especially since that business is going back to the dinosaur age, where it belongs.

  13. gotabgood says

    For NOAA, this is the 37th time monthly heat records have been broken since the year 2000, but it has been more than 99 years since the last time a global cold record has been set.
    Read more: http://www.caribbean360.com/news/march-temperatures-continue-global-heat-streak-record-11-months#ixzz4H1kVELFU

    1. gotabgood says

      This a better copy…. I hope..

      1. mac12sam12 says

        Two questions you can’t seem to answer. The climate has always changed, what made it change before man was on Earth. Question #2. How will raising my taxes stop global warming>>>> crickets…crickets..crickets..

        1. gotabgood says

          I have showed you graphs, charts, websites and for you to use a little common sense is waaaaay out of your reach.. You do not believe in science.. all you believe in is BS and rhetoric… so way bother trying to answer your foolish questions… first, that you think you know the answers already… and second, you won’t believe anything I say and will look nothing up or offer any kind of proof of the cesspool of BS you stand in/on.

          1. mac12sam12 says

            You’re avoiding my question. I live in New England and at one time it was under a mile of ice before man was on Earth. What caused climate change back then?

          2. gotabgood says

            BS! Prove it!!

          3. mac12sam12 says

            New England was at one time under a mile of ice but climate change melted it. That was before man was on Earth. What changed the climate before man was on Earth? Stop avoiding the question.

        2. gotabgood says

          How do you know there was ANY climate before man??? You are treading in territory you know absolutely nothing about. If you are going to believe ANYTHING before man… it has come from scientist and if you are going to believe scientist, then how can you pick and choose who is right or wrong?
          The bible talks a little about before man..
          (And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
          And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
          So before man there was no sun).
          And this is the third time you ask about raising your taxes will stop global warming.. Ask Trump.. he is the only one going to raise your taxes… other than that… I don’t have a clue what you are talking about… I know you must have thought up some cute little comeback.. sorry to disappoint you.

    2. mac12sam12 says

      How will raising my taxes control the climate? crickets..crickets…crickets…

  14. Indiana_James says

    ‘Democrats are gunning the engine and racing toward their ideal future with reckless abandon.
    At some point, maybe they’ll realize they left everyone behind.’?,…I’d bet what they really find is a second civil war, and THIS time, THEY will be the losers and when they lose, they will receive much worse actions than the South did in 1865.

  15. Gunflint Roseberg says

    The Club of Rome’s world government, climate-change and depopulation agenda exposed! (self.conspiracy)
    submitted 6 years ago * by Phazon

    “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
    •Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

    “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
    •Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University

    “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
    •Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace

    “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
    •Sir John Houghton, First chairman of IPCC

    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
    •Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

  16. glenn398 says

    Seems they want to ignore the fact that the Vikings were farming in Greenland before it turned too cold to farm. So since there weren’t a lot of vehicles at that time guess it must have been too many people burning wood that made the change.

  17. CrustyOldGeezer says

    Dear Lib’ruls.

    You keep telling us that “This is not who we are!”

    Perhaps YOU DO NOT KNOW WHO WE ARE and WHAT THIS NATION IS!

  18. James Maxwell says

    First “Climate Change” is the biggest line of crap spewed by al gore and it is noting more or less than
    a scam bought and paid for by “Big Money”. It is not any thing that something as puny as man
    has any ability over. We can control pollution by how we dispose of products that we throw away
    every day such as plastic bottle that do not dissolve but last forever. Our weather patterns are
    in a constant state of flux and have been so since the beginning of time. The distance from the
    sun, the tilt of the earths axis, solar winds, the position of the moon are all contributing factors.
    The corruption of “science” to give a desired result does not change that no matter how loud they
    whine, scream or cry about it. We have weather patterns that are proven to change over thousands
    of years and we can see the results by the Ice Cores we have taken from the Polar Ice Caps which
    contain evidence of weather dating back thousands of years. It is nothing more than a scam
    proposed by political interest to regulate and control our lives and let them dominate us. Both
    parties are guilty of this attempt to destroy our freedoms and liberty.

  19. Jmanjo says

    What really bothers me is this charade that its their way or the highway! Their version of the facts are heavily flawed and their data has been “re-arranged” to support their claims of climate change being caused by humans. The sun determines whether or not the planet heats up or not and it has been proven that just one volcanic eruption can change the world’s conditions more than all the human activity since the beginning of time. Why are we believing this BS they put out! The temperaturse are well within the norms and we have not seen any oceans burying Florida as they have claimed since Al Gore lost the election! This whole thing is BS and I would believe Exxon long before I would this administration of liars!

