Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

First Obamacare, Now Obamagreen

November 21, 2012 by  

First Obamacare, Now Obamagreen

Over the next four years, President Barack Obama will try to implement more sweeping changes in America, this time under the pretense of saving the Earth.

In 2009, the President slammed Obamacare down America’s throat. In 2013, it will be Obamagreen — with all the pitfalls of higher taxation, a repressed economy and greater power in the hands of Washington.

This is what the President himself said the evening of his victory:

But despite all our differences, most of us share certain hopes for America’s future. We want our kids to grow up in a country where they have access to the best schools and the best teachers. A country that lives up to its legacy as the global leader in technology and discovery and innovation, with all the good jobs and new businesses that follow.

We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt, that isn’t weakened by inequality, that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet [emphasis added].

It seems the President has determined that America and the world must face the immediate and paralyzing shock from manmade global warming. During his second term, the President will take expensive steps to remedy the problem.

Superstorm Sandy was a perfect storm for Obama. Its occurrence stripped the momentum of the Romney campaign; it also gave the President and New Jersey’s Republican Governor Chris Christie (aka Brutus) a chance to pal around as if they were lifelong friends as they walked among the destruction across the Governor’s home state.

“I cannot thank the President enough for his personal concern and compassion for our state and for the people of our state,” Christie said.

Perhaps Christie saw the writing on the wall and wanted to swing over to the winning side, the Green side. Perhaps the influence of the Green Environmental Machine has begun to influence even good Republicans. The only thing that seems certain is that the environmental movement is almost a religion with its own mantras and even high priests like Al Gore and Obama.

Robert Nisbet, one of the 20th century’s great conservative minds, wrote:

“It is entirely possible that when the history of the twentieth century is finally written, the single most important social movement of the period will be judged to be environmentalism. …  Environmentalism is now well on its way to becoming the third great wave of redemptive struggle in Western history, the first being Christianity, the second modern socialism.”

The President is part of this wave. He launched his re-election campaign in December 2011 by announcing $4 billion in energy conserving upgrades to Federal buildings throughout the country and finalizing efforts to create an ecosystem task force.

Obama has also mandated the first fuel and emissions standards for commercial vehicles and is applying those rules to vehicles built between 2014 and 2018.

The President has also committed $21 billion in taxpayer money to solar and wind energy companies. One of those companies was Solyndra, which received more than $500 million in Federal money only to default on it.

According to Canada’s CTV News, Obama’s re-election has made climate change a “hot topic” in Washington and may lead to a new carbon tax. A carbon tax would force people to pay more for using fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas, which the Greens claim is producing heat-trapping carbon dioxide and creating storms like Sandy.

As blogged on, Sandy has put global warming back into focus for millions of Americans as well as Congress.

Global warming was also a type of wicked problem that led to gridlock and dissension in the nation’s capital, as nobody could quite formulate the link between public policy and extreme weather events.

That is, until Sandy. After being a non-factor until the last week of the presidential campaign, suddenly people want to talk about global warming.

The Post compares global warming as a crisis as great as the Federal government’s “fiscal cliff.” Really?

First, global warming — if it even exists and if it is truly manmade — is a global problem (I have more to say shortly).

Second, the fiscal crisis is all American, and it is a problem created by two Presidents and 12 years of Congress members who were negligent and would probably be found legally culpable if they were working in the private sector.

We know the Federal government is headed for bankruptcy. Social programs are grievously underfunded, defense spending is out of control and, most likely, tax revenues are going to decline. (Higher tax rates won’t mean more money to Washington; they will mean less money because the economy is most likely to implode.) But we don’t know that global warming is a certainty.

The same day The Post published its article, The Wall Street Journal ran a column signed by 16 scientists of note titled “No Need to Panic about Global Warming.”

This is part of what scientists signed off on in the column:

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

I got my first writing job three decades ago. All these years later, I am not sure if my publisher was teasing the day I started when he said: “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.” The Greens have made that an axiom. Every time there is a hurricane or a superstorm like Sandy, they jump up on the highest soapbox and yell: “Global warming!”

If Obama bases new tax and energy policies on Sandy, that storm may be destructive for many years after the rains and wind ceased and power was restored.

There is one more inconvenient truth that the Greens I talk to can’t answer, even if I give them two contingencies that they can’t prove (that there is global warming and that it is manmade): How is the United States going to change this?

According to GrabStats, there are more than 2,000 coal plants in China and one new plant goes into operation every four to seven days.

In 2008, Wired Science reported that if China’s carbon usage keeps pace with its economic growth, the country’s carbon dioxide emissions will reach 8 gigatons a year by 2030. That will equal the entire world’s carbon dioxide production.

This has implications for the United States because what it means is that if Obama pursues Obamagreen the way he did Obamacare, then it will simply be a continuation of making the United States less competitive.

If Obama wins and gets his way with Green energy, do you know what is going to happen? The United States will develop state-of-the-art technologies that still won’t be as competitive as fossil fuels. Then we will sell the blueprints of those technologies to the Chinese, who will manufacture and sell them back to us, using coal to power the factories that produce these products. There is logic in that.

I don’t understand Obama. He either doesn’t follow this logic because he isn’t very smart or, more likely, he does understand it thoroughly but is still giving the green light to Green energy without regard to the cost and competitive consequences to the Nation which he has sworn to protect.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

John Myers

is editor of Myers’ Energy and Gold Report. The son of C.V. Myers, the original publisher of Oilweek Magazine, John has worked with two of the world’s largest investment publishers, Phillips and Agora. He was the original editor for Outstanding Investments and has more than 20 years experience as an investment writer. John is a graduate of the University of Calgary. He has worked for Prudential Securities in Spokane, Wash., as a registered investment advisor. His office location in Calgary, Alberta, is just minutes away from the headquarters of some of the biggest players in today’s energy markets. This gives him personal access to everyone from oil CEOs to roughnecks, where he learns secrets from oil insiders he passes on to his subscribers. Plus, during his years in Spokane he cultivated a network of relationships with mining insiders in Idaho, Oregon and Washington.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “First Obamacare, Now Obamagreen”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at





    • Harold Olsen

      If it were a violation of the US Constitution it wouldn’t matter to Obama. he doesn’t give a damn. He will do whatever he wishes, no matter what. He knows that the Congress (either party) won’t do anything to try to stop him and neither will the Supreme Court. He has overruled both and has gotten away with it. They are perfectly willing to let him destroy this country. In fact, they are his willing accomplices.

      • GALT

        !70+ scientific reasons that prove globing warming is NOT REAL, pick your favorite.

      • Tony Newbill

        It may be fake but its a Great way to continue to take wealth away from the Self reliant Citizens and make them more dependent on the Government … next up is your 401 K , it will be sold as a Investment you will make on fixing the future for your kids , but the Government gets to decide how your money is used to fix the future , ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

      • eddie47d

        Do you always live in a fog Harold? Does anyone want to spend Thanksgiving with you while your incessant negativity overwhelms the dinner conversation? The article says “you want the best schools ” for the future of our kids . Yet are are willing to vote down every tax increase than may achieve that goal. You vote against every infrastructure project that can get our cities up and running. You attack every Green idea out there because the right wing talking heads tell you so. You want a future yet you don’t want a responsible future. Where folks don’t have to breath increased amounts of pollution. You give the coal industry high fives while the air becomes sicker from the health hazards. I can’t fathom your love affair with deadly mercury poisoning or dirty waterways.You say businesses don’t have to be responsible and we must accept ground contamination and hazard wastes in the name of progress. You sir are the one who is jeopardizing the “children’s future” when you know there is a better and cleaner way yet you refuse to invest a few dollars to make it better. You take setbacks in the green energy industry as proof that they are not working even when they do work. There are problems in the nuclear industry,the coal industry,and oil industry yet you are continually fine with those losses and environmental damages but put up the middle finger to green energy. We need a strong combination of all our energy assets for that shows a real concern for America and a better life for the kids. I can admit that coal is probably here to stay but I also want more responsibility from those industries in environmental destruction and the cost of health care because of them.

      • Framingham47

        Our constitution protects aliens, drunks and U.S. Senators.
        Will Rogers

      • walter agard

        They are real allright, only you con not see it in this reality world.

      • Tom

        If they are willing accomplices (WHY has the House majority leadership still not raised the threat of IMPEACHMENT!), that would be tantamount to TREASON, wouldn’t it?

      • mark

        Elections matter. Obama won. But even victors only get a part of their agenda passed due to our system of checks-and-balances. In Obama’s health care reform, for instance, there is no single government payer. Obama Care doesn’t really qualify as national health insurance in the European manner. Private doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies still run the show in the U.S healthcare system. It is a pretty modest reform compared to Europe and Canada.

      • DaveH

        Galt says — “!70+ scientific reasons that prove globing warming is NOT REAL, pick your favorite”.
        And then he links you to a Pro-Global-Warming-Hoax site. Decepticon.
        What else can we expect from a disingenuous Liberal Progressive?

      • S.C.Murf

        Fast eddie you hammer on Harold about mercury poisoning in the ground water but didn’t say anything about obama making people use light bulbs that have mercury in them. I already know your talking point about the bulbs (recycle, Right?) Well with millions of bulbs in millions of households how many are going to end up in the landfills? And how about when you drop one in YOUR house and it breaks what then. They say first thing to do is clear everyone out, even the animals, what is this telling you? You really want that kind of hazardous crap around you and yours? What we have to do is make sure as we forge ahead that we are not creating even more hazards in our life for our children. Yes we have to be smart about it, every step we take. Happy Thanksgiving bud. TIME for all of us to have an attitude of gratitude, thank you Jesus.

        up the hill

      • ccfonten

        Harold: you are exactly correct.

      • eddie47d

        I agree Murf that they should have worked a little harder in finding a better bulb. Mercury is bad no matter where it comes from. I recycle a lot of things but I am really bad about those smaller batteries so even I have to try harder. Have a Great Thanksgiving Day!

      • Terry

        You are 100% right Harold with the 70 to 80 communist in Congress and the minority Supreme Court picked by Obama he can do just about as he pleases sad to say.

      • GALT

        Poor “functionally illiterate” David H……..

        Of the 170+ myths……….those that have scientists attached ( bunkers ) are named,
        and then the SCIENCE……..( not to be confused with non empirical, non disciplines,
        like economics ) is presented……. ( de-bunked )………..there are not a lot of
        ( bunking ) scientist’s there…….

        Your petition ( once again……because you idiots just keep posting this stuff ) is 12 tears old……..the last date it uses is 2000…… asks a question ( it does not make
        a statement ) and 1/3 of the scientists are engineers…………

        BTW here is one of your signer’s: Freeman John Dyson,

        and here is what he says…….

        Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that “[o]ne of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.”[32] However, he has pointed out that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends:

        The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in…[32]

        He is among signatories of a letter to the UN criticizing the IPCC[33][34] and has also argued against the ostracization of scientists whose views depart from the acknowledged mainstream of scientific opinion on climate change, stating that “heretics” have historically been an important force in driving scientific progress. “[H]eretics who question the dogmas are needed… I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies.”[32]

        More recently, he has endorsed the now common usage of “global warming” as synonymous with global anthropogenic climate change, referring to recent “measurements that transformed global warming from a vague theoretical speculation into a precise observational science.”[35]

      • eddie47d

        Do you lie to your wife too Terry?

      • http://modconntentCom brand inspector

        Haold, The marxistloving/socialst and the congential liying democrats don’t see any problem with ignoring the Constitution not being followed, it is evelving and needs to fit what ever idea they dream up. Look at any of the maddrass educated books with his domistic terrorist, from his Chitcago neighborhood. Think the Shortn Old Buggers would ever have a veiw of any law or standrads, except centerized control and book trained theorists making a rules for every one, except beltway rejects, that never paid what they cost the taxpayers.

      • http://google David

        Your right Harold. Put the heat on the Republicans. They should jump out of their sheep imprinted jammies, put a tie on and fight for our nation.

      • vicki

        GALT. There is nothing wrong with DaveH’s reading comprehension. The site is intended to debunk anyone who would dare challenge the myth of AGW.

        Quote from the header:
        “Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation

        Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn’t what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say”

        With the revelations of “ClimateGate” we KNOW that peer review is not a part of the debate.

        What is most amusing about the AGW war on CO2 is that they are not just warring against industrial plants. They are warring on the GREEN plants that use sunlight to create oxygen for US to breath. (H20 is the most dangerous green house gas. Good luck getting rid of that one

      • http://yahoo Charles Arthur Williams

        I’ve worked outside for 45 years, as a farm boy and construction workers. I don’t need to be convinced about Global Warming I have SEEN the change in the climate, even changing seed and fertilizer’s to offset the warming ! I have seen stunted growth, the nearer you get to big city’s. The changing of the jet stream, and mega storms closer together, show were farther along that even greens think !

        The Lord created the earth to heal itself, but we keep getting in the way, building in flood plains and trying to control the earth with the ways of man ! We are called to be good stewards, sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring our own eyes is not good stewardship !

        As far as the economy goes, this could be a growth industry ! 1/3 of Germany’s economy is Green, and their doing better than we are ! When I got out of High School in 77 green tech was to be the next big industry. But with Reagan we went backwards, Reagan even removed a solar collector off the White House after it had already paid for itself ! We should be 10 years ahead of the world in green tech, instead were 20 years behind, and actually made Global Warming worse with our addiction to cheap oil !

        Lets get smart on this people so our Grandchildren have a planet healing itself once
        again !

        • George E

          My God man! Even with government subsidies to the wind and solar industries and regulatory constraints being enforced against fossil fuel industries, wind and solar still can’t produce electricity competitively. So, why in heck should we continue going down that path? It’s interesting to note what other countries are doing, but keep in mind that they don’t have cheap natural gas like we do, so while wind and solar might make sense for them, it doesn’t for us.

      • GALT

        Yes vicki there is…….DavidH has a serious “comprehension problem”……

        GALT. There is nothing wrong with DaveH’s reading comprehension. The site is intended to debunk anyone who would dare challenge the myth of AGW.

        Quote from the header:

        “Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation

        very good………..except you have to go there first………

        so find something and rebunk it……..

        don’t you think it strange that the “illiterate” would attempt to pass off that
        kyoto protest QUESTION as legitimate……..( and he already tried this )

        And when confronted with the most notable signer…..Dyson……who has completely
        backed off his position…..and ends up with……..

        “More recently, he has endorsed the now common usage of “global warming” as synonymous with global anthropogenic climate change, referring to recent “measurements that transformed global warming from a vague theoretical speculation into a precise observational science.”

        I mean vicki….this is not our first dance…….and you are way smarter than DavidH
        and you also know that I don’t make stuff up……..

        DavidH is a bored and boring fool…….who thinks saying “liberal progressive” is
        an argument…….( sucks when you don’t KNOW what the words mean )

        He thinks he’s the big frog here……….and he’s right…….he’s just short a word….

        He’s the BIG BOILED FROG………and he should have been taken apart
        way before this……….

        Plus it’s not like I didn’t warn him……..

        btw…..are you oscillating from vicki to Vicki today…..

      • eddie47d

        Vickie we understand Dave H’s methods of debunking even if he has to lie to do it.We see what is happening out in the real world not from Dave’s basement view.

      • Robert Smith

        Question asked: “And how about when you drop one in YOUR house and it breaks what then.”

        It’s quite simple, common sense, and not really a problem.

        For the short version one can go to:

        The LIE that CFL bulbs are dangerous is simply a propaganda scheme from the extreme right.

        Oh, and the mercury liberated in buring coal for the electricity of an incandesant light is far more than from breaking a CFL. So, if you are really concerned go with CFL.

        Actually as soon as you can afford it got to LED. The more people who go with LED lights the sooner they will become cheap.


      • pweiters9

        11/23/12, That’s right, Harold, the only thing we can really count on are these alternative-energy cos collapsing no matter how much money is shoveled into them. This will happen, most likely, during BO’s 5th year. The science is just not there to support these wild theorems & their remedies.

      • Vicki

        Robert Smith writes:
        “The LIE that CFL bulbs are dangerous is simply a propaganda scheme from the extreme right.”

        I was not aware that California was an extreme right state. Seems rather intensely blue to me.

        So who again is lying about the danger of CFL?

      • Stuart Shepherd

        Eddie 47- You seem to live in a liberal/statist FOG when you criticize Harold for “incessant negativity” because he doesn’t want to pay more (federal) taxes to “get the best schools” (ha, ha, ha- i.e., pay off Obama’s staunchest unionized supporters and liberal destroyers of our childrens’ minds!!!!). There shouldn’t BE a federal income tax- period ( questionably for our defense, and interstate infrastructure, etc., but even that was raised by the government itself prior to the institution of federal taxation). Education should be paid for at the local level, through local taxes, property taxes, etc. It is a local value subject to local standards of every sort. If you don’t want to or won’t pay for your kids education- why should I? It’s throwing good money after bad down a sewer hole!! Community moral standards play into this, as education is a value, like many others. It is NOT a right, NOT an entitlement, and it is not valued when it is treated as such. Statists make me sick!

      • Gordon

        Did you ever see that composite picture of the world at night?

        Hey willing accomplaces, turn off the un-necessary lights.

    • GALT

      So Mr Myers here is a proposition for you……I have a room 40 X 40 x 40.

      The air mixture is 70% OXYGEN and 30% Carbon Dioxide……..2 and 1/5 times
      MORE oxygen than you are breathing now……..

      This ratio will be maintained for the duration of your stay…….how much
      time would you be willing to spend in this room?

      Feel free to bring your favorite plant and animal pets…….

      Don’t hold back………just shout it out when you know…….in fact bring those
      16 scientists too…….

      • Warrior

        House plants work also however, abortion, missiles, drugs, guns all work faster. “Forward”!

      • Flashy

        Galt…the problem with the Moderates explaining to Rightists is a diference in ability to conceptualize and think. Studies show Right thinks black and white with an overlay of a fear for change. Moderates and Liberals have not only the ability to think black and white, but to conceptualize … and have a lower fear of change factor by a large magnitude. I’m not saying one is superior to the other…I’m pointing out the differences in ability to perceive.

        One on side, we have a shrinking number of scientists who proclaim global warming and climate change are either not man made/enhanced or simply is not occurring. These scientists are increasingly on the margins and have credibility only because it’s the last straw the anti earth contingent have to legitimize the belief. (Remember , the tobacco industry regularly trotted out hundreds of “studies” showing cigarettes do not cause cancer)

        Let’s assume they are correct.

        Now let us review some history.

        = In 1969, Cleveland’s oily, contaminated Cuyahoga River caught fire. The cause of the fire is attributed to spontaneous combustion of the intermixing of the chemicals in the river attributed to wastes dumped into the river by the waterfront industries.. Flames climbed as high as five stories until fireboats brought it under control.