    1. patrick says

      Gore,biggest Con man{ AKA bull $hit artist}to BLOW enough hot air to over heat the earth! Now that’s where the global warming is coming from!!!!

  20. J.B.Jacobs says

    They talk about the ice caps melting and oceans rising. That’s baloney. If you take a glass full of ice , pour water in it to the top, let the ice melt, it will not run over the top. Maybe the reason the oceans are rising is because all the world at one time was open. When it rained, the water soaked up in the ground. Now we have thousands of miles of pavement in the roads and streets. The water cannot soak up so it runs into the drains, which run into the creeks and rivers which run into the ocean. It has to go somewhere. There has always been climate change. If it hadn’t change, we would be still be living in the ice age. Garbage!!!

    1. curmudgeon VN Veteran says

      Meanwhile the polar ice caps on Mars are melting without the assistance of man. Go figure.

      1. J.B.Jacobs says

        You forgot about the little green martians. Thank you sir, for your service

        1. curmudgeon VN Veteran says

          LOL, I forgot about them. Little Green Men must also be dependent on fossil fuels.

  21. Sandy0 says

    I find this distinctly hard to believe. Please produce evidence that Democrats propose ignoring the fact of climate change!
    You can hold opinions, but You Cannot Make Up the Facts.

    AND, you say, “America has made TOO MUCH PROGRESS”…whaaaaat?

    That statement exposes the fat underbelly of the neo-medievalist OTHER PARTY that ignores all possibilities available to Move USA forward and chooses to sit in ancient trenches. NO nation prospers with that position.

    The Other Political Party will bring US down.

    SHOULDN’T WE BE ELECTING ADULTS?

    1. curmudgeon VN Veteran says

      Undoubtedly, but I suspect you would rather elect a lying corrupt person like Mrs. Bill Clinton who reportedly has a vagina somewhere beneath her strap-on tool!

      1. TheBlues says

        Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahah!! It’s hiding under that $12,000 smock the bitch wears!!! Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahah!

  22. papa doug says

    The real arrogance of the Democrats is believing that they can change the natural ebb and flow of the earth’s weather by instituting programs that do nothing but fatten their wallets and prosecuting the opposition. “Climate change” has become a political football and as such has become so corrupt that the truth can hardly be seen through the smoke and mirrors. “Climate change” (warming and cooling) has been happening on earth for 4 billion years, it is a natural condition of the ebb and flow of earths climate.
    we have polluted our air there is no doubt but that does not equate to a change in earths climate. But it does make for hot politics and billions of dollars in public money going in private coffers of a majority of politicians. WOW talk about gutting a cash cow!

  23. Cookie Vranish says

    And the liberal scams go on and on!

  24. MILES E DRAKE says

    Like the “marriage equality” scam, “climate change” is a crucial ruse in the plan to abrogate the First Amendment. It is generally agreed that free speech does not confer the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater; once classes of speech are defined that constitute yelling “fire” in the theater the way is clear to ban any sort of utterance or opinion that the ruling element does not like, whether it is a statement that “triggers” someone or constitutes a “microagression” or makes people think “wrong” about the global warming hoax. We are just weeks away from a one-party presidential “republic’ and an Orwellian dictatorship that aims for unanimity of opinion. If we do not heed the words of the Emmanuel Goldstein of our day, Donald Trump, we are going to end up sooner rather than later in the Ministry of Love, being made to love Big Sister.

  25. Cadfael says

    If they have so much personnel and resources at the DOJ, how about prosecuting Hillary Clinton under the treason act, and the Clinton Foundation for their Quid pro Quo profits while she was secretary of state, the IRS for their crimes against conservative organizations, and appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the FBI director Comey, and Loretta Lynch for their refusal to prosecute Clinton, and the ATF and the White House for Fast and Furious?

    1. gotabgood says

      the treason act,
      You have to be talking about Reagan, he was dealing, trading and training the enemy..

      1. Cadfael says

        You obviously are in dire need of psychiatric help, aside from the pure fact that you are suffering from severe delusions, also known as liberalism, you seem to have the aggravating factor of Hillary-Amnesia. Several years of treatment with Doctor Lyle Rossiter, jr. MD might be able to cure you; though sadly there are no guarantees “because he can’t fix st…!”