        Today, over $2 billion in residential and commercial developments is slated for the area over the next few years and the Brookings Institution called it one of America’s “Emerging Downtowns” because of its 32.2% growth over the past 10 years. Ask those in Cleveland which is the better of the two.

        = Or take Pittsburgh. In the 1950′s, the streetlights and automobile headlights had to be lighted during the day and downtown office workers changed shirts at noon because of the sooty air.

        Today, the stark contrast is Pittsburgh’s consistently high ranking among the nation’s most liveable cities.

        = Showing the effects are not located only in the NE, let’s look at Portland Oregon. In the 1970′s, the City posted the waterfront as unsafe to swim and fish caught had cancerous tumors and showed almost off the charts contents of lead, mercury, and other toxins. Foam as high as 30 feet and stretching shore to shore formed at the base of the Willamette Falls.

        Today, walk the downtown waterfront and gaze at the jet skis the water skiers and marvel at the office workers in suit and tie carrying a fishing ole taking a noon break. And take in the famous “Hawg Lines” at the base of the Willamette Falls where fisherman tie hull to hull forming lines across the river to catch the runs of salmon and steelhead.

        In Eastern oregon, the region’s remaining coal fired electrical plant was tossing out emissions which carried into the Columbia gorge Scenic Area…attacking the rock and fauna. On windless days, one could see a brown haze settled throughout the 40 miles of Gorge. The states (Washington and Oregon) emphasized wind…and today, the Boardman plant is shuttered as wind farms more than amply replaced the production of the coal fired plant. And guess what? No more haze, acid levels have dropped to low background levels. And more jobs than ever created by the new energy industry!

        Across the nation, not one city..not one farm..can say the times of the past were better living than today.

        THAT is the economic costs involved in clean up. Positive economic impacts. Positive health impact. Positive livability impact. .

        So let’s turn now to China as Mr. Myers wants to point as the situs of choice and what we should compare ourselves to.

        Various forms of pollution have increased as China have industrialized which has caused widespread environmental and health problems. A report issued by the World bank states report stated that “hundreds of thousands of premature deaths and incidents of serious respiratory illness caused by exposure to industrial air pollution. Seriously contaminated by industrial discharges, many of China’s waterways are largely unfit for direct human use”. The New York Times in a 2007 article about China’s pollution problem stated that “Environmental degradation is now so severe, with such stark domestic and international repercussions, that pollution poses not only a major long-term burden on the Chinese public but also an acute political challenge to the ruling Communist Party.”

        = Only 1% of the country’s 560 million city dwellers breathe air considered safe by the European Union, because all the China’s major cities are constantly covered in a “toxic gray shroud”. Before and during the 2008 Summer Olympics, Beijing was “frantically searching for a magic formula, a meteorological deus ex machina, to clear its skies for the 2008 Olympics.” A large section of the ocean is without marine life because of massive algal blooms caused by the high nutrients in the water.

        Now…nte the following important fact …World Bank officials said “China’s environmental agency insisted that the health statistics be removed from the published version of the report, citing the possible impact on ‘social stability’”.

        Get that?

        As China’s Middle Class grows, as more and more begin to enjoy the affluence of a market economy, more and more are demanding benefits in life, environment, and health. There is a water shortage in most major cities..not from lack of water…but lack of drinkable water ! The social strain on the political class in China is tremendous and increasing daily. The sheer costs in storm and natural disaster repair will strain a budget that is increasingly under stress. The question is and never has been whether China will clean’s whether they can clean up and regulate fast enough to save the ruling political system!

        Now…let’s review some issues surrounding Global Warming and Climate Change. Increased CO2 levels etc are shown to be dramatically increasing since the Industrial Age came into full swing. Coincidentally, average world atmospheric temperatures are shown to rise as more and more of the world industrialized.

        We now have the North pole exposed with open waters during the summer. HUGE icebergs and ice sheets unprecedented in size in recorded history are breaking off at both polar ice caps. Storms are increasing in intensity and number, oceans are rising and flooding in coastal regions are now the norm in each winter season. Drought is commonplace in regions not known for frequent drought. Summer temps in the 100′s and 100 teens are now common in this country.

        The question to ask the Right (and even Mr. Myers)….you make the claim man is not affecting the warming and change..that it is natural occurrence. The Green is saying it does affect the climate and change. That even if the earth is warming and the cycle is natural, the SPEED of the change is magnitudes greater … centuries instead of millennia, decades instead of centuries.

        Nay…the question is not whether it is occurring..the real question to ask the Right is …what if you’re wrong? Will you explain it to the grandkids when they ask in 50 years why we were so stupid?

        If the Greens are wrong…worst case is a cleaner, more livable and enjoyable lifestyle.

        So…to all you on the Right…what if you are wrong?

      • Ron The Marine

        flashy, you are so full of your savior obummer that you can’t see straight! Who gives a twit about global warming if you can’t feed and take care of your family for the tax burden that will be coming when obummer implements his 3rd world order ignorance! You flashy have to be an obummer mole to spout the obummer [expletive deleted] you shovel! And why are you even on Bob’s conservative site? To dispel all common sense and truth when you see it! To all you dumb-ass flashy thinkers, FALL IN LOCKSTEP WITH THE LOST!

        Semper Fi !

      • Jon

        Galt, your skeptical science site is bull puckey! First hint, it was a World Bank commissioned report. So what do you think those elite money hungry statists are going to say. They won’t stop till we are all poor and they have all the money and going Green is one great way to do it. It’s all part of Agenda 21 and the UN, World Bank, and Council on Foreign Affairs way to take over! The world has gone through these cycles before and most likely wasn’t manmade, so why all of sudden is it manmade? I’ll tell you why, because it’s not.

      • eddie47d

        If you are a Marine Ron then why don’t you fight for a better country or even a better world? The increased burning of fossil fuels does harm to your family and loved ones so shouldn’t that be a concern for you? Flashy pointed out a few ways in which to make your life better and he’s not doing it for profit. How far back do you want us to go before realizing how much damage was done which cost us dearly too. Be thankful that we changed and some of those old problems aren’t with us anymore. Strap those boots back on for America needs strong willed men who will keep America safe and environmentally sound.

      • DaveH

        Flashman says — “One on side, we have a shrinking number of scientists who proclaim global warming and climate change are either not man made/enhanced or simply is not occurring. These scientists are increasingly on the margins and have credibility only because it’s the last straw the anti earth contingent have to legitimize the belief”.
        We do? Perhaps you could cite a real reference, Flashman, to back up that claim since you have no credibility on this board. And I’m not talking about some vague reference to a hard copy magazine that nobody is going to bother looking up. Post us a link, like you should have done for most of your plagiarized comment about China’s pollution which was cut and pasted from Wikipedia:

        The truth is that the “scientists” who support the Homogenic Global Warming Hoax are bought and paid for by various Governmental bodies. We can expect objective science from them?

      • DaveH

        Here’s what happens to scientists who don’t toe the Government Propaganda line:

      • GALT

        But Jon……..are you going in my little room?

        Will you be bringing any scientist’s?

      • DaveH

        Here is a list of those Scientists who are brave enough to face the onslaught of Progressives who will do their best to harass those scientists into submission:

      • DaveH

        How the Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed:

      • eddie47d

        When the Koch Brothers paid to have global warming denied isn’t that fraud and deception? The good thing is that the ones he paid proved the Brothers wrong.

      • Flashy

        Ron/Jon … what if you’re wrong?

        The benefits of controlling and decreasing pollution as well as turning more towards Green Energy are apparent. Both in lifestyle as well as economic (jobs jobs jobs). Jobs in research, jobs in construction, jobs in operations and maintenance.

        As far as affecting climate…don’t forget, the tobacco industry, the asbestos industry, the metals industry…all trotted out ‘credible’ scientists and studies up to the bitter end which “stated’ no adverse health effects. You still believe there is no adverse health effects to smoking? Breath asbestos, ingesting mercury and heavy metals?

        Y’all want to dismiss the livability factor? let me live next to a landfill then? you’d see no difference in living in a nice, clean area versus a landfill?

        I cited the World bank study out of several dozens at hand. I used that particular study for two reasons. First…doesn’t matter if the World bank is filled with NWO guys…fact is fact…China ain’t gonna receive much leeway in lending and trade terms if the World bank doesn’t believe them solid and stable. thus….no matter what you state as far as whether you believe it or not…it doesn’t matter. it’s what the World Bank will believe and act upon.

        As far as the degradation of the earth and the climate change quickening because of man made emissions…

        What if you’re wrong …

      • Flashy

        like you should have done for most of your plagiarized comment about China’s pollution which was cut and pasted from Wikipedia: <— daveH..i beleive the quotation marks indicate it was copied and pasted.

        Nice to know though you've become phobic about trying to refute the facts and opinions i state. Key word is 'trying" ?

      • Flashy

        DaveH…other than give the names of scientists who are supporting the “non climate change’ issue…how about posting the names of the scientists who do agree with the climate change theory? Ooops

        Noted that you did research my post..and couldn’t refute it.

        So you oppose any efforts at slowing emissions because you agree emissions do cause accelerated climate change, do cause increasing power in storms, do wreck havoc of our environment. So one is now left to ask…what are your goals? The wasting of this nation? What/who do you really support if not this nation?

        Think about that folks …

      • DaveH

        What the Folks can think about, Flashman, is that you very rarely post any kind of proof for your bald assertions.
        And you lie (as usual), Flashman, because all of your plagiarized words aren’t in quotes. Even if they were, you didn’t cite your sources (how usual for the misinforming Flashman).

      • Vicki

        GALT says:
        “This ratio will be maintained for the duration of your stay…….how much
        time would you be willing to spend in this room?”

        I can bring ANY plant(s)? (green growing type?). Does the container count?

      • tlgeer

        I remember the days of the environmental disasters in the late-60′s and the 1970′s. I remember how many people died and how the waterways were so poisoned by industrial waste that there was nothing that could live in it.

        Putting our heads in the ground and pretending that we don’t still have issue’s is just plain stupid. Putting our heads in the ground and insisting that human’s do not make weather change, when that was not what is being said (what is being said is that human’s are CONTRIBUTING to it), is just plain stupid.

        Galt, this is not directed toward you.

      • GALT

        For Vicki/vicki….nothing over 6 ft total……..but don’t do it…….

        Your life expectancy is exactly four minutes or less………

        This time you do the work……maybe David can help you…..

      • GALT

        Okay Tigeer……nice not to have to duck……..seriously though…..did you think
        that I would have a reason to think it was directed at me…….?????

      • http://yahoo Charles Arthur Williams

        Dave H, What about the scientist that was paid by the Koch bro’s to debunk Global Warming ? He ended up confirming Global Warming was real !

        I guess that makes the Koch bro’s supporters of Green ! LOL !

      • Vicki

        Charles Arthur Williams says:
        “Dave H, What about the scientist that was paid by the Koch bro’s to debunk Global Warming ? He ended up confirming Global Warming was real !”

        You have evidence? Or is this flashy with a new name. No cites. No links. Just proof by bald assertion.

      • Vicki

        GALT says:
        “For Vicki/vicki….nothing over 6 ft total”

        Why the 6ft limit? The room is 40 ft tall. I want to bring 2 35 ft palm trees (with supporting ground structure since they will be in pots) and a hammock.

      • GALT

        asked and answered dear…….you still want to go in?

      • Vicki

        GALT says:
        “asked and answered dear…….you still want to go in?”

        So you want to restrict the person entering that room so that they can’t get to the 70% oxygen you promised them. How typical of a progressive. Much like “WE have to pass the bill so YOU can see what is in it”. Nice.

      • Stuart Shepherd

        Thank you for your review of history. This review shows that your thinking has advanced beyond the normal liberal intellectual/emotional/logical and moral level of thinking of maybe 2 or 3 yrs old to perhaps 5 or 6. You are actually able to read a textbook and make a list (which was a very interesting list by the way, and seemed quite accurate). Conceptualize THIS, Flashy- even IF global warming is TRUE (as you and many scientists say it is) there would still be the issue of whether its’ effects would be as disastrous as some say they would be, AND the issue of how best to address it. For the US to go bankrupt (further) trying really STUPID “solutions” (wind, seaweed, even solar) that are literally drops in the bucket would be like the mother not putting the air mask on HERSELF before her child as the airplane loses cabin pressure!

        Immediately, we should beef up nuclear, gas, and even oil production while we work on any realistically tenable solutions. Seaweed is not going to cut it!! It’s too bad nuclear FUSION has been so difficult for scientists to realize (as that would end the discussion permanently) and it may never be possible. The government could sponsor RESEARCH like it does for medical research, but not INDUSTRIES. Let the competitive market force solutions that are actually viable- if they are there and someone feels like they could make a mint trying to develop them, they will do so (even the oil, gas, and coal companies, etc.).

        “Black and white” thinking can be GOOD, Flashy!! It allows one to distinguish between right and wrong, think logically, and “conceptualize” ethically and holistically. You (and other liberals) should try it. Keep it simple, stupid!

    • Chained

      Have you looked into led lights? They save energy, are brighter than fluorescent, last longer and are easier on the eyes.

      • DaveR

        Who is going to make them affordable to me, including changing out dimmer switches? $25 to $50 per LED lamp “bulb” is not economically rational yet. But, of course, it will be as Obama works his Pied Piper schmooze mixed with a bit of anger to ensure that electricity rates necessarily skyrocket.

      • Vicki

        Private Industry is. Current REALLY GOOD LED bulbs are available from $10 and up. Home Depot has some. I have been replacing bulbs in my home for over a year now. One (rather expensive at the time) bulb at a time.

        Here is just one example

      • GALT

        Simple……write it down as an expense….use accelerated depreciation and your carbon tax credit…….and then do a stock buy back…..

        Oh wait……you’re a people, not a corporation…..doesn’t that just suck…..

        Then again…..if corps are people, then people are corps.

        If A = B then B = A, right DaveH? ( Dave says von mises says ….duh )

        Seriously…..when are YOU people going to wake up…….

        You as a “people” buy a “duplex”…….you live in one side, you rent the other…..

        As time goes by…..your side appreciates…and the other side depreciates

        As a corp…..that house is GONE is no time……..all of it…..

        So you sell the non-house……which now magically becomes a house….

        and falls apart all over again…….. ( see Yogi Berra Rule )

        As a corp you can be immortal until it is inconvenient……..

      • Vicki

        GALT says:
        “Simple……write it down as an expense….use accelerated depreciation and your carbon tax credit…….and then do a stock buy back…..

        Oh wait……you’re a people, not a corporation…..doesn’t that just suck…..”

        And thus GALT describes the problem with Cronys and Government.

        Note the focus of corruption is, as conservatives have said here for some time, Government

      • GALT

        Someday Vicki……you may actually get the point……..

      • Opal the Gem

        Someday Galt you might actully have a point for us to get.


      In our part of the country, GREEN is an indicator that moss, mold or mildew is present.

      • http://modconntentCom brand inspector

        JOKEBOX, The mold must be the natural way to take care of the dead azzed socialist democrats and the lazy brained morons, idoits that want someone else to take care of them. The rug humping leach in the WH sure will not tell what him and the multi millionare dem congress people will pay in their plans to tax everyone more, which they will do. So as more people will have more fungus and mold invading organisms destroying jobs and people. So the nation who supports the socialist/marxist plans of UN controlled nation of the USA, which the marxist and all dems support, So buy stocks in (firesticks) manufactering , an Indian term for armorment. Think of another pres. who has lived off government programs and created nothing usful except, liberial college educated idoit theorists.

    • TeaParty Patriot (TPP)

      How Obama can be stopped in Electoral College

      Just like the “rats did in Wisconsin and the “rats did in Texas when they left the state to deny the RINOs a state quorum. DENY the electoral college a quorum by refusing to show up at the college . . . Read more

      Exclusive: Judson Phillips offers constitutional means to put Romney in office Jan. 21
      Published: 16 hours ago

      by Judson PhillipsEmail | Archive
      Judson Phillips is the founder of Tea Party Nation. Follow him on Twitter at @judsonphillips or @teapartynation.

      We have one last, final chance to save America. We have one last, final chance to stop Barack Obama. One final chance.
      What is this final chance? Will the Republicans step up to the plate and do what is necessary?

      Barack Obama has not yet been re-elected president.
      Yes, the election is over – but remember, a presidential election in America is not by popular vote. We vote for the candidate, but what we are really doing is voting for the electors who will meet on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December.
      That is when the actual re-election of the president occurs.
      Is there a way to stop this?
      Yes, there is.
      And the best part – this is totally constitutional.
      The 12th Amendment of the Constitution as well as Article II of the Constitution govern the Electoral College.
      According to the 12th Amendment, for the Electoral College to be able to select the president, it must have a quorum of two-thirds of the states voting. If enough states refuse to participate, the Electoral College will not have a quorum. If the Electoral College does not have a quorum or otherwise cannot vote or decide, then the responsibility for selecting the president and vice president devolves to the Congress.
      The House of Representatives selects the president and the Senate selects the vice president.
      Since the Republicans hold a majority in the House, presumably they would vote for Mitt Romney, and the Democrats in the Senate would vote for Joe Biden for vice president.
      Can this work?
      Sure it can.
      Democrats have actually set this precedent of refusing to participate to deny Republicans a quorum. They did this in Wisconsin and in Texas. Why can’t we do this with the Electoral College?
      Mitt Romney was a terrible candidate, and he will not be a great president. But he will be infinitely better than Barack Obama.
      So how do we do this?
      Mitt Romney carried 24 states. We need to have conservative activists from all over the nation contact the electors, the Republican Party and the secretary of state in all of these states and tell them not to participate in the Electoral College when it meets on Dec. 17.
      If we can get 17 of those states (just over one-third) to refuse to participate, the Electoral College will have no quorum. Then, as the Constitution directs, the election goes to the House of Representatives.
      That is how we can still pull this election out and make Mitt Romney president in January.
      We need this concept shared with every tea party, liberty and patriotic group throughout the country. We have time to act, but we must pressure Republicans to do the right thing.
      It does not matter who gets credit for this. The credit is not important. Using our last chance to defeat Barack Obama is important.
      Far too often the Republican Party seems more interested in losing gracefully than winning and governing.
      This is our last chance. We the people must contact the electors, party officials and secretaries of state from every red state and insist that they refuse to participate in the Electoral College.
      We can still save America and use the Constitution to do it. But this truly is our last chance.

      • GALT

        T.otally T.ouched P.erson

        Willard has already committed to saving Hostess…….made in China, assembled in the U.S.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        WOW! This piece rates 4 “Lord love a ducks” on a 5-point scale. Sounds workable too, especially if this is combined with all the folks who are advocating seceding and the folks who are advocating that we “go to the guns”. A real circus, complete with clowns.

        I can agree with this, though, with small changes. “Far too often the Republican Party seems more interested in losing STUPIDLY and with DENIAL than winning so that they can NOT govern but instead seek to “drown the government in a bathtub”. (THank you, Grover. .

    • carrobin

      You must be going to the wrong store. I have no trouble buying 150-watt bulbs–though I am stockpiling them in case they disappear, as has been warned for about five years now.

      The planet is warming. Sea levels are higher. The icebergs and glaciers are retreating and melting. It’s happening faster than scientists expected. Whether or not humans can do anything about it, there’s a case to be made for not making it worse. Obama has the right idea. (And Obamacare was a great idea–even if some dolts think it was “shoved down their throats.” They should see a doctor for some cough drops.)

      • http://modconntentCom brand inspector

        Any one that spouts gobal warming BS, must have let go of their mamee’s breast or come out of the basement. Weather is never static, and varies every 7 years. Too much is pushed out of liberial colleges and from socialist/marst morons, to get total control over everyone and everything. Duh Gore carbon teroy tade was a money ponzy scheme. Blaming mnkind for changing climate is a stupod egotisical idea of true morons, thinking they are the powerful creation/creator. These are the same pukes who cann’t pay the owed taxes, behave honestly. See anothe socialist/communist Ill. democrat is flying the coop because of fraud, stealing and just being a corrupt phony whorehound dem. Oh forgot the more sleazy, corrupt, and crimminal minded, the higher the rank of office and standing in the socialist/democrat party. Same pervs who embrace global waeming bildge, they need to get their heads out of dark,dank personilized orfices. Real world, climate is always changing, this BS comes from the group, who promoted The Big Freeze Down in late 70′s and early 80′s. Too many book trained idoits not living in life or producing nothing but BS, think Gores and their idoicy foe everyone but themselves, shades of the socialist democrat, charge everyone else, and don not abide by their spouted BS..

      • boyscout

        But all that extra CO2 helps crops grow – even if they are under sea water.

      • eddie47d

        Wrong Boyscout!

      • http://yahoo Charles Arthur Williams

        Brand Inspector it is you with your head up the arse ! I’m a old farm boy and understand the Biblical 7 year rotation, but when each 7 year cycle continues to rise, something serious is happening !

        To say we don’t have a effect on the planet, goes against the Dominion and Stewardship GOD gave us in the Garden !

    • jruss45

      When 100 W bulbs were banned they made 95 W bulbs. When 60 W bulbs were banned they made 57 W bulbs. Not a significant difference. However, if you want more light, get a halogen bulb. They put out more and bluer light for the same wattage as a standard incandescent bulb. For close work I use a 20 W 12 V halogen bulb. Some of the new LED lights are very bright. But they are not cheap.

    • Robert Smith


      That’s an outright lie unless you’ve worked with lighting all of your life. Most folks can’t even tell the difference of a single f-stop in light which would be half as much.

      Unless one is gifted with being able to “see” light (in the same context of “perfect pitch”) the differences are simply too subtle.

      But, thanks for the fine example of talking through the other end of your digestive tract.


    • deerinwater

      Incandescent bulbs are manufactured in a wide range of sizes, light output, and voltage ratings, from 1.5 volts to about 300 volts. They require no external regulating equipment, have low manufacturing costs, and work equally well on either alternating current or direct current. As a result, the incandescent lamp is widely used in household and commercial lighting, for portable lighting such as table lamps, car headlamps, and flashlights, and for decorative and advertising lighting

      Incandescent bulbs are less efficient than several other modern types of light bulbs; most incandescent bulbs convert less than 5% of the energy they use into visible light (with the remaining energy being converted into heat).

      Some applications of the incandescent bulb deliberately use the heat generated by the filament. Such applications include incubators, brooding boxes for poultry, heat lights for reptile tanks,[1][2] infrared heating for industrial heating and drying processes, and the Easy-Bake Oven toy. But waste heat can also significantly increase the energy required by a building’s air conditioning system.
      Because of their inefficiency, incandescent light bulbs are gradually being replaced in many applications by other types of electric lights, such as fluorescent lamps, compact fluorescent lamps (CFL), cold cathode fluorescent lamps (CCFL), high-intensity discharge lamps, and light-emitting diodes (LEDs). Some jurisdictions, such as the European Union, are in the process of phasing out the use of incandescent light bulbs by banning them with laws to force them being replaced with more energy-efficient lighting.

      So get with the program! and quit trying to be a dittzs. ~ Don’t be the one crying out “Get a Horse” scoffing at innovation and the science that affords us more control over our lives with greater easy.

      The world is not endless with it’s abundance. Be smart and change your understanding of the world that you live in. You don’t have to be a caveman. Be thrifty, be conservative, be wise.

      America has not been the leader in new innovation for a good 20 years, for it’s wealth and abundance has not required us too. Times change, ~ and wise is those that understand that it’s a good thing and something to do and not scoff at.

      I’ve been involved in practical application of energy management on many levels since the mid 80′s, and we have come a long way since then. But you might be shocked to know, we only follow Europe in this effort as they are a good 15 years ahead of the US in application.

      I know that none of you really know me, ~ who I really am or what I really do, ~ while I’ve told you many times that I was a Plumber/ Air-Conditioning Contractor, I have also told you that I have spend years in “Recovery & Reclaim”, ~ all of which is true. ~ I have made a career of recovering what has been lost. I have recovered military equipment, from Tanks to vessels, where they were just stuck in in mud 4 foot deep in hostile territory, required setting off charges to blow them free and ship them home to chasing down thieves or enemy forces that had ” acquired” US vessels and military hardware in international waters. You will never hear about what I do. ~ For many reasons, the embarrassment, accountability and potential collateral damages makes it impossible.

      Today, I am a civilian contractor and still I chase down waste, loss and pirates , where it is energy or resources with these same vigor. ~ UNNECESSARY WASTE AND LOSS IS A CRIME.

      And then I get to come here and have David H calling me a liberal. ~ that is funny.

      • GALT

        Pretty much everything DavidH says is funny…..BUT that would be a subtle and
        some would say “acquired taste”………

        Mostly what DavidH is…….is tragic, the sad product of the “last empire”, lurking in
        a backwater niche marketing site pretending to be someone…….

        He is, for all the public funds invested in him, a “willfully ignorant functional illiterate”
        who representsa completely negative ROI, and whose sole remaining life
        goal is to yell loudly, to attract others of his kind……”ignorance is strength” ( in numbers )
        to camoflage his true nature, or deflect from it……or even worse, for potential breeding
        purposes…..since he clearly has not achieved reproductive success……since no sane
        female would consider bearing his off spring. ( and would have slapped him silly by now
        if she had. )

        Of course, in the world of “internet niche marketing”……the “hungry undiscriminating
        mushroom” can be mistaken for a “useful asset”…………especially in a down market.

        IBM is pushing “analytics” to improve marketing results…….Bob?

    • jimster

      Just use 2 90 watt bulbs. Problem solved.

    • Hedgehog

      The better to keep you in the dark my friend!

    • Vicki

      eddie47d says:
      “Vickie we understand Dave H’s methods of debunking even if he has to lie to do it.”

      Typical liberal. Throw out an unsubstantiated claim attacking the messenger and expect us to believe. You trying to beat flashy’s credibility score?

  • FreedomFighter

    I don’t understand Obama. He either doesn’t follow this logic because he isn’t very smart or, more likely, he does understand it thoroughly but is still giving the green light to Green energy without regard to the cost and competitive consequences to the Nation which he has sworn to protect.”

    I don’t understand Obama.

    I dont either but his plans seem to follow elites plan for a New World Order run by a world government, this includes a planet wide reduction in population of upto 90%, packing the remaining pyhsically and mentally stunted slave population into what is called “stack and pack” cities where they will be controlled by the government cradel to grave.

    Your worth to that society is the only reason for your life, meaning no worth, no life, no freedom, no self determination, no liberty — you and your children become mentally and physically stunted slaves controlled by drugs, food and direct genetic manipulation.

    In other words… just the psychopaths elites once again trying to control you, kill you, and enslave your children…same old story with a black man leading the way

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • KG

      Man, do you have any children? Do you tell them “Well, It’s hopeless. You might as well kill yourselves?”

      I know thinking about the future for guys like you is very difficult. Because , I think, you feel as though the best days of America are behind us. Have you ever considered the alternate? That, maybe, we may be on the edge of peace and prosperity that we have never known before? Well, I guess you believe Ronald Regan when he said that Social Security wasn’t going to be there when you retire. The day my Father qualified for SS, suddenly, all of those taxes I was paying became worth it. I realized then that my paying taxes wasn’t some nebulous affair, but a real consequence.

      I think you need an “attitude adjustment.” Open the door on your bunker and let some fresh air in. Look outside. And if you see any flowers, consider yourself lucky.

      • FreedomFighter

        Atlas Shrugged

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • Flashy

        KG…bear in mind … a civilized man could act like a barbarian, but a barbarian, could not act like a civilized man.

      • Opal the Gem

        ” a civilized man could act like a barbarian, but a barbarian, could not act like a civilized man.”

        And you prove that with almost every post you make flushy.

      • KG

        Freedom Fighter –
        If you are an Ayn Rand sycophant, you need to drop the “Laus Deo”. Ayn Rand was particularly Anti christian. She felt that the “jesus” story – the sacrifice of a superior being for inferiors – was the height of “looter values.”

        Well, let’s be fair. She really thought ALL religion was superstition and contributed to “looter values.”

        I guess you must enjoy the rantings of a crazy lady.

      • Flashy

        Opal…On this i will agree with you. The real question you should ask…who do you think is the barbarian ?

      • DaveH

        KG says — “I know thinking about the future for guys like you is very difficult”.
        Imagine that, a Union Thug telling us about thinking for the future.

      • DaveH

        KG says — “Have you ever considered the alternate? That, maybe, we may be on the edge of peace and prosperity that we have never known before?”.
        A Union Thug telling us about peace. That’s a laugh riot. Yes it would be peaceful if we just did everything their way.
        But in the Real World there are thousands of variations in peoples’ needs, desires, efforts, and abilities. No one-size fits all, and never will. So it is impossible for Big Government to bring that Peace and Prosperity. The closest we could ever hope to get to Peace and Prosperity would be for people to voluntarily contract with each other in Free Markets — anathema to bully Unionists and Progressives who feed off the “protection” they give us (whether we want it of not). And that “protection” is very, very expensive — 7 times as expensive (in inflation-adjusted dollars) as the Government was in 1900, just 110 years ago.
        In 1900 the Government Spending was 6% of the GDP. Now it’s 40% of the GDP. The current GDP per person per year is about $48,000. So that 34% of GDP that we pay above the 1900 levels amounts to about $16,300 per person, or about $50,500 per average family (3.1 people) in the US, and that is each year. How many of your families would voluntarily pay $50,500 each year for the Government that you receive?

        • George E

          I assume the numbers you cite exclude the taxes we pay to our local and state governments, which if also added would make these numbers even higher. At any rate, this is a good way to frame the discussion for those of us who are actually paying income tax. Thanks.

      • KG

        Why don’t you give up your Automobile? Or all of your electrical appliances? Or even your telephone? You could very well live like we did in 1900. Unfortunately, for you, the rest of us prefer to live in the modern world. Is it perfect? No. But better than having to put a coat on to use the privy out back.

    • Warrior

      Absolutely correct FF and the “herd” has dutifully gotten in line. Well at least the majority has it appears. “Forward”! LMAO!

      • eddie47d

        Why don’t you become a Warrior for a better country instead of being a “slave” to the Wall Street Elites or the Speculators who determine how much you pay for the price of oil. Why do you feel satisfied paying out millions in cleaning up oil and chemical spills? That makes you a “slave” to corporate misdeeds. Why was your father and grandfather a “slave’ to the brown cloud and heavy coal pollution? Someone woke up and took off their chains of pollution “slavery” and found better ways to make our cities cleaner and healthier. Citizens demanded action and the industry had to change and we all benefited from those changes. That is also progress for the old and young alike for most are living longer and healthier lives. There are still battles for the old and young to be fought on other fronts such as with GMOs and the growing diabetes problem. Yet the Green industry is making inroads on the energy front.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        Give me liberty or give me death. On November 8th 2008 I purchased my first fire arm at the age of 59. I told my father (who fought in WWII), he wondered why. I said because I would rather die a free man. After the last four years he now understands. He is not really aware because of his age, what is happening with medicare. The purposely put my mother on hospice earlier this year without my knowledge, in February. She passed away in March. The only medication they gave her was morphine. the death panels have already started. I did not fight the decision because I saw that my mother had given up and didn’t care to live the way she was living. I now have three firearms and several thousand rounds of ammunition. When I can afford I will purchase two more firearms and 10,000 rounds of amo. I suggest everyone get prepared, because the TSA and the Americorp Police are coming.

        • Tony Newbill

          I am building up a cattle herd here at the ranch and am preparing to Stampede the bunch at the TSA and Americorp Police when they come …. They will get the true meaning of a Sh@t Storm

      • eddie47d

        Obviously you don’t understand Hospice care Capitalist and sorry for your loss. Hospice workers jobs is to comfort a dying person in their last days without using extraordinary means to prolong their suffering. That has nothing to do with death panels or fright wing comments.

        • Tony Newbill

          Eddie47d obviously you are not keeping up on the news of how well the Failing Obama economic recovery is working to insure those much needed Drugs that YOU Claim are the Benefit of patients under the care of Hospice , so suffering to go along with higher costs before you suffer that Obama Care is going to usher in is our New Hope and Change !!!!

      • eddie47d

        Hospice care at this point and time has nothing to do with “Obamacare” so you are way off track Tony!

        • Tony Newbill

          Eddie 47d the increased Regulation of EPA standards on the drug Industry and reaction to the implementation of Obama care is why these Drug companies are reducing production . Its all the plan to extract private wealth with inflation on a short supply .

      • GALT

        Damn……….now if you only had more HANDS………

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Capitalist only needs one gun, one hand, and one bullet to put the rest of us out of his misery.

      • eddie47d

        Seems like Capitalist at Birth has Tony chasing his tail too and getting us way off subject.

      • tlgeer

        Capitalist at Birth,

        “The purposely put my mother on hospice earlier this year without my knowledge, in February. She passed away in March.”

        Why did you not know this? Who called in Hospice? Are you aware that hospice comes in when the patient, according to their doctors, has less than 6 months to live. This is not unusual.

        “The only medication they gave her was morphine. the death panels have already started.”

        Their are no death panels. Period. When a person gets to the point that hospice is called in the patient is usually in so much pain that morphine is reasonable.

        BTW, I am very sorry for the death of your Mom. It doesn’t seem to matter how old you are, or how old the parent is, when they die. It still tears you up.

      • Karolyn

        Capitalist – I am so happy for your mother. She is free of all physical and mental pain. I only hope that when it is my time, if I am in really bad shape, I can elect to end it myself. Why on earth would anybody want to be kept alive in a body that is already, for all intents and purposes, dead? We, the real “we”, never die.

      • GALT

        10 Reason’s to keep going…….in spite of “whatever”.

        Finish reading “Pillars of the Earth.”
        The death of string theory.
        My daughter’s Carnegie Hall recital.
        Obama’s third term.
        Red Dawn 3
        DavidH writing an “original thought” or an essay without labels or links.
        Finding out how the war to end all wars actually ends.
        Hanging on until the E.T.I.’s show up to rescue me.
        Tom Brady’s sixth super bowl ring.
        Warren Buffet’s funeral.
        To see George W. Bush colonize the Moon.

    • Sirian

      Agenda 21 – simple. No, so many still don’t see it for what it is but it does fit into what you’ve said quite well, agreed?

      • FreedomFighter

        Yes, Agenda 21

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

  • Kinetic1

    America, or at least some states in the U.S. have some of the toughest pollution standards and the toughest safety standards in the world. As a result the air in Los Angeles is significantly cleaner than it was in the 80s, waterways are cleaner and workers are safer. These improvements have come at a price, including higher production costs. As a result many American companies have moved production and assembly across the border, sacrificing American workers. Many Republicans have been quick to claim that the costs are too high and our standards are too strict, resulting in weakening of many laws during the Bush years. I assume you would agree, Mr. Myers?

    “How is the United States going to change this?… there are more than 2,000 coal plants in China …. if China’s carbon usage … will equal the entire world’s carbon dioxide production. ….. if Obama pursues Obamagreen the way he did Obamacare, then it will simply be a continuation of making the United States less competitive.”

    Let me get this straight; since we currently have no control over China’s carbon output we may as well assume that they will continue to spew pollution in favor of profits. Since this will create an even larger gap between our cost of production and theirs, we should just ignore our own output and hope for the best. Should science find undeniable proof of the adverse effects of our carbon output, Oh well! Sure, we could have been years ahead, both in lowered emissions and scientific advances in energy production, but what’s that compared to all the money a few corporations will have made? Our health may have been progressively and adversely affected, but that’s just one of the costs of doing business!

    Oh how I wish we could just split the Earth and allow those of you who are so focused on the bottom line to do your thing while we who take a more holistic approach do ours, but we are unavoidably linked. And since you can always shift gears, build new businesses and make more money, but we have only one Earth and it can’t just be “repaired” we’ll just have to keep dragging you, kicking and screaming into a better future.

    • Bcorp

      Humans heal the Earth. My gosh, at one time, according to science, and there is plenty of evidence still today, the earth was spewing molten rocks and CO2 by the mega, mega tons by the hour. Did the Earth die? Don’t think so cause we have humans posting on this post. All of that bad, bad CO2 ushered in what? Yep, life, first plants, then animals. One can look at an increase of CO2 as a positive in that it enables more and faster plant growth. That is a fact cause plant growers have been known to add CO2 to their hot house plants. More plants, more food, more O2. The circle of life.

      • GALT

        You need to try again ……….hint Cambrian/ pre Cambrian ( no complex life )

    • Capitalist at Birth

      You need to research the science before you spout your fear mongering lies. I have, and you and Al Gore can go to hell. I will burn wood to keep warm and cook if I have to. I just bought 400 of the real light bulbs this last weekend. I refuse to use those phony CFL bulbs that do not use less electricity, nor do they last longer than regular bulbs. In fact they burn out quicker than regular bulbs when used out doors. All a crony capitalist ploy to enrich Jeff Imelt.

      • Kinetic1

        Where did I say anything about CFLs? I suppose one might argue that reduced energy consumption leads to reduced coal burning, but I’m not 100% sold on CFLs either. Instead I am referring to advances like lead free gas, improved efficiency in vehicles and factories and reductions in raw waste dumped into our water ways. Are you suggesting that reduced output in newer vehicles has had nothing to do with the improvements in air quality? Do you really want to challenge the idea that allowing raw sewage to be poured into our rivers causes pollution? And how about your wood heat? Would you argue that a fireplace isn’t more wasteful and more polluting than a wood stove?