      2. Valor says

        You are the classic example of the kind of useful idiots who will be responsible for the destruction of this nation. Totally brain dead! And too stupid to know it. Stupid can not be fixed.

        1. gotabgood says

          You live in fear and paranoia, there is a lion behind every rock, and a tiger in every tree, and bear behind each bush… Lions, Tigers and Bears, Oh my..
          There is no such thing as never, never land.. you have to come to grips that you have been spoon fed BS, your brain is filled with nonsense… things like Trump cares for the working class… or the Koch brothers say go ahead and buy that SUV, we have plenty of oil

    2. gotabgood says

      Dimwit.. you can’t prosecute innocent people.. get a life!!

      1. TheBlues says

        A lifeless dimwit telling a person to “get a life”. You are a piece of work.

  26. Skyhawk says

    In what other country run by idiots would they prosecute people or Companies for rejecting the government’s lies?

    1. gotabgood says

      China.. India
      And as it becomes more serious because people either are too damn ignorant to care or have their head stuck somewhere… there will be more laws and and more convictions.. I know you live on a mountain top in Tennessee and you can’t see a problem.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Il8Ehx_Zm8
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7abSExQ-10
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEJfxkca0fw
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7i9LBeZ1UU
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4THdX9KOZ_4

      1. mac12sam12 says

        Run Skippy, run! We’re melting and drowning!!

  27. pysco says

    The whole Climate Change has been caught using faulty Science, and statistics……. But in the end its about Distribution of Wealth, World Population Control….. And Sanders, Clinton, and Obama should be prosecuted if they “DENY” this… They are trying to cede our Soveriegncy to the UN……. Read Climate Gate, and the Greatest Hoax…

  28. junkmailbin says

    elect hilary ( as in do not cast your vote for trump) ans we will have every dept of the governemnt used to surpress dissention from the liberal progressive agends.

  29. gotabgood says

    I have had a couple of people ask me why the Antarctica is growing ice while there is a global warming…. I am not a scientist.. when I want to know something… I LOOK IT UP!!!!!! But I did look it up because I was curious too.. this is what I found.. This is only the first couple of paragraphs, there is more to read..

    Antarctica Is Gaining Ice, So Why Is the Earth Still Warming? November 19, 2015 02:26pm ET
    This story was updated at 8:26 p.m. ET.
    NASA recently released a study suggesting that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is gaining more ice than it is losing — a finding that, at first blush, seems to contradict the idea of global warming. So, how can Antarctica be gaining ice mass in a warming world where ice sheets are collapsing and the melting is predicted to increase sea levels across the globe?
    It turns out that the two phenomena — a growing ice sheet and warming-related melting — are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, the NASA study, which was published Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology, does not disprove global warming.
    Rather, the researchers found that snow accumulation is adding more ice to East Antarctica (the huge chunk of the continent to the east of the Transantarctic Mountains) and the interior region of West Antarctica than is being lost as glaciers across Antarctica thin out. More snow accumulation is, counterintuitively, a sign of global warming; more precipitation happens when there is more moisture in the air, and more moisture in the air is a product of higher temperatures, said Elizabeth Thomas, a glaciologist with the British Antarctic Survey. [Infographic: Your Guide to Antarctica]
    http://www.livescience.com/52831-antarctica-gains-ice-but-still-warming.html

  30. susmart3 says

    Don’t worry about Climate Change, the rest of the planet will go on fine without the human race. Good that no on has any children to worry about.

  31. WhiteFalcon says

    More and more Americans are waking up to the fact that global warming is nothing more than a great big fraud and the commieonazicrats, aka, Democrats, don’t like it one little bit.

  32. allen blaine says

    Just what is the optimum global temperature anyway? Does any one really know the answer? There have been ups and downs in the climate of the earth for 1000’s of years. To what do these so called scientists attribute for that history? And what of Al Gore, 6 years ago when someone hacked into his computer system and found 1000’s of e-mails between him and his paid “scientists” manipulating the global temperature readings to fit his agenda? This was main stream news. Any one care to answer?

  33. IgnoreTheFools says

    Everyone knows cars, trucks and all internal combustion engines have a part in pollution, big or small, what people forget is this is what we have For Now. Until something better comes along that is affordable we will continue to use what we have. The Criminal Fed Govnt will try to devastate the oil companies just like they did the Tabacco Industry. Anyone remember how that worked out for Us Consumers, 10 bucks a pack, are you ready for 10 bucks a gallon and horrible electricial rates. Anyone who thinks the federal govnt is on our side is a fricken fool. You democrats are totally Braindead and the repukes aren t much better. Careful what you wish for super brains

  34. TPM says

    Man made climate change is a lie. If you’re a progressive fascist and you can’t stop people from voicing an opposing viewpoint, you threaten them with fines or imprisonment. Fact is temperatures have NOT been rising and big government’s claim of global warming is a lie.

    This faux science is backed by NOAA climate stats, which they have altered to create a false read on climate change. These are the same climatologists who (in the 1970’s) said we were soon to perish from the dangers of … Global Cooling.

    GOOGLE: “The 1970’s Global Cooling compilation”, for a long list of articles, published by all of the major news outlets, warning us that we were about to perish from … Global Cooling.
    In retrospect, these articles were laughable. Just as today’s global warming articles today are based on false science and temperature readings, by scientists who are paid to present false facts in exchange for government grants.

    There’s no such thing as man made global cooling or warming. It’s a ruse pushed by politicians and their compliant media to grow government and to increase regulations and taxes.

    This climate hoax is hardest on the low income and middle class families, and it’s particularly tough on our elderly pensioners. The average Social Security check, before payments are made for Medicare, is $1,100 per month. Do these people need a huge increase in their utility bills? Democrats are NOT the party of the people. They are the party of their rich cronies.

  35. Susan Short says

    First, climate change is a hoax. Please feel free to come and arrest me, you piece of crap liberals, if you don’t like my saying it! The STUPID people of this country had better wake up soon, or this country will be worse than communist Russia ever was, and we will be calling the president Comrade! The liberals want total control of our lives, our thoughts and beliefs, and our very way of life in this country! WAKE UP, you idiots out there, before it is too late!

    1. Valor says

      You are correct on all counts. But I believe it is already too late. When you have a nation populated with a people the majority of which believe Hillary is corrupt, untrustworthy, and a liar, but are still willing to consider her for the office of president, you have a nation populated with a people incapable of self rule, a people whose ethics and character are as lacking as Hillary’s.

  36. richard schlinder says

    I am not being sarcastic. Since when did the majority of Americans have any influence on government issues. Remember? Power to the people? That has come and gone forever.
    It is time the American people face where we are at in the evolution of this society. The sun is setting.
    All societies have a life span. They generally disolve from within as is happening to the U.S. today.

    1. Valor says

      I agree totally. History confirms it.

  37. sox83cubs84 says

    Such threats of punishment are a wet dream for liberals. After all, when you can’t get facts to sway peoples’ opinions, then you have to resort to intimidation, bullying and censorship, three activities Communist Democraps excel at.

  38. Valor says

    This should come as no surprise! If the 2nd Amendment liberties can be legislated away so can and so will all others. Which is the natural progression of things, and the dream of today’s Demorat party, to have total control over the lives of the masses and have them dependent on their masters, the Demorat hierarchy. The point is the Demorat party has total contempt for the Constitution and Bill of Rights because those documents are intended to limit the power of those that would rule, not govern. They give them lip service to fool an ignorant public into believing they still matter.

  39. Lorraine E says

    Our weather has been created and controlled since the 1960s. Check the geoengineeringwatch.org web site to learn how 15 countries are creating and controlling weather world wide.
    The u.n. is endeavoring to increase taxes and control the people world wide using the global warming hoax.

    1. TheBlues says

      What a load of BS is this conspiracy website! You believe this BS, I have any one of a number of bridges to sell you. Ready to buy????

  40. disqus_CeZmTpgh9W says

    The earth is millions of years old and the climate has changed uncountable times
    To think that there is anything we can do about that is imbecellic.
    The left was screaming about the polar icecaps melting when in fact they have been expanding!

  41. Robert Cruder says

    In April 2015, the New York Times and Stanford University released survey results. Only 2% chose “Environment / global warming” as “the most important problem facing this country today “.

    Still, 16% chose “Environment / global warming” as “the most serious problem facing the world in the future if nothing is done to address it”. That is more than terrorism, war, social issues or crime.

    The public is always behind the curve on corporate falsehood. That is what PR is for.