        I lived in L.A. back in the early 80s. I can tell you stories about smog so thick that I couldn’t see the mountains just 10 miles away. You can’t deny that more stringent standards have resulted in improved air quality. Has the rest of the world followed L.A.s lead? Do third world conditions match ours? No, of course not, but that doesn’t mean we should lower our standards in the name of higher profits. Sacrificing our health and standard of living is a pretty high price to pay for cheaper products.

        John may be right. We may fall behind in our production of certain products if we allow our drive for a cleaner planet to interfere with commerce. In fact one look at the cost of an American made frying pan compared to a Chinese made pan proves this out. And you know what? I’ll pay more for that American made pan. I’ll pay more to help my neighbors make a living. I’ll pay more for the sense of security I get from knowing that my pan is of higher quality, will last longer, and is less likely to contain known carcinogens that the Chinese seem to let slide on everything from toothpaste to children’s toys. I’d rather have a few pieces of high quality furniture than a house full of the stuff you find at Walmart. And the sooner Americans begin putting quality and safety ahead of quantity and price, the sooner China will loose it’s stranglehold on America.

        • George E


          You’re willing to pay more for American made goods…………so long as you have the money to pay the premium. If the American economy continues to decline you may find it harder and harder to find this additional money. If we want a clean environment, we’ve got to have a healthy economy. It can’t be one or the other. We’ve got to find that optimum point where we can have both, or else our society will decline.

      • Kinetic1

        George E,
        And if we continue embracing a Walmart lifestyle, we will continue to weaken our own economy. As long as we continue to place cost and quantity over quality and our own self interest we’ll continue to slide down hill. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.

        • George E


          I don’t know whether to agree or disagree with your statement. All I know is we should leave decisions like this up to individuals, not the government.

    • DaveH

      Kinetic says — “And since you can always shift gears, build new businesses and make more money, but we have only one Earth and it can’t just be “repaired” we’ll just have to keep dragging you, kicking and screaming into a better future”.
      There it is, Folks, a Freudian Slip from a Liberal Progressive. They have no concern for our happiness, only for Their Power and Their Choices. If we don’t like it they will lump us.
      Now for some common-sense reality for those Folks who know that if we don’t resist them vigorously the Liberal Progressives will take complete control of our lives:

      • eddie47d

        You’re still as dense as the Hoover Dam Dave H. !

      • Kinetic1

        A freudian slip is defined as
        “A slip of the tongue in which a word that the speaker was subconsciously thinking about is substituted for the one that he or she meant to say.”
        My comments contained nothing of the sort. I thought out my words and said exactly what I meant. The fact is, if those of us who are more concerned about a clean planet then the profits of Walmart don’t drag you along, you will drag us all down. If we acquiesced when the right claimed that higher CAFE standards would kill the auto industry our air quality would have continued to decline instead of improve. If we had allowed timber companies to clear cut with abandon our rivers and streams would have continued to be choked with silt and run off. And if we listen to you now and just give up on solar and wind power, the Chinese will run roughshod over us, creating the next generation of green energy while we struggle with dirty shale oil and preposterous claims of “clean coal”.

        We can only ignore the wall in front of us for so long. We can either prepare to scale it now or wait until we run into it. I, for one would rather avoid the pain of hitting it at full speed and the mess of having to clean up after your wreck.

        • George E

          No one has been, or will ever be right all the time when predicting the future. That’s why it’s generally safer to let the market make decisions like these because, while not always right either, it does have a better long term record than any one person or small group of people.

          Spend all you want on doing basic research on developing alternative energy, just don’t spend our money forcing these products in the market when the market may not be ready for them. This is not the time for wind and solar power in a major way.

          If you’ve got to promote one energy source over another, I suggest you look to natural gas. It can improve the economy and clean the environment. You may note that even with government interference that industry is thriving very well because the market is accepting it.

      • Kinetic1

        By the way, I do care about your happiness, but I can’t allow that concern to blind me. I want you and everyone else to make a good living, but not if it causes intentional harm to others. Yes, competition by it’s nature will cause some to loose and others to win and that’s just how it has to be, but that doesn’t mean I have to ignore your methods should you stray. I want our kids to have good jobs, but we won’t get there by lowering ourselves to third world standards. And I want our kids to have fun, but I also want them to be aware of the costs of their fun. Riding an ATV can be a blast, but not at the cost of an ecosystem.

        Perhaps this video will give you a clear view of what I’m saying.

      • Kinetic1

        George E,
        I agree that natural gas is a good, relatively clean source of energy, but like most natural resources the supply is not unlimited and some methods of extraction are questionable.

        As for the market, most people are driven the twin desires of pleasure and pain. Buying a new product can bring a lot of pleasure, but for most of us the cost can bring pain. As a result the market often chooses the cheapest path, not the best. While this may be fine when choosing your brand of soda, it’s hardly the best way to choose energy production.

        Government regulation and investment may not appeal to your sense of capitalism, but it often produces great results. Space exploration is no going private, but it took the government to do the groundwork. The internet is another good example. Auto makers screamed when the government required seat belts, but the reduction in auto related deaths speaks for it’s self. Sometimes the market makes all the right decision, but government regulation and investment can also be a good thing.

      • Right Brain Thinker


        It’s a bit fatuous to be talking about the “market” deciding on the future of the whole planet. The laws of nature have been governing this planet for 4,500,000,000 years and the concept of “markets” has been around for a VERY small part of that time. When the market goes against natural law, it will fail. Mother Nature trumps greedy rich every time.

        • George E

          I agree with you. I’d agree to something else making decisions like this if there was one. However, I don’t accept that a few self appointed pointy headed politicians or academicians are better than the market which is composed of thousands/millions of individuals betting with their own money on the right answer.

      • DaveH

        Kinetic says — “I want you and everyone else to make a good living, but not if it causes intentional harm to others”.
        A non sequitur, Kinetic. It is simply conjecture on your part to assume any harm and to assume that Free Markets would increase or even match the amount of harm that currently occurs as a result of Pushy Controlling Liberal Progressives asserting the right to micromanage our lives.

      • DaveH

        Brain (Right) says — “It’s a bit fatuous to be talking about the “market” deciding on the future of the whole planet.”.
        What is “fatuous” is allowing the Pushy Controlling Liberal Progressives to decide the future of our planet. We can see from the Liberal Progressives who post here that they have very little integrity, lots of adolescent manipulation, and little in the way of facts or logic. Yet they would like us to believe that they know what’s best for the rest of us — Whether we like it or not.

      • Vicki

        Kinetic1 says:
        “And since you can always shift gears, build new businesses and make more money, but we have only one Earth and it can’t just be “repaired” we’ll just have to keep dragging you, kicking and screaming into a better future”.

        Freudian slip or not, this statement exposes the liberal agenda to FORCE us to do as they want. Thus exposing the natural tyranny of the liberal agenda.

      • GALT

        Yup that liberal von mises was a real idiot.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        And Dave is singing his same two-note song. When are you ever going to say something of significance, Dave? Your constant ranting about adolescent manipulative liberals progressives doesn’t seem to be getting much attention. Add some notes to the song, preferably intelligent ones.

  • Harold Olsen

    We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt…

    Then why is this scumbag outspending all other presidents combined. He has increased the nation’s debt so much that our great grandchildren will be paying for it.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Here is what Politifact has to say regarding the assertion that Obama has been outspending all other presidents combined.-

      Also here is an interesting article describing how our debt got this high.-

    • GALT

      Poof….Harold, look no debt! Just like magic…..all gone, bye bye……..

      But you should really think about what you just said…… fact I’ll quote you.

      We want our children to live……..

      You should have stopped there……..

      • GALT
      • GALT

        Sorry, Harold………That wasn’t you, huh?

        That was you quoting your president…….and me quoting you….quoting your president….

        Kinda balances things out…….

      • eddie47d

        Thanks Galt! Its unfortunate that situations are happening right in from of our faces yet they refuse to see and even deny it is happening. Such as increased calving of ice in the Antarctica or the acidification of the oceans. This goes beyond the glaciers melting and more severe storms.

      • GALT

        magical thinking………btw look what I found………actually reading this could be very useful….in certain situations……..and extremely ironic.

      • Average Joe

        Sandy = HAARP

        Unlike you, I will let you see multiple links and not just one silly ( yes , silly) link to people giving thier opinions about man made global warming…Not much of a debate when everyone in the show is in agreement………There are just as many who would disagree with “thier” findings….but we didn’t hear that..huh?

        Clmate change? Yes, it happens four times a year…has done so for millions of years. Sometimes it’s been hotter and sometimes it’s been colder. Many things contribute to those climate changes, Our axis, our rotation around the sun (sometimes we are closer to the sun than other times), the suns activities ( and probably about a billion other comic factors). All of these things contribute to climate change…..but to belive that man has caused the majority of climate change is simply ludicris. Maybe instead of whining about using fuel (gas, electric or otherwise) we should stop cutting down wide swaths of forrestaion and planting more trees to remove the Co2? That would certainly be a simpler solution to your “imagined” problem. Recycling?…I can get behind that. However, allowing the government to “ration” energy is not in the best interest of the people….it is in the best interests of the government and the corporation who profit from such araingments.


    • KG

      Most of the money being spent is to offset the “Misspending” of the previous decade. Bush did say he was going to rebuild schools and bridges, he just wasn’t talking about THIS country.

      I remember all of the homeless vets after Vietnam. It makes me sad to think we may have to go through another generation of homeless vets. Unless we get the Middle class back. And that’s only gonna happen when Unions are strong again.

      Both sets of my Grandparents lived in public housing after WW2. However, because they were white, they were able to get good paying Union jobs. And since they were white, they were able to buy houses in the newer neighborhoods. So, ultimately, Roosevelt’s ‘New Deal” paid off with a generation of people earning more money than ever. That’s how this thing needs to go.

      • GALT

        This world is for rugged, self reliant, liberty loving producers ( of something, but mostly
        horse pucky ) and one of these days, one of THEM may actually PRODUCE something
        useful…………instead of just talking about it.

        Meanwhile………………… we have two choices………evolve or perish.

        This is a species problem ( homo sapiens sapiens ) which is ruled by it’s biology and a “brain” that is stuck in 50,000 B.C.E.

        With the advent of agriculture, we have been on a path to self extinction, whose final chapter began with the discovery of ( stored carbon based energy ) and is now rapidly asserting its effects which are overwhelming the illusion of the temporary benefits that resulted from it.

        These benefits did not arise from any altruistic motivations, for this aspect of eusocial behavior in humans seems to be restricted to reproductive genetics regarding lineage, and not from any general tendencies toward pragmatic co-operative behavior among species members, who are tribal in nature and still maintain the dominant hierarchical model which has been with us for 195,000 years.

        Unfortunately, because our empirical understanding has been fairly recent regarding the REALITY which defines our existence, we are also governed by the “mythologies” we have created to explain our rather peculiar differences from other species, so that we are now faced with a complete breakdown of almost all of our previously held “beliefs” regarding every aspect of our rather arrogant claim to “superiority” over others of our own kind, and every other form of life.

        This willfull ignorance persists and is clearly evidenced, each and everyday for all to see, in every venue……….and because we are ruled by our biology, our behavior and our perceptions are locked into and “us” ( small subset ) vs. “them” ( very large subset ) conditioned response loop, which short circuits and overwhelms any possibility of “logical reasoned intellect” being able to overcome the “mythologies” which still govern our lives and will lead us to the first instance of “self imposed extinction” since complex life arose on this planet.

        We have no choice but to adapt to this reality or succumb to it, and weno longer have the luxury of waiting for the willfully ignorant to die and be replaced by those capable of acknowledging what all the evidence has made abundantly clear. ( some assembly required )

        For those who are capable of comprehending what has been written here and seek further knowledge regarding the biological conditioning we have been unable to transcend or escape from……..I recommend the following reading as the most efficient and rapid assimilation of the relevant information so that one may proceed to other “mythologies” which require disposition and for which this information is a fundamental requirement.

        Life Ascending: Nick Lane

        The Social Conquest of Earth: E.O. Wilson

        The Folly of Fools: The Logic of Deceit
        and Self-Deception in Human Life: Robert Trivers

        A Brief History of Thought: Luc Ferry

        Guns, Germs and Steel: Jarod Diamond
        also: Collapse, and The Third Chimpanzee

        In order to understand where you are going it is sometimes useful
        to know where you have been.

        ” To conquer, first DIVIDE!!!! ” ( and then HANG, separately. )

      • S.C.Murf

        kg you really are a fool aren’t you. I want you to go and ask the union for the bakers at Hostess how strong they feel, 18,500 ask all of them

        up the hill

      • KG

        Umm… Murf – if you actually read the news instead of watching FOX, you would have known that the CEO of Hostess got a 17 million dollar raise even though the company was claiming a loss. And then they had the nerve to “go out of business” when the union struck. How many do-nuts would you have to sell to make one million dollars? This thing ain’t over.

      • Vicki

        KG says:
        “if you actually read the news instead of watching FOX, you would have known that the CEO of Hostess got a 17 million dollar raise even though the company was claiming a loss.” And then they had the nerve to “go out of business” when the union struck. How many do-nuts would you have to sell to make one million dollars?

        If YOU actually read the news even on a liberal leaning site like snopes(dot)com you would have known that the top 4 executives actually agreed to take only $1 per YEAR until after the bankruptcy is resolved. Did any of the Union Bosses or workers volunteer to do that?

        KG: “This thing ain’t over.”

        Looking pretty dead. Planning to kick a dead horse are you?

        • tlgeer

          “liberal leaning site like snopes(dot)com”

          Where, exactly, did you get the idea that snopes. com is liberal leaning?

      • eddie47d

        The executives at hostess wanted $3 million so who cares if they will take 1 temporary dollar while waiting for the cash cow to kick in. They are still greedy misguided crooks.

      • GALT

        yeah, that’s really cool……and such a sacrifice…….struggling by on 17 million till the strike ends……Vicki, you do know that “workers on strike” don’t receive paychecks……..?

      • Vicki

        GALT says:
        “yeah, that’s really cool……and such a sacrifice…….struggling by on 17 million till the strike ends”

        Since they turned down the money they are using money they already earned. You don’t like it then YOU buy the company, lay off the executives and YOU deal with the unions.

        GALT: “Vicki, you do know that “workers on strike” don’t receive paychecks……..?”

        From the company as well they shouldn’t No work No pay. For the striking union that is now a permanent condition till they find work elsewhere. Regrettably the union that actually bothered to look at the company books and saw the condition and did make a deal, they too will go without paychecks.

      • GALT

        Nah……I don’t want the company…..if and when I get a “craving” there is always
        Lil Debbie’s…….or god forbid……..actual baking products…………and cook books…..

        You know…….there’s nothing wrong with this economy….that a 50% pay increase
        and a 20 hour work week wouldn’t cure……..make that a 24 hour work week…..

        increase for non-government jobs only………..

        • George E

          That would be great so long as you’ve got an economy that can support these kinds of benefits.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    First of all I question Mr. Myers for taking the President to task for Hurricane Sandy. Hurricane Sandy was a terrible tragedy and yet I still am perplexed that Mr. Myers can paint it as convenient for Obama and Governor Christie. Governor Christie was expressing appreciation for Obama doing what a President is supposed to do in times of crisis. I find it insulting to the President and the victims to speak about the tragedy in that way.

    Second is the issue of environmentalism. I am sure Mr. Myers expects me to get on a soap box so I will try not to. The issue of helping the environment in a way that is detrimental to the economy is a serious one. We cannot drive the economy into the ground in order to invest in untested technology. But I will point out the environmental argument or rather the argument on global warming since that is a principal issue has a sound basis.

    The first is the green house effect. I am sure we all remember from science class but for the sake of argument. The Green House effect is the reason you cannot stay inside a car with the windows up on a hot day without turning on the AC. I am not a scientist so I cannot go in depth into the process behind it. The best I can offer is this site which goes more in depth to the precise science behind the effect itself-

    The reason this is important is that green house gases, of which carbon dioxide is a major component-, propel and worsen the Green House Effect. The Green House Effect is not nor was it ever a conspiracy by people like Al Gore to make money or to gain political power. The Green House Effect is real. If you do not believe me sit in your car on a hot day and compare what it feels like with the windows up and when they are down, but DO NOT KEEP THE WINDOWS UP FOR VERY LONG IT IS A HEALTH HAZARD IF YOU DO. The point is the thing that fuels global warming is the Green House Effect and the Green House Effect is powered by Green House gases. That is the principal reason why people support measures to limit carbon emissions and lessen the burning of fossil fuels.

    The second basis of the the Global Warming argument is practicality. Fossil Fuels are a finite resource and will eventually run out. How long that will take I do not know but I can imagine it wont happen for quite a while. However considering the amount of fuel we use in this country I feel it is better to be safe then sorry. That is why I am in support of investing in alternative fuels like Wind and Solar power. Now as Solyndra showed the President is not always the best judge when it comes to picking which companies or technologies to invest in. Though I would point out that the program that included giving funding to Solyndra also gave funding to 62 other companies. Of the 63 companies, including Solyndra, that money was given too only 5 have gone bankrupt. The rest are still in business. That is a failure rate of less than 8%-

    So the government investing in green energy is not a doomed venture. However it is a valid point that perhaps the Federal Government should not be making such decisions. I can respect and agree with that. I would definitely encourage and support state and even local governments investing in alternative energy if they make room for it in the budget. All that matters to me is for us to get off fossil fuels as soon as we can. It will help protect the environment which will make the soap box environmentalists happy and it will help America to achieve energy independence which will make the economists and all Americans happy. And it can help America regain its glory as a pioneering nation in the field of science and technology. We can be the first nation to get off fossil fuels and become the provider of these new technologies to the world. That could perhaps bring back manufacturing for our country and help our economy. Plus it would help average Americans feel more confident since they will not have to worry so much about the pinch at the pump. Sorry I got a little soap box preachy there. At any rate no one is trying to force anything down any ones throats. The environment and The Green House Effect and its potential consequences are serious issues that need to be discussed. This is not some partisan issue where one side is the bad guy and the other the good. Both sides have legitimate points to make and we need to hear them. We need to get off foreign oil as soon as possible. Our dependence on it weakens us and prevents us from having the strongest economy we can. And we need to care for the environment so our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren can continue to enjoy this planet and be able to use its resources. So we need to find a way to balance caring for the environment with caring for the economy. How to do that I do not know. But perhaps investing in green is the way to go. At the very least its a step in the right direction.

    • Warrior

      And maybe you and “al” will be the first examples of the new american cave dwellers. Although, somehow I doubt it. Just like all those “rich” people screaming for “higher taxes” but seem to resist voluntarily giving up their valuables. Laughable to say the least.

      • eddie47d

        How are they resisting when they know they will also be affected? Not all are selfish and clueless to the plight of our nation. The upper class takers can’t keep absconding with the loot and expecting this country to survive either.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I hope to be very wealthy some day. If that happens I will not mind paying slightly higher taxes. I am not saying we need to start living in caves. All I am saying is we need to do better for the environment and our economy then just continuing to burn fossil fuels like theres no tomorrow.

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “I hope to be very wealthy some day. If that happens I will not mind paying slightly higher taxes.”

        Good. So what do you consider slightly higher? 1% more than (who, Middle income, poor), Taxes based on wealth? Income? It is easy to play with non existent numbers. How about a real number.

        • George E

          You can be pretty sure if the government starts out taxing “a little”, it won’t take them too long before they’ll be taxing “a lot”. All they need is a starting point. They will take it from there.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Perhaps I should have been specific. For me the Bush Tax Cuts on the highest income earners should expire. That would raise the marginal tax rate on those making more than 250,000 a year by about 5%. That seems fair. But since I am hoping in the future to be wealthy I cannot speak for myself. So I am not being fair. The best I can offer is I support spending cuts and would love for policy experts to offer some. I will decide which I support and vote accordingly. And in the mean time I believe the investment in green technology will be beneficial to all-Poor, Middle and Upper Class.

      • eddie47d

        Just because the wealthy create jobs doesn’t mean their conscience stops at the bank for their nightly deposit. The whole system is rotting from the top down and the selfish rich will eventually come tumbling down. The Middle Class can’t be the only ones holding up America.

      • Vicki

        George E says:
        “You can be pretty sure if the government starts out taxing “a little”, it won’t take them too long before they’ll be taxing “a lot”.”

        Evidence in our very own income tax code.
        initial rates 1%-7% so the most wealthy only had to pay 7%
        2011 rates 10%-35% so the most wealthy have to pay 5 TIMES what they did in 1913
        the poorest have to pay 10 TIMES what they did in 1913.

        Peak rates were MUCH higher.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Just because the wealthy create jobs doesn’t mean their conscience stops at the bank for their nightly deposit. The whole system is rotting from the top down and the selfish rich will eventually come tumbling down.”

        The selfish rich that you call them can’t hold a candle to the wealth stealing ability of the government. Currently spending 40% of GDP they are the largest holder of money outside the federal reserve who can print federal reserve notes at their pleasure.

    • Bill

      I know you mean well but you used a term “the government investing in green technology”. If we want green technolgy implemented in our daily lives, it will not be done through government mandate which encourages graft, corruption and inefficiencies. It has to be accomplished through the private sector and the profit motive.

      It will happen incrementally through one entrepenuer after the other making one aspect of one product more efficient. The sad reality is that the governmental sponsered green movement is is there to create more power, taxation and make a select few rich. In it’s present form, it will not implement green technology in our lives.

      I invest in green technolgy companies and through the regulations imposed by our “green movement”, it is now too expensive to manufacture solar panels in the US. Through the government helping their industries, China now is becoming the largest solar panel manufacture in the world, and they can make them cheaper than we can.

      We are making it more difficult to operate a business in the private sector, which is the real implementor of green technology.

      • eddie47d

        Graft corruption and greed became the hallmark of Wall Street and Corporate America just a few years ago. Wherever they went destruction of our economy flowed so it goes both ways Bill and private enterprise lead the charge because they knew they could get away with it. When it comes to solar panels lay the blame on Congress which dilly dallied around for years when we were the number one manufacturer in the world and had the best technology too! The Chinese government within one year poured billions into their businesses including the manufacture of solar panels. That is why they won and we lost and our Congress let it happen. That positive input from the Chinese government helped create thousands of jobs and grew their economy …but in China.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I can respect that Bill. My issue is I believe that oil companies and other fossil fuel companies will do everything in their power to stop the development of alternative fuels because that would hurt their profits. My concern is any attempt by the private sector will be at risk. I am not saying government is above risk of graft and corruption, far from it. I guess I place more trust in government then the private sector. But I agree that regulations need to be managed. And I would never support so many regulations that it weakens the private sectors ability to manufacture solar panels and other new green technologies. If you can provide some specific examples of regulations I can decide for myself whether or not I support them. Then we can start talking about which ones to get rid of or amend.

      • Kinetic1

        Good points here. It’s easy to point to greed and corruption in government, but those issues are certainly not limited to the Government. In fact, it’s often a case of greedy corporations taking advantage of Government that is the problem.

      • Vicki

        Kinetic1 says:
        “It’s easy to point to greed and corruption in government, but those issues are certainly not limited to the Government. In fact, it’s often a case of greedy corporations taking advantage of Government that is the problem”

        So knowing that some corporations will use the power of government to corrupt the free market you still want government to have more power? Why?

      • Jeremy Leochner

        What matters is who is in running the government and how. The size is not as important as what is done with it. That government is best which governs best.

      • eddie47d

        Vickie doesn’t care how the Corporations bribe the government. They don’t pay lobbyists to grovel but to be pit bulls.

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “What matters is who is in running the government and how.”

        Something that Jeremy and I can agree on. Since government is a subset of people hired to do the job of governing, it matters a great deal that we hire only honest, moral people. Ones who know what their oath of office means. Ones who know what the Constitution says and means. Failure to do so gets us what we have now.

        Jeremy Leochner: “The size is not as important as what is done with it.”

        Size DOES matter. Bigger government is just like bigger fire. Harder to control. (George W most certainly had it right with his comment about government being force.)

        Jeremy Leochner: “That government is best which governs best.”

        Useless truism. Much like saying Jeremy is honest because he is honest.
        The correct sound bite is “That government is best which governs LEAST” I.E. Small Government.

    • Bcorp

      Humans heal the Earth. My gosh, at one time, according to science, and there is plenty of evidence still today, the earth was spewing molten rocks and CO2 by the mega, mega tons by the hour. Did the Earth die? Don’t think so cause we have humans posting on this post. All of that bad, bad CO2 ushered in what? Yep, life, first plants, then animals. One can look at an increase of CO2 as a positive in that it enables more and faster plant growth. That is a fact cause plant growers have been known to add CO2 to their hot house plants. More plants, more food, more O2. The circle of life.

      • Tony Newbill

        Bcorp … SHHHHHH, you are going to Piss off the Depopulationalists and that will Stampede my cattle before its time !!!!!

      • eddie47d

        More pollution /CO2 increases more volital weather changes which makes some areas less inhabitable. I bet those folks in Rockaway Beach NY will rebuild and think it will never happen again. If they do that will cost us all in cleanup costs and insurance premiums. Look at the increased tornado volatility in Alabama and other places. We can’t run or hide but it will happen again and again. The same thing centuries ago when most disturbances were natural occurring such as volcano’s where thousands died. Some survivors left the area but eventually a few returned thinking it will never happen again. I don’t know if that is the cycle of life or the cycle of ignorance to put yourself in harms way. Beyond the severity of these newest storms there are big changes that most don’t see. With increased pollution there is a much faster increase in the acidification of our oceans and waterways. This is man made and troublesome. More acidification means more dead zones and less oxygen in the oceans and less oxygen means less coral and less fish species. Waters are warming which also changes the lifespan of coral which is where smaller fish live. If the coral goes so does those fish which means less food for the larger fish which we eat. There is a cycle of life that is being decimated without our even seeing it,

      • Jeremy Leochner

        The only problem Bcorp is mankind was not around when that happened and we have no real clue how we would survive if such a thing happened again.

    • DaveR

      I anticipate that Germany will be the first major industrialized nation to effect that change from dependence on fossil and nuclear fuels to solar and wind. They recently committed to both “green energy” forms as they decided to shutdown and withdraw from nuclear and to prohibit modern drilling and hydraulic fracturing of shale formations underlying Germany to tap into their own natural gas resources.

    • George E


      I appreciate your attempt to be fair and objective in your post. In the spirit of trying to do the same, let me make a couple observations.

      The green house effect is proven science. It does happen. However, as it relates to the environment, it may not happen as efficiently as warming the interior of your car in the summer. Greenhouse gases, of which CO2 comprises only about 3%….most of the rest being H2O, may not reflect heat back onto the earth as well as the steel top on your car. Some of this heat escapes from the atmosphere. We don’t really know how much escapes, so we really don’t know how much is reflected back on the earth.

      CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere by plants, which in turn exhale O2 back into the environment. I don’t think we really know how much CO2 is absorbed because there are several variables which can/do change, like the amount that is absorbed in the ocean, for instance. At any rate, the amount of CO2 that is absorbed is huge, we just don’t know how much that is.

      The government should invest in alternative energy basic research because private companies can’t invest large sums doing basic research on their own. The outcome is too risky for them. However, the government should NOT invest in commercializing products, including alternative energy, bringing them to the market. That should be left to private companies when/if they feel they can make a profit doing so. This is the line that government should not cross, and Obama simply hasn’t adhered to it. So, the issue is not how much money we spend on basic research for alternative energy, but rather the amount of money we spend pushing these products into the market………when the market may not be ready for them.

      We are not about to run out of fossil fuels anytime in the foreseeable future. Technology advances in the past 20 years have made it possible to recover amazing amounts of natural gas, and now crude oil, and these increased supplies are driving down prices beyond what we might have imagined a few decades ago. America is on a path to become energy “independent” again within the next 10 years unless our government takes steps to further constrain this development…………like imposing a carbon tax or significantly raising taxes on these commodities, and/or slowing drilling for reasons like “saving lizards that no one has seen.” If nothing else changes and we continue down the path we’re currently on, even with some government interference, America will be exporting fossil fuels, especially liquefied natural gas, to other countries within the next 3-4 years. This is because natural gas costs about $2/thousand cu feet here but as much as $17/thousand cu feet in other countries. This trend is encouraging many power companies to switch from coal to natural gas in this country, and will also likely encourage many energy intensive manufacturing companies to relocate factories back in this country to take advantage of these lower energy costs. This will be good for jobs and our economy as well as the environment which will benefit from a cleaner emission. This will happen unless the government gets in the way more than it already is.

      As you say, we need to balance the benefits we get from a strong economy with the costs of allowing our environment to deteriorate. I think natural gas is the answer for our time. It will allow us to do both, something we could only dream about 20 years ago when it did seem apparent that we had already reached “peak oil” and energy costs were only going to skyrocket in the future. Today, we see that just isn’t the case.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I can respect those points George. It is a fair point that the planet earth has a ever so slightly different heating mechanism then a car on a hot summers day. In all honest I did not realize carbon made up so little. Thank you for telling me. I guess for me its just the issue that as you said we do not necessarily know how much heat escapes and how much gets reflected back out. I guess I have watched An Inconvenient Truth so much its made me worry a little more then I should. I have just always been an er on the side of caution kind of guy. And since its the planet I just want to be careful how much green house gases we pump up there.

        I was going to say on the subject of plants and their absorption of carbon. I am going to get on my soap box really quick and say that with deforestation and other pollutions going on I worry about the state of our planets plant life and I worry that if we do not regulate pollution it could endanger our planets ability to absorb the gases.

        As for government and investing I agree with you on them not getting too involved in marketing. My only concern is when you spoke about “when the market may not be ready for them.” My concern is that the market is so tied to fossil fuels that any private sector attempt to market alternatives will be crushed under an avalanche of competition from big oil and big coal. Basically my worry is the market may not be “ready” for green technology for quite a while. I know you pointed out that we will not run out of fossil fuels for quite a while. But as you also pointed out new technologies for finding and using fossil fuels ever more quickly are being developed. The supply cannot last forever and my concern is that the big fossil fuel companies that essentially run the energy market will be unwilling or unable to accept new competition from green technology until the fossil fuels have almost run out and by then it will too late. It won’t mean that we will not have the technology to convert to alternative energy but by then other countries will have developed and adopted the technology and surpassed us.

        In regards to natural gas I do agree its a good alternative. My only issue is the manner of obtaining it. I have often heard of hydrofracking and how it is the primary way natural gas is found and obtained. However I have also heard of the potential dangers it poses to both the environment and to people living near where the hydrofracking takes place. I could be wrong and if there is a safer way to obtain natural gas then I am all for it.

        I apologize for seeming so pessimistic George. You make some valid points and I agree too much government is just as bad as not enough. I would hate good intentions to hurt us. I think alternative technology is the way to go and however best it can be funded and produced and distributed in mass amounts I will support.

        • George E


          Thanks for the thoughtful response.

          Just to emphasize, we want/need a clean environment and a healthy economy. We will probably never have one without the other. If we don’t have a healthy economy we won’t have the resources to clean the environment. So, the real challenge is to find the optimal amount of each to strive for. Really, if you take CO2 and global warming out of the discussion, our air and water are cleaner now than they’ve been in our lifetime…………and I’m pretty old……ha.

          If we don’t allow government to “favor” one energy industry over another, “big” oil/coal will not be able to keep you and me from buying whatever energy we choose. If they’re smart, they will get on board to produce and sell the form of energy that is most economical and that the market prefers. In any case, if we invest in R&D to continue the development of alternative fuels as well as clean fossil fuels, and offer those free of charge to private industry, we should be in a good position to take advantage of the most economical form of energy as the market changes without trying to control the market or risking too much public money in the process.

          Estimates I’ve seen recently suggest we’ve got hundreds of years of supply right here in America of natural gas and crude oil, so by the time it is used up, there should be economical alternative energy sources developed. So, I’m just saying we shouldn’t force the use of wind and solar right now because we’re afraid that we’ll run out of fossil fuels. It just ain’t going to happen. Anyone who tells you differently is living in the past, not the present.

          So far as I’m aware all of the fears over fracturing are supposition, not reality. There has not been any actual incidents reported yet where fracturing for natural gas polluted the drinking water supply. I’m suspicious that folks pushing that point of view really don’t want to produce cheap natural gas because they want to do away with fossil fuels altogether. If that’s true, they are pushing a political agenda rather than an economic one, which is what I’m most interested in.

          Take care.

      • Vicki

        Here is more info for Jeremy on the amount of CO2 and it’s greenhouse effect.

  • Paul Wells

    All this talk of cap and trade and taxing polluters is laughable when our heathen neighbors in the far east chunk out enough CO2 emissions to easily make up for any scale back we might do. Just one more brick in the repression wall. I’ve read many articles on global warming and cap and trade, and believe me, there are (economic) winners and losers. Once again, the fox is licking his chops at impending regulations that will expose all those chickens just ripe for the taking!

  • Greg

    The best we all can do is beg our elected officials of the Republican states, to sustain from the Electoral College. If the Republican states hold their votes in the Electoral College, they would not have forum to vote Obambe in! Congress would then have the right to choose the next president. Everyone call your Republican Congressman. It’s the 12th Amendment!
    Act fast—the College votes on Dec 17th!

  • Bill

    Of course Obama is pushing the green issue, because there is a lot of money to be made. Obama, the activist who has never worked a day in his life is now on his way to become a multi millionaire through the global warming movement.

    They have done a great job of brainwashing people as to the global warming movement. In our local paper they have a section called “this day in history”. I read that in 1925 a drought broke that had been going on for 40 years. That means it started in the 1880′s. This is how the earth goes, things go in cycles.

    They have you where they want when you blame any weather changes on man made global warming. Now they can start milking you.

    Remember, if any thing changes in the weather, it is global warming. And you dirty, filthy, polluting capitalists must pay.

    • eddie47d

      Considering that those “dirty,filthy capitalists” (your words) created the pollution or environmental damages don’t you think its their responsibility to clean up after themselves. To bear the greater burden instead of the taxpayer? Are you concerned that those “capitalist” made millions and billions harming the earth but get a free pass in doing it again?

    • Kinetic1

      President Obama spent a year in New York as a researcher with Business International Group, a global business consulting firm. He also spent several years as an attorney with the civil rights law firm of Miner, Barnhill and Galland. Last time I checked, this constitutes “work”.

    • tlgeer

      “Obama, the activist who has never worked a day”

      Except for being a Civil Rights attorney, President of an Educational board, taught Constitutional Law for 12 years, a community organizer (which is not an easy job).

  • nickkin

    Work in progress in the good ole’ USA. obummer constructing giant dome over the country to control what we breath because of china and other countries that are polluting the air. This is the big push of progressives. More control of the trolls that voted him in. Unfortunately for those few that wanted obozo out, we will keep working to pay for the handouts under the dome.

    • eddie47d

      That is why Nickkin will never get it because he is too busy being a smart alick instead of being relevant. Let China die its own slow polluting death for that doesn’t mean we have to!

  • http://N/A Brent Gurtek

    Mr. Livingston & followers,

    You people oughta’ be a static display at the Wrong Side of History Musuem. Global warming IS REAL, IT’S LARGELY MAN-MADE, and IT’S A SERIOUS ISSUE!
    True, like most Americans, I don’t want my grand kids to live with a weak economy. But a clean planet is far more important than $$$$$! We breath air not quarters, drink water not dimes and eat food not dollar bills.

    All countries have to take part in reducing climate change – even the dumb commies in China will have to do what needs to be done. So let’s do our part, set the right example, and have humanity put pressure on them.

    Brent Gurtek
    Concerned Grand Father

    • Tony Newbill

      Brent Gurtek most man made is not true in the context that you claim , because what the technocratic society really means when they say Global Warming is man made means they Think there are To many People Living on the Planet and that Depopulation is needed Now to reduce the Risk of Further Global Warming .

    • Warrior

      Brent, since this phenomenum is man-made it would appear the easiest solution would be to get rid of the “man” part of the equation. Anyone for “socialized” medicine and “eugenics’? “Forward”!

    • Bill

      You sir, are brainwashed

    • Tony Newbill

      Brent Gurtek this activity on the Sun is causing the Earth to Heat us … but no one talks about this Natural Event because it gives no reason to be extreme is Talking peoples Independent wealth creation and activity away for the idea of it being for the Greater good like the Green Movement is all about to stop worldwide population growth by Economic Oppression .
      If we get a Direct Hit here during the Middle of and Peak of the Suns 11 year solar cycle in 2013 Human Global Warming will be the LAST Thing we will worry about !!!!

      • Sirian

        Tony Newbill,
        Good point, very seldom are solar cycles ever brought up as a primary cause of planetary climate changes. Agreed, if we happen to be hit with an enormous CME it will be funny in it’s own right what the “Global Warming” patrons will be whining about then. . . uh, nevermind. :)

      • GALT

        Of course it’s the SUN……says so RIGHT HERE

      • Sirian

        Galt – Tony,
        Here’s another good source to keep an eye on solar activity. You can get a daily activity report and various other information. There are also links provided to many good sources that are observing our star.

        • Tony Newbill

          Sirian Thanks !!!!

      • GALT


        or would that be………..

        Duck, duck……….xxxxx!

        “Lead futures spike….film at……..SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

    • rb

      Has anyone seen the new Ice Age they predicted 40 years ago lately/?

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Well said, Brent. I too am a concerned grandfather and share your concerns. Did you know that the “dumb commies” are using the best pollution control technology available in their coal plants? They are trying to keep their air clean. Unlike in the US, where the monied interests fight to keep old and decrepit plants on line without updating the pollution controls (and want to eliminate the EPA as well). The Chinese have enormous pressures to generate electricity on them because of their large population, but ARE trying harder than we are.