    The LEAD industry lost and was forced to stop distributing poison. We are still cleaning that up but it is too late to bill them for it. The ASBESTOS industry lost, paid fines, Johns Manville went bankrupt and lawyers still advertise to sue for those dying of mesothelioma. The TOBACCO industry lost, paid fines, paid restitution of medical costs to Medicare, Medicaid and the VA and is still making annual payments to the states. Each thought they could lie their way out and was punished for it.

    Why is lying fatal for Hillary. expected for Donald and to be rewarded for EXXON?

  42. capa760 says

    I am sure the Air Force One, and Air Force Two, used on multiple long distance trips for The Obama Family, The Beast, and Limousines/ Chauffeurs, Security, Media staff, etc. have surpassed all climate change goals by themselves. But The Real Experts have kept a Professional Study of their own and
    The Climate has consistently become cooler, not warmer, and the sea bed volcanoes have been studied for locations and changes. Tossing dollars or collecting fines from businesses of those projects, or at the natural Forest Fires caused by lightening, will NOT STOP the smoke and fires. of natural occurrences, BUT it will probably line someone’s Foundation of Charitable Purposes or line the pockets of those who have NO ‘American Ingenuity’ of Success with any projects pushed upon the American Citizens. We, the real American Citizens, need to have an election of the ‘issues heaped upon The U.S. Constitution, and the Legal Voting American Citizens, to do the job of our elected Congressional DINO’s and RINO’s who are not full-filling their Oaths of Office-not earning their paychecks. Every Government worker, Supreme Court Justices took the Oath of Office to UPHOLD THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. And THAT IS WHAT THE U.S. PRESIDENT, legal or not qualified, swore on their Oath of Office. Shall the legal voters mark their ballots to use The 25th Amendment for NOT DISCHARGING their duties of office? NObamacare, NO Iran Treaty, NO Sea Treaty, NO Small Arms Treaty, NO United Nations Headquarters ON AMERICAN SOIL, NO AGENDA 21 FOR AMERICA, NO U.N. WORKERS IN THE USA,. NO HAARP MACHINERY (AK) making psychological weather warfare
    anywhere. Those machines could be the answer to ‘climate change’. Turn them off. Hillary Clinton has
    been heard to say Unconstitutional treason-“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated RELIGIOUS BELIEFS HAVE TO BE CHANGED.” April 23,2015-at world summit. SHE SAYS SHE WILL USE GOVERENM,ENT FORCE TO MAKE YOU REJECT YOU CHRISTIAN FAITH!”. Where in the US Constitution, does that say this about American Liberty and Freedom?

  43. Lary Breeding says

    Is that 97% of scientists picked by Democrats? Is that 97% of all scientists? Did they actually find all scientists in the world and survey them? I think not. No matter how they came up with the 97% it is a lie since not all scientist’s are in the climate change arena. There are actually scientist’s who don’t study climate change. As far as I know the 97% has been a Democratic lie and has never been proven.

  44. Mike Stempo says

    Chilling. Not the fact that the left is actually crafting and trying to pass such things with a dictatorial mandate, but the fact that those voting left are so oblivious to what they are actually sanctioning. They vote on what they think the left is in fantasy, not reality. Of course, isn’t that how Obama fooled them twice? Righties can’t be held blameless either. They vote for RINO’s simply because they have an “R” next to their name and we know that RINO’s either take a vote for the right off the table or outright sanction the left.

  45. riverstrat . says

    At the root of this entire Global Warming world taxes scam is the belief
    and doctrine that states:
    Man has been controlling Earth’s Climate since the 1800’s you know
    right from the start they are lying, lying to achieve a Globalist NWO Agenda.
    We are not going to let them get away with it.
    CAN I GET A FK YOU NWO ??>>>>>>>>tHANK YOU !!

    1. J.B.Jacobs says

      Global warming is normal. We have had global warming since the ice-age ended or we’d still be living in the ice age. Some day, if we don’t destroy this old world first, it will start going the other way and we will have global cooling. We can’t stop it. No amount of money is going to stop it. It’s been going on since the world was formed and will continue until it ends. It’s a cycle of warming and cooling that’s been going on ever since the world was formed.

      1. Morton212 says

        In tens of thousands of years we have NEVER had the predicted and rapid increase in extreme temperatures that is being measured now. Whether you like it or not – we can combat the most severe aspects of climate change by respecting the natural ecology of this planet. Its not just carbon monoxides and other gases – but the poisoning of the seas amd the destruction of the rain forests – the main source of oxygen.