      To Tony N

      ALL man made is not true in the context that Brent claims, and it’s provable to anyone who accepts science. Depopulation will occur if we don’t address Anthropogenic Global Warming .

      To Warrior
      Oh-so-clever. See above and be aware that “getting rid of the “man” part of the equation” is exactly what will happen if things go too far. The laws that govern the universe will see to that..

      Bill says:
      “You sir, are brainwashed” I will say the old and tired “Look in the mirror” to that.

      To Tony N
      Yes, the activities of the Sun have some bearing on the issue but you are oversimplifying here (and seizing on the “bad” science of the deniers if you use it to deny that AGW is taking place).

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Typo alert. In my reply to Tony, I inserted a “not” that confuses things. What i was trying to say was that ALL man made warming IS true in the context of Brent’s remarks and that Tony was in error.

      • Tony Newbill

        Right Brain Stinker you are the one thats wrong , says Ted Turner and Paul Ehrlich adviser to Obama

      • eddie47d

        RBT is correct Tony. Pollution,environmental damages,less clean water,deforestation will eventually lead to the demise of human populations just as it has done to animal and ocean species. It won’t be in our lifetime yet I believe it will be a coming attraction.

  • Jonathan

    If the oil company’s didn’t go around killing people that came up with cars that get 100 miles per gal. “or better”, than the environmentalist wouldn’t have a leg to stand on with the public. People are tired of the greedy oil company’s and they’ll do what ever it takes to bring them down. If you hat the green movement so much, than do something about the oil company’s!!!!!

    • Vicki

      Greedy? Look at how much the oil costs and how much the government gets from your gallon of gas.

    • George E


      Do you really believe every auto company in the world would turn down the opportunity to make a car that could get 100 mpg just to protect the oil companies profit? If there really is a viable design for a car that could get 100 mpg and truly be marketable, do you think the oil companies could keep it from getting to one of the auto companies? I’ve heard this conspiracy since I was in college back in the 60′s, and it wasn’t true then, and you can be assured that it’s not true today.

  • Doc Sarvis

    Non-partial scientific evidence shows that global warming is occurring. That humans contribute to it is highly probable, though to what degree we influence the warming is very hard to nail down.
    ASIDE from the issue of global warming; it is obvious our reliance upon fossil fuels is drawing to a close whether we acknowledge this or not. The easy (i.e. cheaper) petroleum resources are about played out so that we are now looking at more difficult to extract deposits, smaller volume deposits (generally), and environmentally riskier methods of extration. The scarcity of cheap/easy resource is and will continue to drive up the prices of oil. Included in the price will be the geopolitical conflicts in resource laden areas of the world as well as maintaining the open transport of the resources to countries wealthy enough/powerful enough to purchase the resource. This further isolates poor countries that don’t have the resource or the power/$.
    That being said, it is critical that forward thinking countries, hopefully including ours as President Obama intends, will make SERIOUS steps in these two areas for our own security:
    1. Make strong movements to other, more sustainable energy resouces
    2. Make strides in greatly increasing efficiencies in our energy use
    President Obama’s energy policy is working on these two aspects of achieving national security. AND these are important steps whether or not one believes the scientific evidence of global warming.

  • Deerinwater

    It was JP Morgan home that was first home in the world that was lighted by the electric light bulb and the contractor was, ~ Thomas Edison.

    As Thomas Edison and JP Morgan when about lighting New York City and introducing electrical lighting to the world and bring in a new era.

    Old man Rockefeller view this as a “threat” that would interfere with his kerosene business and spent thousands of dollars to sway public opinion and people away from electricity and the hazards that it offered. It was dangerous!

    This resistance to “Green” is more of a repeat of the same thing, as commerce fights for market shares through various agents. John Mayer speaks for the oil patch, attempting to appeal to your tried and true, practical side.

    • rb

      Wait…JP Morgan (a private individual) paid a private contractor to put in electric lights…Rockefeller ( a private individual) used his own money to fight it. What’s wrong with this picture when you compare it to now? Oh that’s right…the government is taking money from private citizens in order to give it away to people the government chooses in order to promote and propagate technology that isn’t cost effective. Then the government takes more money from private individuals to hire government approved contractors at inflated prices to install this technology.
      Private individuals can spend their own money any way they want. JP Morgan and Mr. Rockefeller did. The government has no money of its own. The government only has money it has (by force and threat of violence) taken from its citizens. Because it is not the government’s money in the first place (the government doesn’t have any money) the government is not entitled to spend it any way it wants too.
      That’s the true arguement here.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        In the end, who wins? The consumer.

      • GALT

        feeling like a ‘winner” are we?

      • deerinwater

        rb ask; “Wait…JP Morgan (a private individual) paid a private contractor to put in electric lights…Rockefeller ( a private individual) used his own money to fight it. What’s wrong with this picture when you compare it to now?”

        Answer; Nothing is wrong with it ~ This is market forces at work. When you compare it to now, it’s the same thing! John Mayer is a stanch pundit of the oil patch which has strong ties and connections with government due to national security interest. So clearly , there is no absence of government.

        What is it that you believe is happening today that is so different? Are you attempting to ignore the fact that government was deeply involved with the Nigeria Falls or the Hoover Dam power generation projects for the sole purpose to usher into existence new technology to serve the needs of her people?

        Here is a story of a private funded project that almost broke a good company ~ who ever was to be awarded the 1893 world fair contract was a shoe-in for the Government funded Nigeria Falls contract and a perfect example of government and private sector working hand and glove.

        “In November and December of 1887, Tesla filed for seven U.S. patents in the field of polyphase AC motors and power transmission. These comprised a complete system of generators, transformers, transmission lines, motors and lighting. So original were the ideas that they were issued without a successful challenge, and would turn out to be the most valuable patents since the telephone.

        An adventurous Pittsburgh industrialist named George Westinghouse, inventor of railroad air brakes, heard about Tesla’s invention and thought it could be the missing link in long-distance power transmission. He came to Tesla’s lab and made an offer, purchasing the patents for $60,000, which included $5,000 in cash and 150 shares of stock in the Westinghouse Corporation. He also agreed to pay royalties of $2.50 per horsepower of electrical capacity sold. With more inventions in mind, Tesla quickly spent half of his new found wealth on a new laboratory.

        With the breakthrough provided by Tesla’s patents, a full-scale industrial war erupted. At stake, in effect, was the future of industrial development in the United States, and whether Westinghouse’s alternating current or Edison’s direct current would be the chosen technology.

        It was at this time that Edison launched a propaganda war against alternating current. Westinghouse recalled:

        I remember Tom [Edison] telling them that direct current was like a river flowing peacefully to the sea, while alternating current was like a torrent rushing violently over a precipice. Imagine that! Why they even had a professor named Harold Brown who went around talking to audiences… and electrocuting dogs and old horses right on stage, to show how dangerous alternating current was.
        Meanwhile, a murderer was about to be executed in the first electric chair at New York’s Auburn State Prison. Professor Brown had succeeded in illegally purchasing a used Westinghouse generator in order to demonstrate once and for all the extreme danger of alternating current. The guinea pig was William Kemmler, a convicted ax-murderer, who died horribly on August 6, 1890, in “an awful spectacle, far worse than hanging.” The technique was later dubbed “Westinghousing.”

        In spite of the bad press, good things were happening for Westinghouse and Tesla. The Westinghouse Corporation won the bid for illuminating The Chicago World’s Fair, the first all-electric fair in history. The fair was also called the Columbian Exposition — in celebration of the 400th Anniversary of Columbus discovering America. Up against the newly formed General Electric Company (the company that had taken over the Edison Company), Westinghouse undercut GE’s million-dollar bid by half. Much of GE’s proposed expenses were tied to the amount copper wire necessary to utilize DC power. Westinghouse’s winning bid proposed a more efficient, cost-effective AC system.

        The Columbian Exposition opened on May 1, 1893. That evening, President Grover Cleveland pushed a button and a hundred thousand incandescent lamps illuminated the fairground’s neoclassical buildings. This “City of Light” was the work of Tesla, Westinghouse and twelve new thousand-horsepower AC generation units located in the Hall of Machinery. In the Great Hall of Electricity, the Tesla polyphase system of alternating current power generation and transmission was proudly displayed. For the twenty-seven million people who attended the fair, it was dramatically clear that the power of the future was AC. From that point forward more than 80 percent of all the electrical devices ordered in the United States were for alternating current.”

        So ! ~ would you please! ~ explain to us what the current administration is doing today that is so different in it attempt to encourage American interest to compete with world markets in innovation? ~ What is it that OBAMA has done, that has not been done before by past leadership?

        I would like an answer to this question, after devoting much time to answer your question.

      • GALT

        deer………you really don’t expect them to read, comprehend and respond to your question, do you? ( a rhetorical question )

      • Deerinwater

        Well, each one of them need to be able to a answer this question, or discuss something that they actually know something about, whatever that might be other then spreading horse manure.

    • Capitalist at Birth

      You are a fool. What are solar panels made from? Do you know? How many bats and birds are destroyed by the fans of wind turbines? Do you know. Do you know that the insect population will increase with the loss of bats and birds? Do you know how much wild life habitat is disturbed by the ground vibration that is created by the turbines? As, I said you are a brainwashed fool, a useful idiot to the totalitarians end.

  • Steve E

    It would be much cheaper if we build a golden calf and worship it instead of spending all that money worshiping the whole earth.

    • KG

      If we get to sacrifice some virgins and smoke some majic mushrooms, I’m all for it!

      • Tony Newbill

        Hey I bet when we heard Pelosi say we need to pass the Obamacare bill to find out what is in it it was the FREE Mushrooms she was Eluding too ???? FORWARD !!!!

      • eddie47d

        This is in answer to your comment at 9:52. I posted twice and it wouldn’t load. Businesses reap fairly large profits from doing business in this country and they should work to make this country better. They are not an island on their own and should give back for the blessings they receive. No one wants them shafted anymore than they should shaft the consumer or the environment,etc.

  • rb

    All arguments about whether global warming is really happening, man made or otherwise there is a simple fact about this administrations investments that cannot be denied. The government can’t pick winners and losers in the business community. Besides all of the other debacles you have heard about in the news there are so many others. West Michigan, with much fanfare and a Presidential visit, was the recipient of the benefits of the green technology money. Besides tax breaks locally a Korean company (yes.. a Korean company) was given more than 131 million federal taxpayer dollars to build a plant that would produce 400 new jobs making battteries for….the Chevy Volt….A little over 100 people have been hired to date. They sit around playing cards, watching tv, videos and some even have gone out into the community to work at some non-profit organizations while on the clock. What they haven’t done in two years is produce even ONE battery! This is the kind of garbage that is being shoved down our throats. This is the Obama administrations “Green Initiative” at work. If anyone can show me even ONE project this administration has successfully completed with the billions spent thus far I would be happy to hear it.

    • GALT

      Really? You don’t read very well do you?

      You do know that the state to which you refer is a republican one?

      That it is the STATE that is responsible for the “incentives”?

      You do know that a STATE is run by the STATE GOVERNMENT? ( clue! )

      Meaning of (clue!) not run by the president.

    • eddie47d

      RB: The big problem is that millions are out of work and the Conservatives keep saying that the private sector are the JOB CREATORS. If that was true then they would be CREATING those millions of jobs. Now if they want to sit on their hands while paying themselves extra bonuses then they shouldn’t be considered credible. We are tired of their excuses too!

      • Tony Newbill

        Hey Eddie47d how about that business owner being mandated to pay for employees entitlements while assuming all the risk in doing business thats making them sit on the fence ?? You assume that Being in Business is a guaranteed success when we see how well that worked out for Obamas Business ventures and all those that got laid off from his ventures so that makes Government a failed experiment too right along with your analogy of the private sector being a failed experiment .

  • Chained

    We should all strive for “greener energy”. It is the way of the future. Fossil fuels are not a sustainable source and they pollute tremendously. Wouldn’t it be grand to be self sustaining and not have to pay big oil companies and power companies a bill every month. Wouldn’t you love to live with out effin govt rules and regulations and them telling how you must live. WE NEED TO GET OFF THE GRID AND GET GOVT OUT OF OUR LIVES.

    I have had it with the owners of big oil companies, big pharma, big chemical companies like Monsanto and the federal reserve banking cartel controlling our govt and our lives. Imagine all the electricity you ever need produced by the sun which can’t be regulated or taxed. Big corporations fear that and want you to be dependent on them as does govt. Imagine never again having to pay out the a$$ for gasoline to run your vehicle. Imagine LA with no smog. Imagine clear skies without chemtrails and no respiratory problems. Imagine no toxins like fluoride and undissolved prescription drugs in our water supply. I think we have reached a turning point in history when we self destruct because of greed and lust for power. We can thank oil and the industrial revolution for that.

    • Nan

      The key word in your response is “imagine”. Our world runs on fossil fuels for now. It’s a great idea to develop solar energy, but as you remember from the failed Solyndra fiasco, the truth is that solar energy is not sustainable. Perhaps natural gas would be a more realistic way to go at this point. You can’t just regulate and shut down the oil industries without an affordable alternative, otherwise, the entire planet shuts down. We’re seeing a bit of this now with Obama’s cap and trade, regulation, and crony capitalism.

      • GALT

        Is the sun going to turn off any time soon?

        Solar is cheap………it just looks expensive because you are not paying for damages
        when you use carbon based energy……….. ( you actually are paying, you just don’t
        know how………..)

        Health care costs got you down…… ain’t seen nothing yet!
        Food a little too expensive……….you ain’t seen nothing yet!
        Then there’s that daily shower……… ain’t seen nothing yet!

        I figure by 2020…….you will all be saying….you knew it all along…….

        Problem is…… have already locked in at least 50 years of effects…..
        and current projections have been adjusted to the “worst case” side………

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Speaking of the way it will be in 2050, there’s a great book written about that titled “The World in 2050″. Some good news,some bad news, but apolitical and very informative. A great read.

      • DaveH

        Galt gives us the Liberal Progressive talking points — “Solar is cheap………it just looks expensive because you are not paying for damages”.
        A vague generalization which assumes we don’t have to use that same “damaging” energy to mine the materials for the solar panels and to create the panels themselves. Not to mention the horrendous eyesore of the panel arrays and the land they occupy. And the “damages” are already factored into the price of the oil due to the EPA, Court Costs, and other costs that cause the Oil Companies to price their product accordingly. In other words, the Consumers already pay for the “damages”.

        If the Solar Panels were indeed economically more efficient overall, the consumers could make their choices (whether to support solar or not) on the Free Markets, voluntarily. But Liberal Progressives only recognize Choice when it comes to killing unborn babies.
        Now I sit back and wait for Galt to make his usual Personal Attack and disjointed rebuttal.

      • DaveH

        140 acres of eyesore. That is more than 1/5th of 1 square mile:

      • DaveH

        If Free Marketers had created the concept of solar panels, and somehow they were economical enough to sell to voluntary consumers, you can bet that the Liberal Progressives would have been screaming bloody murder about the eyesores that they are.
        It’s all about Power and Force, Folks. The environment is just an excuse for Liberal Progressives to take over your Life Choices.

      • GALT

        Very strange that Bush and Cheney have houses built by Al Gore……

        Hi Dave……did you say something?

      • eddie47d

        Now you are telling bald face lies Dave H.! I have never heard them say they are an eyesore even when I had panels on my roof back in the early 80′s.

      • GALT

        Yo DavidH…… is your signer Freeman Dyson being “de-bunked”……

      • DaveH

        Like I would care what your biased website has to say, Galt?
        For those who want more information about the Homogenic Global Warming Hoax:

      • GALT

        Dyson’s about the biggest name you could hope for buddy………see, this is why being able to read and comprehend WHAT you read is so important………

        Seriously…..don’t you have a hobby or something?

        Volunteer at the local…..real capitalism now workshop?

        You could start a movement……like ” If capitalism is good enough for God, Jesus and Joel Olsteen, it’s good enough for YOU!!!!!!!!”

        oops…….sorry…..I own that now……..BUT since you have been so helpful, I’ll sell it
        to you cheap???????

      • DaveH

        I talked about this last week, but I will reiterate for those people who are confident and intelligent enough to ignore the ridicule, personal attacks, and conjecture that the Liberal Progressives will throw your way.
        Water vapor is the largest component of Green House Gases — those gases which trap heat and thus are implicated in Global Warming. Water Vapor is far more prevalent than the Carbon Dioxide that Liberal Progressive Alarmists want us to fret over. So since heat creates more water vapor in the atmosphere, what would stop a continuous cycle of heat -> water vapor -> more heat -> more water vapor, etc. until the Earth became an unsurvivable hot house? Obviously there are mitigating factors at work to prevent such an event. Here is one of those mitigating factors:

        Wake up, People. Ignore the threats, ridicule, and fabricated alarmism coming from the Liberal Progressives like the Whack-Job Galt, who really just want to run your life, and think for yourselves.

      • GALT

        That you are a “willfully ignorant functional illiterate” is not a “personal attack”….
        it is a FACT…….DavidH……..a FACT……..for which YOU are the EVIDENCE ….FOR.!!!!!

        You can not be “disparaged”………there are no words available that could
        be used to accomplish that feat……..and under the circumstances, what would be
        the point anyway……..

        BTW as my secret weapon……..way to go DAVE!!!!!!!!!!

        Hell, at this rate we might actually be able to “define” a few words before we
        hurtle over the fiscal cliff.

        Got your Gourmet “gold and silver” Cook Book ready?

  • Nan

    I see this as mostly another grab at control of our lives. No matter how much we try to prove the un-provable about global warming, China and India will continue to grow their industries and supposedly pollute the planet. So all our Pres is doing is stomping on our freedoms more and more.

    • eddie47d

      Haven’t you noticed that China and India don’t have the freedoms that we have? Do you want to be like them and who says there is a “freedom” to pollute or to destroy anything?

  • Right Brain Thinker

    This article is a compilation of the same tired and WRONG arguments that the ever-shrinking crowd of global warming-climate change deniers keeps making.

    Flashy and Galt have said it so well that I think I’ll spend my time rereading their comments rather that trying to add to them. They have both eloquently pointed out the differences in thought processes that I only generalize in the handle “Right Brain Thinker”. It’s too bad that the very nature of the “Conservative Brain” will make it hard for the folks on the wrong side of this debate to even re-examine their beliefs, never mind look at what those of us who know the truth may point out. I will perhaps point out the wrongness of some of the more egregious comments, but WILL say “ditto” to anything Flashy and Galt may say in the future—they will not steer us wrong.

    • Doc Sarvis

      Good choice.

  • The Christian American

    TERROR: a physical or psychological act, sometimes violent in nature, committed to gain or maintain submission. That’s the tool that Obama and his ilk use against the American people. They scare us, we submit to their edicts whether it be economically, weather, foreign relations, you name it. We listen and they tell us how high to jump. God controls the weather. We can only predict it, sometimes, when it happens. Ask the people at Noah’s time or the people in Sodom and Gommorah or Sandy’s visit to New Jersey and New York or New Orleans or Japan. It is mans duty to work within the environment God gave him, not play God like he can tell God what to do. Certainly it is not mans duty to listen to his employees as if they were some sort of gods. On every front, weather, economics, foreign relations, you see and feel the hand of evil playing a role. The simple language for happy living in the Ten Commandments and “our”, not their, Constitution has been set aside. Some new terrifying thing faces us every day and minute so we are spending our time reacting instead of acting. It’s like we’re walking naked through a den of serpents and the light is getting dimmer and dimmer. Instead of listening to them we should ignore them in the least, tar and feather them and cast out would be better. Read and believe John 3:16. It gives people the armor necessary to keep his sanity.

  • DaveH

    John says — “In 2013, it will be Obamagreen — with all the pitfalls of higher taxation, a repressed economy and greater power in the hands of Washington”.
    Unfortunately it goes beyond Obama, who is just implementing a UN resolution on the Rights of Mother Earth. The Earth has Rights? And who would represent Mother Earth? United Nations Lawyers of course.
    One thing for sure, when the UN takes over the Progressive Followers won’t have to worry about whether we elect Republicans or Democrats because the people DON’T have a vote for the United Nations Representatives. The United Nations is an organization created By the Leaders For the Leaders. The rest of us can eat cake.
    Once the UN takes full power, the elite Crony Capitalists will have finally gotten the Central Government of all Central Governments that they have desired for 100 years. And the average citizen will have no choice but to bow to those with the immense Power of that One-World Government.

  • Randy G

    The only ‘Green’ obama wants is in his bank accounts.

    • eddie47d

      Then he must be a true Capitalist !

      • Alan

        No Eddie, a true “Capitalist” gives something back! Obama is a true “Opportunist” of the lowest order, always taking!

      • eddie47d

        I’m still searching Alan…….. There is one Bill Gates …but he is a Liberal.

    • Tony Newbill

      Randy all they are doing is following the Blue print their master Kissinger mapped out for them to follow its the NSSM200 policy they are Implementing and they are 12 years behind on their plan . Kissinger has been to all of Obama state dinners so he is still in there making sure they are following their master ……

      • eddie47d

        I could care less about Kissinger but he has not attended ALL the State Dinners as you are attempting to invoke. He did attend when President Jintao was here from China and President Mubarak. That begs the question: Why would Obama invite Mubarak if the Conservatives say he didn’t like the old Egyptian regime? Oh yes those Conservatives are playing mind games with phony assumptions again.

  • Terry Bateman

    John Meyers quotes Obama saying the U.S. will be a global leader in technology and discovery and innovation and reap the good jobs and new businesses that will come
    from it. We are already the global leader in technology and innovation in discovering
    oil and gas and reaping the new jobs and businesses that come from it. If Obama
    wants to spend four billion dollars on energy conservation in government buildings,
    what’s wrong with that? Conservation and production are both needed to make U.S.
    energy independent.If Obama wants to spend twenty-one billion dollars on solar and
    wind power, what’s wrong with that? Diversification of energy sources is another aid
    in helping U.S. achieve energy independence.Meyers says during the second term Obama will take expensive steps to remedy global warming. What’s wrong with
    encouraging trucks and power plants to run on natural gas instead of gasoline
    and coal? Our increasingly abundant and cheap supplies of natural gas make
    natural gas fired power plants and natural gas fueled trucks a brilliant way to
    foster U.S. energy independence and reduce global warming. As for John Meyer’s
    opposition to carbon taxes, what’s wrong with the U.S. making a little bit of money
    encouraging a switch to natural gas from coal that will save tons of money for years
    to come?

    • Right Brain Thinker

      There’s nothing wrong with any of that, Terry. The problem is that we must cut down our reliance on fossil fuels if we hope to have any chance of arresting global warming before it overtakes us and makes any discussions of “economic impact” moot. Considering the lag times in the many mechanisms of global warming and our incomplete understanding of them, we may have already passed critical tipping points and doomed ourselves.

  • wavesofgrain

    Wake up, folks!!!!!!!!!!!!! Follow the money trail with this “Cap and Trade” scheme. Obama was instrumental in funding this scheme from the Joyce Foundation in the early 90′s. Guess who else sat on this board? None other that William “Bill” Ayers!!!!!!!!!! Gore was worth 2 Mil in 2000., now he’s worth over 100 Mil. This is another wealth redistribution scheme, but this time, it will not be redistributed to his conies, welfare or illegals…it will go to the United Nations to use as it sees FIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Obama, Gore, tied to Chicago carbon exchange!!!

    “””Considering the information unearthed concerning Obama’s links to all of this, it is not surprising that he is now pushing the “cap-and-trade” carbon tax program, which in reality represents a war on the middle and working classes.

    Prior to the election, Obama called for drastically reducing carbon emissions by 80 per cent, a move that would inflict a new Great Depression, cost millions of jobs, and sink America to near third world status.”””””

    • eddie47d

      Listen to Mr Grain and his sky is falling scenario! There have been dozens of environmental rules enacted over the years and we have all benefited from them. Our air became cleaner and our water safer. That is hardly a war on the Middle Class just the opposite where our health is directly affected. Now go back to reading bogeyman stories under the covers instead of embracing the positive changes.

      • Alan

        “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”. I’m sick of hearing it already! All this global warming nonsense is just another scam meant to scare people into giving up even more of their money and freedoms. Computer models are about as infallible as those who design them. Get real!!!

        • tlgeer

          You are, quite apparently, not old enough to remember the environment disasters in the 1960′s and 1970′s. Before you say anything else, you might want to do some research first.

  • Muchinippi Bill

    Earth is warming, cooling as it has for almost 5 billion years. Atlantic is currently warming with the Artic, Pacific is cooling with the Antartic. Natural Gas , oil and coal is currently where it is at, economically. I live in the corn belt and even there ethylnol isn’t economical. Build solar in Arizona but in Ohio we have coal producing 80 % of our electricity ,ECONOMICALLY. Natural gas is becoming very abundant. Wake up America and do what is the intelligent thing to do, not environmentally uneconomical. Use what we have while it is available and use wind , solar and nuke when the natural goodies are gone in about 300 years.

    • Peter B Rutkiewicz

      Conserve our resources and develop new sources or we may not be around. We were given DOMINION. If we screw it up, we can end ourselves. If we don’t deal with it, budget deficits won’t matter one bit. Just like it didn’t matter in WW II. Natural disasters can take down whole civilizations. History is filled with examples.

      • GALT

        “The lesson of history is……that we have learned nothing from history.”

      • George E


        We don’t know that we’re facing that kind of devastation with global warming. Sure, it’s possible, but the fact is declarations of that nature are only conjecture based on opinion. Let’s not go crazy because it could possibly happen. This issue is too critical to get it wrong. Let’s take our time and get it right. That’s something the politicians and environmental alarmist don’t want to give us. We just can’t let them win on that point.

        Should we conserve our air, since it’s one of our natural resources? Should we pass laws that tax people on how much air they breathe or use? Of course not. That’s ridiculous, and so is taxing other resources that we have in abundant supply to discourage people from using them. Let’s be careful how we go about this. No one knows for sure what the future holds, so anyone who says he does and wants us to stake our future on his prediction, is dangerous. Decisions like this are almost always better handled by the market where you’ve got a very large diverse group of people making bets with their own money.

      • GALT

        Yeah how stupid….an air tax……..of course not to be picky….but ALL AIR IS NOT

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Unfortunately, we don’t have 300 years to embrace alternative energy sources. If there are any humans at all left on the planet, they will likely be living in scattered groups and at a subsistence level. The technological capabilities they may still possess will not allow them to build nuclear reactors, wind turbines, or solar arrays.

      • George E


        How long do we have? If you can tell me that with very high confidence, then we might be able to figure out what we should do. Without that information, I’m going to assume we have more time than the environmental alarmists and politicians are telling us. I can see a political agenda associated with them pushing us into making quick decisions, and that’s something I don’t think we can afford with this issue.

  • Peter B Rutkiewicz

    Here is the Costliest Cyclones in the Atlantic. Note that the rate of storms has increased in the single decade of the new millennium:12 as compared to 12 for the FIVE decades since 1950. Doesn’t take into account the increases in tornadoes, floods in the west and Midwest followed by drought conditions this year. Change is upon us. The worse is yet to come. It is political suicide to oppose trying to reduce carbon emissions. The US is very vulnerable to the changes occurring. Disasters will vote out the opposition. Sandy voted for Obama.
    Billions Name Year
    $108.0 Hurricane Katrina[1] 2005
    $52.4‡ Hurricane Sandy[2] 2012
    $37.6 Hurricane Ike[3][4] 2008
    $29.2 Hurricane Wilma[5][6][7][8] 2005
    $26.5 Hurricane Andrew[9] 1992
    $18.6 Hurricane Charley[10][11] 2004
    $18.1 Hurricane Ivan[12][13] 2004
    $16.6 Hurricane Irene[14] 2011
    $15.2 Hurricane Agnes[15] 1972
    $14.1 Hurricane Hugo[16][17] 1989
    $10.5 Hurricane Rita[18] 2005
    $10.4 Hurricane Frances[13][16][19] 2004
    $10.2 Hurricane Gilbert[20] 1988
    $9.4 Hurricane Betsy[16][21] 1965
    $8.5 Hurricane Gustav[22] 2008
    $8.2 Hurricane Mitch[23][24][25][26][27] 1998
    $8.0 Hurricane Jeanne[13][16][28][29] 2004
    $8.0 Hurricane Camille[16] 1969
    $7.9 Hurricane Fifi[16][30] 1974
    $7.9 Hurricane Georges[29][31][32] 1998
    $6.8 Hurricane Diane[16] 1955
    $6.6 Hurricane Donna[16][33] 1960
    $6.5 Hurricane Frederic[16] 1979
    $6.4 Tropical Storm Allison[34][35][36] 2001

    • Doc Sarvis

      Ouch! Careful, lots of folks here don’t like to look at facts.

      • S.C.Murf

        Seems to me that the more growth we have in the states the more there is to destroy and the more it costs to rebuild

        up the hill

    • George E


      Thank you for sharing this interesting data. Unfortunately, it doesn’t prove global warming. It’s just more anecdotal information.

      BTW, you’ll get a lot more support for global warming theory if you change the proposed solutions to voluntary rather than government imposed.

      • deerinwater

        Hmm? Rising sea levels is proof of Global Warming in itself. While most of us don’t see that as the argument before us.

        • George E

          Really? Global warming is the only reason sea levels might be rising?

      • George E


        Rising sea levels may be evidence (not necessarily proof) of global warming, but not “man-made global warming.”

      • GALT

        Really? What are the OTHER REASONS?

        • George E


          Even if it suggests global warming, it certainly doesn’t prove that man-made conditions are the cause, and let’s face it, that’s what you would like us to believe.

          • Gea

            The science proofs about anthropogenic causes of the global climate changes had been in( for the last 30 years, and are accepted by anybody who is a scientist of actuary. Actuaries are best risk analysists because thgey base calculations of their premiums on history of catastrophil events that cause their losses in payments for a damage. The only scientists who deny antropogenic climate changes are thsoe who do not work in the field and may be paidby fossil burning companies tthat do not want to decrease their market share of fossil fuels of coal and oil. it is not only warming but those nasty hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, draughts etc. which cause insurance companies rise in premiums to pay for the extra risk of those extreme weathers.

            Anybody who still denies the obvious, is a fool, who does not understand how the complex systems operate. Obama suggested solution to build large solar and wind systems is dumb, just as his complicated health care is dumb, because it only helps large corporations that stand to profit while working Americans are screwed. We need to harvest solar, wind and geothermal energy from our homes and back yards and use electric battery powered electromotor cars and thus individually become sustainable rather then waiting for government to “help” US.

            We Americans are smart enough and capable enough to become great again, rather then dysfunctional sissies waiting for government to bail us out and keeping US on the dole, while borrowing money from Chinese, Japanese and Arabs and loosing our freedom.

          • George E


            You suspect the motivation of studies funded by fossil fuels companies, and I suspect the motivation of studies funded by groups who have a political agenda and a desired outcome. We are smart to be skeptical both ways, I think. I’m particularly skeptical of this theory because 1) there’s still room for argument; the science is not yet settled, at least in my mind, 2) implementing government “solutions” will wreck havoc on our economy, 3) government solutions lead to less personal liberty and more government control over our lives, which I don’t like, 4) other countries, like China, won’t comply with reducing their emissions so total emission levels will not go down much, 5) global warming, if it is happening, may be a natural phenomenon rather than man-made, and 6) anything we do to control global warming will have little impact on the net result anyway. While I doubt CO2 emissions are all that harmful to our environment, I’m not opposed to countries taking voluntary steps to control it if they want. I do oppose forced compliance with anything that will definitely hurt our economy and reduce our standard of living, but may only turn over more of our money and control over our lives to the government. We’ve got to be very careful with this issue. If we get it wrong, we’ll pay dearly for many, many years.

      • GALT

        Yo, George how to use these “facts”…….to formulate what they mean…….

        12 storms over 50 years v. 12 storms over 10 years ( the last ten years )

        or 2.2 per decade v. 12 per decade………

        So what was happening once every 5 years, is now happening every year……

        This represents a 400% increase in frequency…… just to understand your
        position……..regarding this anecdotal information…….

        What was different about the last decade that produced this increase in frequency?

        If it doesn’t mean anything statistically, what should one expect over the next decade?

        I mean if there is no trend and nothing has changed…….because this is just a blip,
        how long would it take……years with 0 storms……to statistically return to the
        previous rate of probable frequency?

        • George E


          But is this due to man-made causes? If we forceably reduce our emissions of CO2 in this country, will it make any real difference if China and other countries don’t reduce their emissions? Regardless, I believe implementing a cap-and-trade taxing program to reduce CO2 emissions will definitely constrain our economy substantially. This is a bad thing for our society as well, and the fact is, I’m more confident that would happen than actually reducing global warming from anything the government might do.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Good data, Paul. And guess what, deniers? Insurance companies (who make a living by analyzing risk) have come to the conclusion that global warming is real and we need to do something about it. Global warming is threatening their little gravy train because of the huge payouts Paul has listed for us above and they are good enough capitalists to suggest that we must do things that will ease their burden and increase their profits. In the meantime, they are making noises that we can ALL expect higher premiums to give them the capital to pay claims (and of course make their profit)..

      • Gea

        Already 30 years ago the insurance companies understood that global climate change is REAL and that it is CAUSED by burning fossil fuels. WE MUST GO GREEN totally and stop burning ANY fossil fuels, and particularly using internal combustion engines, which need oil. The money that we pay to the Arabs and Iranians (and Communists) for oil often goes to finance terrorism against US.

        WE can become totally independent of oil and coal if we each harvests solar, wind and geothermal energy at locations where we use it: our homes and back yards. We can use electric car batteries to store that energy and thus do not need gasoline.

        Obamagreen is dumb, since it continues dependence on large intinstically unsafe large electric power plants which also cause ecological damage and when the weather is bad, the transmissions break down and people are left with no elevctricity for days.

        I live off the grid for the last 3 years and love it. My next step will be an electric car which I will be recharging from solar and wind energy captured on my rood. If EVERYBODY did thyi (*it can be done cheaply) then the large energy corporations that are currently burnbing fossil fuels and car industry will go out of business unless they start producting efficient electric cars, as Tesla had done with their new sexy electric car. Chinese are ahead of US both in electric cars production and photovoltaic industry.

  • wavesofgrain

    The Kyoto Protocol: Oppressing People, Enriching Banks

    Their “social engineering/wealth redistribution” theory…note that these Carbon Tax companies are bloated with democrats, ex-Sachs execs…and they registered their companies in the Isle of Man to avoid US taxes!!!!!!!!!!

    “””””Once you price CO2 and put a price on it, you find, as you would with any other product, it tends to be rationed. We as a people on this planet have lived under the false concept that air and water were free. And we’ve learned with a planet of 7 billion people, that we have to ration these precious goods. And the good old price system is the best way to do it.””””

    Sandor’s company, Climate Exchange PLC, owns the major exchange for these emissions, the ECX. The Isle of Man-based company also owns the voluntary American counterpart, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), where Sandor is listed as chairman and founder, and sits on the board of directors with Maurice Strong. It is also worth noting that the CCX was originally funded with grant money from the Joyce Foundation, grants which were awarded to Sandor while Barack Obama was still at the Joyce Foundation. Barack Obama will be in Copenhagen next week at the UNFCCC’s 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) to discuss climate change actions on behalf of the United States, and he has advocated for a mandatory cap-and-trade system in the US and the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol.

    GIM is a UK-based private equity firm with at least $5 Billion under management, which was founded in 2004 by former vice president Al Gore with the help of four former Goldman Sachs executives. The Goldman executives are GIM co-founder and senior partner, David Blood (former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management); GIM co-founder and chief investment officer, Mark Ferguson (former head of several Goldman Sachs AM arms); and the former president and CEO of Goldman Sachs and Treasury Secretary during the Bush, Henry “Hank” Paulson (who is not listed as a co-founder, but is acknowledged by GIM for his role in the creation of the firm).

    Finally, the United Nations Clean Development Mechanism would not be complete without the UN itself getting a cut. Indeed, besides the banks, investment firms, utilities, and chemical companies getting their piece of the global warming pie, so to does United Nations profit from the emissions market through the “Share of Proceeds” clause in the Kyoto Protocol. The Share of Proceeds entitles the UNFCCC to $0.10 per CER issued up to the first 15,000, and $0.20 per CER after that. Additionally, there is a project application fee for submission that ranges from $30,000 to $350,000 per project. And finally, the UNFCCC takes 2% of the issued CERs and adds them to its own “Adaption Fund” portfolio.

    The UN estimates it will issue 2.9 Billion CER by 2012: with the 2% entitlement alone, the UN will collect 58 million CER with a current value of over $1.7 Billion–$1,172,760,000 to be more precise. With the additional $0.10 to $0.20 per CER income (given that only the first 15,000 CER are charged at $0.10, this should be estimated as an average at $0.15 or higher), the UN will collect at least another $435,000,000. And finally, if assuming the only minimum application fee of $30,000 (which produces the lowest possible revenue, as the actual fees range up to $350,000) for the approximate 5,000 projects to be registered by 2012, the UN would also collect at least another $150,000,000. Therefore, by its own estimates, the UN stands to collect at least $1,757,760,000 by 2012—and it is actually almost certain to collect more, as the market players can easily move the price of this “commodity” higher and the UN itself can restrict the supply of credits and spike the price nearly at will. Indeed, everyone is getting paid off the backs of the third world. Again.