        1. ringostarr1 says

          That is one unsubstantiated claim and neither you nor anyone else can produce one shred of evidence to black up little less prove your claim.
          For real information follow this link.
          http://www.bing.com/search?q=31000+scientists+against+global+warming&qs=RQ&pq=31000+scientists&sk=RQ1&sc=6-16&sp=2&cvid=4F6A16D6B4344A6994BE10F3856220C8&FORM=QBRE

  46. gotabgood says

    Funny now… but i wonder what 10 years will bring?

  47. richard schlinder says

    It is well known ,we don’t know who is in charge of our government. Everybody from Obama down blames somebody else for the problems of State.
    One thing is for sure. No one can blame the American people because they have had no say so in running government affairs. “Power to the People” has long since passed.
    America is dead. Long live America.

  48. tCotUS says

    Obama’s “handlers” (& Hillary’s) whether you call them Club of Rome/Agenda 21 or New World Order….is a conspiracy & all about CONTROL ! It’s the ultimate Scam & Conspiracy !! The names of it’s members are readily available.
    The Club of Rome (or world government), climate-change is their main plan of attack on America.

    These comments reflect some of their members views.

    “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
    •Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
    “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
    •Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University
    “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
    •Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace
    “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
    •Sir John Houghton, First chairman of IPCC
    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
    •Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

  49. Jorge Robert says

    If all the fossil fuel companies move out of the USA or are shut down through lawsuits the USA will go dark overnight. Is the Federal Government going to go into the Energy producing business just like it has done with annuities/retirement (Social Security), Banking (Student loans), Medical and hospital Insurance (Obama Care)??!!

  50. Allan Scott says

    It’s the crooked government that needs to be prosecuted, jailed, and later hung!

  51. Morton212 says

    Poppycock. In a prosecution the defendant would have the chance to prove his contention that climate change is nonsense, or that fossil fuel burning is not harmful. A jury would then decide on the truth of the matter. What is there to be afraid of for the side that is right ?

  52. Wendy says
  53. Lorraine E says

    This administration, guided by the u.n. which a controlled mouthpiece for the one world government is using the lie that we, the people world wide, are causing climate change. And climate change is a big hoax created to further tax and control us. If anyone is concerned about air pollution, all they have to do is look up at the chemtrails which are being sprayed on us by 15 developed countries over the past 50 years. The chemtrails are a toxic mix of aluminum, barium, and strontium along with viruses, bacteria, pot ash and lithium. Just to mention a few of the poisons. Read Elana Freeland’s book “Chemtrails, HAARP, and the full spectrum dominance of Planet Earth.” To learn how the chemtrails are used in conjunction with the HAARP electronics visit geoengineeringwatch.org.
    What you are seeing when you look up are some contrails from air carriers which are water vapor and they dissipate after a few minutes. The chemtrails are sprayed in tick, tack, toes all over the sky and they thicken as they fall to earth and then dim the skies. After the atmosphere and clouds have been seeded with heavy metals HAARP waves can move them where ever they want and create droughts and floods. Air carriers have scheduled departure and arrival times, they do not play tick tack toe in the sky, and they do not turn their engines for for a minute or two or they would probably crash. The chemtrail planes don’t turn their engines off either but their chemtrails stop when new canisters of chemicals are being loaded after the empty canisters are set aside.
    Global warming is a lie and the damage which governments world wide are doing to our air is true. The governments are responsible for both weather creation and control.

    1. ringostarr1 says

      Run along with the nice young men in the white coats Lorraine, it’s your nappy nappy time.

  54. peter says

    Global warming caused by liberals and Hollywood elites who fly all over the world in private jets. Al Gore is at the top of the list with this made up hoax.

  55. Nina Ferguson says

    The last time I checked, we the people still have FREEDOM OF SPEECH. If we want to say Hillary is a liar, we can say it, we are merely expressing out beliefs. I don’t believe that it would be legal to sue someone over what they believe.

  56. phil says

    Search UTube: George Carlon climate change. This says it all!

  57. phil says

    The green movement is the old red movement. Anti capitalist, anti private property anti American.
    Congress has the power to defund the EPA.

  58. ringostarr1 says

    Being a skeptic about Man Made Climate Change in 2016 is the same thing as a Black person in 1956 wanting to sit anywhere on a Montgomery, Alabama city bus where he or she could find an empty seat. And there is no one in government today more like Birmingham, Alabama Police Commissioner Eugene (Bull) Conner than Barack Hussein Obama. When he was asked at a press conference how he was going to handle Civil Rights demonstrators, Bull Conner had this to say, “Sic e’m” (referring to police dogs) What passes for our President’s mind is just as closed as the Former Birmingham Police Commissioner’s mind was, they are or were both closed minded and shutoff from reality.

    1. Morton212 says

      I have always wondered what the appeal is for those among us who believe that almost everything is a conspiracy.to defraud someone- or in the case of climate change – where probably 99 percent of all scientists are adamant in its dangers – and – the fact that we can do something about it – even if all it does is give humans another couple of generations before we also become extinct.

  59. VAfrmNJ says

    THE too much progress is the liberal desire to attain the goal of Agenda 21 (look it up). One should also be familiar with Sal Alinsky since both Clinton and Obama are avid followers. Everyone should be aware the US via Obama, Biden, Kerry and Lynch have entered into a contract with the United Nations, allowing them to put their boots on our soil. The United Nations IS Muslim dominated. Their doctrine is against our Constitution. Their goal is Shariah law world wide under one government. Personally, since there are many Muslims who are not well educated, in particular women who are made to be subservient, this race is easily controlled… most don’t know a life outside of harsh control, slavery, and servitude. America is the last stand for freedoms, once this nation goes down, there is no place to turn to. Millennials have no clue as to why they are allowed to act, to protest, the way they can, because this type of behavior is NOT acceptable in most Middle Eastern countries… freedoms they have taken for granted while chanting we should accept MORE illegals and refugees. It has nothing to do with migration, but all to do with checks and balances… if the scale tilts too much to one side, it can become tyrannical. Shariah Law and the Constitution is like trying to blend oil with water… there will always be a separation of both particles. Trump may not be a perfect choice for president, but he is a helluva lot better than Clinton as president as this country cannot continue down the path Obama has put us on… it’s literally killing America. There is no such thing as a majority of Americans trying to “catch up” to the liberal agenda, it’s more of… WE DON’T AGREE, WE DON’T LIKE IT, WE DON’T WANT IT… PERIOD.

  60. Byron Claghorn says

    It is obvious that the DNC & Hillary Not Only Lie about, Emails and Benghazi as well as Rig their Primaries / Elections, but they also LIE About Man-Made Climate Change / Global Warming which has not warmed in the last 18 years since its peak in 1998 according to NASA & NOAA sensing system reports and there is NO pending devastating Global Warming Crisis due to Man-Made CO2 as claimed by progressive and DNC politicians.

    If the DNC wishes to prosecute, they will have to win the case SCIENTIFICALLY and they have NEVER proven their case following proper scientific methods, they have only created man-made (contrived models) based on false assumptions and the FALSE PREMISE that CO2 causes significant warming (Al Gore also Lied to you & became a multi-millionaire). Whereas honest scientists that have examined many of the Ice Core Samples and won NASA awards for creating and monitoring Global Temperatures via Satellites as well as esteemed Ocean and Polar Cap researchers, former Astronaut Scientists and Nobel Prize Winners (for actual Science, no phony Al Gore-hyped videos) as can be seen in the following video explaining how they have PROVEN that the man-made premise regarding CO2 is FALSE and that our Sun and Solar Cycles are the primary drivers of our Earth’s Climate!

    CLICK ON THIS LINK to have expert and honest Climate Scientists amplify and verify the above points! Or place this LINK in the URL-Address of your browser: https://youtu.be/52Mx0_8YEtg

    Tens of Thousands of honest, distinguished and highly-qualified scientists agree and many thousands have even legally certified that there has always been climate change (for 4.8 billion years), but it is not affected by Man and his use of Fossil Fuels & his CO2 emissions. The relatively miniscule contribution by Man is well with in the tolerance of Natural Variation and over 99.9% of all the Earths atmospheric gases including Greenhouse Gases are created Naturally. [PPM – Means Parts-Per-Million]

    Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) are approximately 1% of the Atmosphere (i.e., 10,000 ppm) At the current CO2 concentration of 400 ppm (i.e., 0.04% of the GHGs): CO2 is a Trace Gas (0.002% or 20 ppm) which is an Extremely TRACE Greenhouse Gas vs. Naturally produced CO2 (0.038% or 380 ppm) vs. Naturally produced Water Vapor (H2O) which is the Primary and Most Potent Greenhouse Gas (95% or 9,500 ppm). CO2 & Water Vapor (H2O) are mainly produced NATURALLY by evaporation by the Sun’s energy from the world’s vast oceans and upon cooling eventually return to the seas where they originated — This tiny amount of CO2 produced by Man’s emissions is insignificant compared with the Naturally-Produced atmospheric components.
    So many people have heard the Progressive Propaganda and extreme exaggerations of scientific facts from the Global Warming Alarmists (GWA), DNC, corrupt UN IPPC, Environmentalist and Biased Media that Global Warming is a fact when it is NOT! They have simply taken advantage the current Modern Grand Solar Maximum (1850 – Present) which is a natural warming period like the Medieval Grand Solar Maximum (900 – 1300) which was a period of even higher warming followed by cooling as the Earth entered its next Grand Solar Minimum, called the “Little Ice Age” (1300 – 1850). Now we are on the backside of this Modern Maximum which has leveled and begun descending in temperatures into the next Solar Minimum which is predicted to be very cold like the prior Dalton or Maunder Minimums.
    Climate-“Denier” Prosecutors, pack your long underwear and hope there are enough snowplows to get you to the courthouse!

  61. Byron Claghorn says

    If the DNC wishes to prosecute, they will have to win the
    case SCIENTIFICALLY and they have NEVER proven their case following proper
    scientific methods, they have only created man-made (contrived models) based on
    false assumptions and the FALSE PREMISE that CO2 causes significant warming (Al
    Gore also Lied to you & became a multi-millionaire).
    Whereas honest scientists that have examined many of the Ice Core Samples and won NASA awards for creating and monitoring Global Temperatures via Satellites as well as esteemed
    Ocean and Polar Cap researchers, former Astronaut Scientists and Nobel Prize
    Winners (for actual Science, no phony Al Gore-hyped videos) as can be seen in
    the following video explaining how they have PROVEN that the man-made premise
    regarding CO2 is FALSE and that our Sun and Solar Cycles are the primary
    drivers of our Earth’s Climate!

    CLICK ON THIS LINK to have expert and honest Climate Scientists amplify
    and verify the above points! Or place this LINK in the URL-Address of
    your browser: https://youtu.be/52Mx0_8YEtg

    Tens of Thousands of honest, distinguished and highly-qualified scientists
    agree and many thousands have even legally certified that there has always been
    climate change (for 4.8 billion years), but it is not affected by Man and his
    use of Fossil Fuels & his CO2 emissions. The relatively miniscule
    contribution by Man is well with in the tolerance of Natural Variation and over
    99.9% of all the Earths atmospheric gases including Greenhouse Gases are
    created Naturally. [PPM – Means Parts-Per-Million]

    Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) are approximately 1% of the Atmosphere (i.e., 10,000
    ppm) At the current CO2 concentration of 400 ppm (i.e., 0.04% of the GHGs): CO2
    is a Trace Gas (0.002% or 20 ppm) which is an Extremely TRACE Greenhouse Gas
    vs. Naturally produced CO2 (0.038% or 380 ppm) vs. Naturally produced Water
    Vapor (H2O) which is the Primary and Most Potent Greenhouse Gas (95% or 9,500
    ppm). CO2 & Water Vapor (H2O) are mainly produced NATURALLY by
    evaporation by the Sun’s energy from the world’s vast oceans and upon cooling
    eventually return to the seas where they originated — This tiny amount of CO2
    produced by Man’s emissions is insignificant compared with the
    Naturally-Produced atmospheric components.

    So many people have heard the Progressive Propaganda and
    extreme exaggerations of scientific facts from the Global Warming Alarmists
    (GWA), DNC, corrupt UN IPPC, Environmentalist and Biased Media that Global
    Warming is a fact when it is NOT! They have simply taken advantage
    the current Modern Grand Solar Maximum (1850 – Present) which is a natural
    warming period like the Medieval Grand Solar Maximum (900 – 1300) which was a
    period of even higher warming followed by cooling as the Earth entered its
    next Grand Solar Minimum, called the “Little Ice Age” (1300 –
    1850).
    Now we are on the backside of this Modern Maximum which has
    leveled and begun descending in temperatures into the next Solar Minimum which
    is predicted to be very cold like the prior Dalton or Maunder Minimums.

    Climate-“Denier” Prosecutors, pack your long underwear and hope there are enough snowplows to
    get you to the courthouse!

  62. yellowjacket2 says

    The only thing that’s more full of BS than the Constitution hating Democrats is Climate Change.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.