    • Peter B Rutkiewicz

      Just create the opportunity with incentives and let entrepreneurial spirit and ingenuity take over. Why care what other countries are doing? We have to protect our country. The ethical consequences of our actions will determine our future. The world is not happy with US energy consumption and that is a consequence of doing nothing that will only worsen at time goes on. You’ve heard of economic sanctions…what if Europe and Asia decided to impose economic sanctions on us because we do nothing to reduce carbon emissions.

      • Tony Newbill

        Tell me why we do Nothing with Bio Algae ??? It is the Energy of the Future !!!!

      • GALT

        Who is “we”?

      • Peter B Rutkiewicz

        GALT The “we” are all the Americans on the east coast and along the Gulf of Mexico. The “we” also include the people who live in and around tornado alley which has now been expanded significantly in intensity, repetition and breadth of states at higher risk. The “we” are those people living in the center who have experienced floods two years ago and then have had to endure drought destroying crops all across the plain states. That pretty much means that over half of the population of the United States is in harm’s way due to intense weather events that are increasing in frequency and the other half are at risk due to the economic fallout that will affect them as well. If we have reached a tipping point (and some scientists think we have) and the Greenland Ice continues to melt, all the beach front property along the coast is going to be under water every time there is a high tide.

        Like it or not, we are vulnerable. Not as vulnerable as Bangladesh or The Netherlands, but we have a lot of low lying property that is built up, not to mention Long Island, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. The ocean’s force is something that man cannot overcome. It derives its energy from the sun. We need to reduce carbon emissions where we can do so without great pain and we need to move away from the coastlines or we will be driven away.

        Each weather event causing widespread damage and suffering will vote for those who favor changes to our national policies regarding energy. Its coming and it will not be deterred. Or, like the people in Pompeii, we can ignore the signs and just stay put.

  • Janice Dempsey

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to prove that global warming began when the Ice Age ended. Unfortunately, the individuals promoting and benefitting from promoting all things green are some of the most prolific producers of air pollution. I would love to see the actual figures that reflect the impact of the fuel consumed by Air Force One and attending transportation throughout the campaign. While you’re at it, show me the same data for Romney and Al Gore. Of course, their motto is “Do as I say, not as I do.”

    • The Christian American

      Originally, the Earth was encapsulsted by an ice shield. As the sun beat down on it, the Earth was watered by a mist. The temperture was a constant that could sustain life everywhere, when they find Mamouths in ice, they have tropical vegetables and fruits in their stomachs. Frequently they are in their mouths as the freeze was instant. A clod man hs yet to explain. The first rain occured at the time of Noah. The shield was melted away creating the flood and exposing the earth to a new environment, like we have today. The Earth moves 23 degrees north and south from the tropic belt giving us the seaons. The ice age left the Earth with 1/3 of the water that was covering it at Noah’s time turned into clouds. At all times 1/3 of the earth is covered with clouds and 2/3′s of the Earth covered with water. What wasn’t turned into clouds or water, was turned into ice, the ice age. There is not one more or less molecules of water now that wasn’t there at time of creation. You can see the hand of God in everything. Why bother to explain it when all we have to do is enjoy it. God makes and moves everything at His pleasure. Man at his pleasure will move to destroy the Earth and everything in it, and we are maving toward doing just that.

    • Peter B Rutkiewicz

      Wow, we have hurricanes causing billions of dollars in damage and taking lives, tornadoes that are wiping communities off the map and you’re worried about how much fuel Air Force One uses. There is nothing political about climate change. We had better make some changes to try to soften the effects and we better start getting out of the way. Its not about “save the planet”, its about “save ourselves”. There is a second Galveston-like tragedy that will make the first look like a blip. Its coming and we don’t know when or exactly where but when the weather systems cycle to the necessary conditions, and they will eventually cycle to those conditions, we are talking about mass graves, total devastation: A Biblical event that will make Katrina, Sandy, Ike and Wilma look like warnings.

      • George E

        There’s nothing political about climate change? Are you kidding. If there’s nothing political about it, why are the politicians so heavily involved? Why are we giving taxpayer money to organizations to prove global warming is caused by green house gases? Have you heard of “cap-and-trade?” That’s a tax on everyone and everything that emits CO2. Yes, it’s political, and that’s one of the reasons many of us are very skeptical about the “science” behind it.

  • JC

    Just wanted to let you know – today I received my 2013 Social Security Stimulus Package. It contained two tomato seeds, cornbread mix, two discount coupons to KFC, an ‘Obama Hope & Change’ bumper sticker, a prayer rug, a machine to blow smoke up my ass and a ‘Blame it on Bush’ poster for the front yard. The directions were in Spanish. Yours should arrive soon. :)

    Have a good one!

    • Tony Newbill

      Now thats something to be thankful for this Thanks Giving !!!

    • eddie47d

      You are such as panderer of dishonesty JC. Still blowing smoke today when you couldn’t even answer my question yesterday. Is your mind as distorted as your comments. Hmmm!

    • Right Brain Thinker

      And I hate to say it, but it’s actually quite clever. Had me LOL
      And a lot more intelligent than the Obummer-ObaMao crap that the stupid seem to think is so “smart”

      • The Christian American

        You know, a lot is said about Obama. In reality, the one ruling the world Netanyahu. The Zionist rule DC.: PERIOD. Practically every politicians bend to their wishes. Netanyahu is sitting on the button that can put Amaggedon in motion and no one is stopping him. Even Obama does what he’s told by the Zionists. If he decides to invade Iran America will be involved and Russia, China and God know who else will be involved. I fully agree we have to look at what’s happening internally but Americans we have to look at what’s happening around the world, not by choice mind you but because the one’s ruling America have us involved.

        • George E

          It looks to me like Iran is calling the shots, not Israel. If Israel strikes Iran it’ll be because Iran has threatened them with nuclear weapons. That’s what any rational human being would do, I think.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        The one we really need to worry about is Netanyahu’s WIFE, who rules HIM. Or don’t you know how formidable Jewish women are?

  • Deerinwater

    It seems that to “conserve” is popular with American Conservative’s until it comes to “Big Oil” .

    Protest all you might, “Green” is the future and it’s been coming for 20 years and nothing new. And for the record, America has not been the leader in this innovation much less broad application, but all of Europe has.

    And Mr. Horton, regarding your shopping list for 100 watts bulbs, ~

    ” Full Spectrum Lighting -Natural Full Spectrum Lighting Comparisons, Ratings, Reviews

    Full Spectrum light boxes act as “bright light therapy” for alleviating symptoms associated with seasonal affective disorder (SAD), jet lag, shift work, fatigue and insomnia. The color rendition of these lights is superb, and your home will just seem lighter and brighter. Below we compare and summarize the pluses and minuses of our best in class light boxes, and full spectrum natural lighting lamps, but do not miss our product pages for a more detailed candid analysis, so that you can choose the best natural lighting for you.”

    There is much too lighting if you indulge the topic.

    Wattage tells us only what amount of power is consumed, ~ new technology has stood your understanding of lighting on it’s head as we learn to get more with less.

    And I don’t know where my first posting went, ~ strange?

    • DaveH

      All those “advantages”, and yet you Liberal Progressives still will not let the consumers make their own Free Choices about the energy sources and devices that they prefer. Why is that? Do you think you know what’s better for me than I do?

      • GALT

        You have choices……..13 watt, 19 watt, 25 watt………

        besides….doesn’t your monitor provide you with sufficient heat and light?

        ( that one may take awhile…………………………….

      • eddie47d

        Actually consumers today have many free will choices in their energy needs. Unlike decades ago where you had to accept the power of “choice” from the local utility company. You either accepted it or froze in the winter. Isn’t progressive progress wonderful!

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Actually, his “fevered brain” that I have commented on elsewhere may be enough without the monitor—-you know, like ET’s finger?—-his head may glow in the dark. It would be interesting to put him in that 40 x 40 x 40 room and see if he self-combusts.

      • GALT

        Not possible……..he is not tall enough.

      • Doc Sarvis

        Continued access to energy is a national security issue as well as an economic one.

      • GALT

        To answer your question…….DaveH……..only if you insist!

      • DaveH

        So many Liberal Progressive posters, so little facts or reason.

      • GALT
      • Deerinwater

        DaveH says:
        November 21, 2012 at 10:32 am
        “All those “advantages”, and yet you Liberal Progressives still will not let the consumers make their own Free Choices about the energy sources and devices that they prefer. Why is that? ” ” Do you think you know what’s better for me than I do?”

        Well???~ ??? I left to guess that we do! (while not a liberal) since there is more types of lighting to choose from and more energy providers to choose from, then anytime in the recorded history of America. If you are not aware of this fact David H, you must be one of the few American that does not manage the responsibility of running a household or a business.

  • DaveH

    John Myers says — “Perhaps the influence of the Green Environmental Machine has begun to influence even good Republicans”.
    Perhaps they weren’t really “good” to begin with.

  • DaveH

    Those who would like to investigate the Homogenic Global Warming hoax more thoroughly should read these books by Christopher Horner:

    Christopher has spent much of his life exposing the Politics behind the Power Grab that is thrust upon us by the Politicians and their Crony Capitalists who won’t be happy until we are completely under their thumbs.

    • eddie47d

      That is also “free choice”. Just because C Horner peddles his lopsided trash doesn’t mean we have to buy into it either.

    • GALT

      Dave…..good buddy………did you actually BUY a book to READ?

      • DaveH

        Good buddy? Sorry Galt, but I don’t hang out with personally attacking useless Liberal Progressives.

      • GALT

        You’re kidding…….you’re an actual person? I thought you were like a “capital good”????

        Labor to be exploited and discarded…….and paying your and my “fair share”?

        I have no reason to attack you…… are my secret weapon………and you always
        come fully loaded…….

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Fully loaded indeed. Loaded to overflowing with the excruciatingly excremental excrescences that spew from the dark recesses and rotten sputtering gutter of his brain like a river of septic putrescence. And that is unfortunate for us on the site, except that I suppose he can sometimes be useful as a “secret weapon”, at least in a limited way.

        Anyone that would rely on his help in open warfare of any variety (but especially intellectual), would probably shoot him rather than trust him to cover their backs. I know that the folks I served with in the USMC would have done so without an eyeblink..

        And yet again, I say “Thank you, Brandon” (the supplemental “ex-’s” are mine)

  • TML

    “Greens claim is producing heat-trapping carbon dioxide and creating storms like Sandy.”

    Apparently, they don’t remember the “Hurricane of Providence” that came through D.C. during the War of 1812. I suppose that was caused by heat-trapping carbon dioxide as well? Ugh… how can anyone promote an unproven, if not improvable, theory of man-made global warming? The common sense that Myer’s points out should be enough for anyone – “global warming — if it even exists and if it is truly manmade — is a global problem… …How is the United States going to change this?”. Answer? We can’t.

    • GALT

      What about the Sahara Forest?

      • TML

        GALT says, “What about the Sahara Forest?”

        I’m not sure how the “”Sahara Forest” is relevant to global warming. The Sahara desert has been that way since about 1600 BCE, so ‘project’ “Sahara Forest” ( claims of “the community as a whole can reverse the process of desertification.”, seems more like arrogant meddling rather than any real effort to “reverse” a process of desertification caused by presupposed man-made global warming.

      • GALT

        Try 25,000 BCE……at a minimum………but it still doesn’t mean we can’t
        harken back to the ‘good ole days” of the Sahara Forest.

        ( guess for some things……you really had to be there. I remember I had
        this pet dinosaur……….)

    • GALT

      of course, this requires that you are familiar with the difference between the right
      and wrong question concept?

      • DaveH

        Asking the wrong Questions? How about asking how they know that Humans are causing a statistically significant portion of Global Warming?
        Instead they use the usual Liberal Progressive Circular Reasoning to make their point — “but we know human-caused global warming has increased the frequency and/or intensity of many types of extreme weather”.
        They don’t “know” that global warming is being caused by humans. They just assume it, as is the common course of events for Liberal Progressives.
        More on the connection between Hurricanes and Global Warming:

      • DaveH

        When is Global Warming acknowledged to have its greatest effect on temperature? It’s Wintertime. But the Propagandists will have to work feverishly to excise that tidbit of information from their past revelations:

      • DaveH

        Homogenic Global Warming is merely a vehicle for Politicians to grab more Power and Money, and take more Freedom from the rest of us:

      • GALT

        Great Cato piece Dave…..which begin’s

        “Hurricane Sandy—which was, technically, not a hurricane by the time it buzzed into the Jersey Shore……………..”

        Hey GUYS………relax…….that wasn’t even a hurricane…….

        My secret weapon…………………… the “functionally illiterate” DaveH

        ( this one’s gonna probably take a while too…………………….

      • DaveH

        Do you realize how Clownish it makes you look, Galt, to post your grammatically-poor disjointed comments and then call me “functionally illiterate”?
        I’m surprised that Liberal Progressives haven’t accused me of making up your persona in order to make Liberal Progressives look bad.

      • GALT

        “functionally illiterate”……always the last to know………..

      • TML

        GALT says, “of course, this requires that you are familiar with the difference between the right
        and wrong question concept?”

        I’m well aware of the concept of “right and wrong”, but what you mean here is the difference between “correct and incorrect”.

        From you link:
        “1) Did global warming cause Hurricane Sandy? The answer is obviously ‘no,’ and this is the wrong question to ask. Weather events would of course happen with or without human-caused global warming, but the proper question is not whether global warming was the cause, but what influence it had on the event. The Bloomberg Businessweek article grasps this point, answering the question correctly.
        “Would this kind of storm happen without climate change? Yes. Fueled by many factors.””

        No argument there; it supports my position.

        “2) Did global warming intensify Hurricane Sandy and its impacts? The answer to this question is a simple ‘yes.’ Human-caused global warming has caused sea level rise, which increased the hurricane storm surge, leading to more flooding.”

        This is interesting because while the answer is “yes”, the link to the “yes” simply asserts that man-made global warming is the cause of rising sea levels, without ever nailing down exactly how the activities of man alone a affecting this – “approximately 40% of the average global sea level rise since 1972 is due to thermal expansion, and approximately 60% due to land ice melting (Figure 2), both of which in turn are predominantly driven by human-caused global warming.”

        “It has warmed the oceans, fueling the intensity of the hurricane.”

        “IT”? But didn’t your link just say, “Pielke Jr. objected to this cover, but is it accurate? The answer depends on exactly what the “it” is…”

        So, “it” in the statement, “It has warmed the oceans, fueling the intensity of the hurricane.”, is referring to “man-made global warming” – so, global warming has warmed the oceans? Do you see how it is just one unsupported assertion after another, to support the next assertion… layers deep in various scientific fields from hurricane Sandy, to rising oceans, to warming oceans, water vapor, and rainfall… without ever making the connection between what “it” is from man-kind that is causing all this? Oh, yes, the simple answer; carbon dioxide (CO2) – You do understand that is what we exhale at every breath, and the very air plants breath, right?

        I’m sorry, but you’re going to have to do a hellava lot better than that.

      • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

        Galt, these apostate-infidels must be stopped at all cost. Fight on for mother-Gaia, brother. Be relentless, show no pity, show no remorse, slay the man-made-climate-change-deniers, spare none, slay them where ever you find them, and your mother-Gaia, the mother of Satan, will reward you with virgins, slaves, and all the trees you can eat!

      • GALT

        No TML I don’t have to do anything at all…………this is what “science” means

        however since you actually think you have said something…..and that it means something

        1.) I s global warming happening?
        2.) If not what is?
        3.) IF yes. why?
        4.) If not man, what?

        Hope those aren’t too hard……..

      • GALT

        hey jay….what’s up buddy……ole Dave has been screaming for hours…..being the only
        idiot here……he is going to be so happy…..

        still, you guys should have paid attention to your “naught tables”……….

        add it up or multiply…….it’s all for naught……I mean what’s another “idiot”?

        • George E


          Is there a serious point to all of your posts? If so, please make it. I’m tiring from trying to figure out what you’re saying in these riddles.

      • TML

        “4.) If not man, what?”

        The Sun

      • GALT

        Coooooolllllll It;s the SUN…….we did that….but just for you

        The skeptic argument…

        It’s the sun

        “Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer.” (BBC)

        What the science says…

        In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions

        Over the last 30 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate are going in opposite directions. This has led a number of scientists independently concluding that the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.

        One of the most common and persistent climate myths is that the sun is the cause. This argument is made by cherry picking the data – showing past periods when sun and climate move together but ignoring the last few decades when the two diverge.

        Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

        As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth’s climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, “…during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.”

        In fact, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).

        Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD.

        Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used multiple linear regression to quantify and remove the effects of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and solar and volcanic activity from the surface and lower troposphere temperature data. They found that from 1979 to 2010, solar activity had a very slight cooling effect of between -0.014 and -0.023°C per decade, depending on the data set (Table 1, Figure 2).

        Table 1: Trends in °C/decade of the signal components due to MEI, AOD and TSI in the regression of global temperature, for each of the five temperature records from 1979 to 2010.

        Figure 2: Influence of exogenous factors on global temperature for GISS (blue) and RSS data (red). (a) MEI; (b) AOD; (c) TSI.

        Like Foster and Rahmstorf, Lean and Rind (2008) performed a multiple linear regression on the temperature data, and found that while solar activity can account for about 11% of the global warming from 1889 to 2006, it can only account for 1.6% of the warming from 1955 to 2005, and had a slight cooling effect (-0.004°C per decade) from 1979 to 2005.

        A number of studies have used a variety of statistical and physical approaches to determine the contribution of greenhouse gases and other effects to the observed global warming, like Lean & Rind and Foster & Rahmstorf. And like those studies, they find a relatively small solar contribution to global warming, particularly in recent decades (Figure 3).

        Figure 3: Solar contribution to global warming according to various peer-reviewed attribution studies

        It’s often considered “common sense” that global warming is caused by the Sun. After all, the Sun is the source of almost all of the energy on Earth. The Sun has both direct and indirect influences over the Earth’s temperature, and we can evaluate whether these effects could be responsible for a significant amount of the recent global warming. As shown in the Intermediate level rebuttal of this argument, dozens of studies have concluded that the Sun simply cannot account for the recent global warming, but here we’ll go through the calculations for ourselves.

        Direct solar effect
        The Sun’s largest influence on the Earth’s surface temperature is through incoming solar radiation, also known as total solar irradiance (TSI). Changes in TSI can be converted into a radiative forcing, which tells us the energy imbalance it causes on Earth. This energy imbalance is what causes a global temperature change.

        The solar radiative forcing is TSI in Watts per square meter (W-m-2) divided by 4 to account for spherical geometry, and multiplied by 0.7 to account for planetary albedo (Meehl 2002). The albedo factor is due to the fact that the planet reflects approximately 30% of the incoming solar radiation.

        This is a very straightforward and easy to understand formula – the larger the change in solar irradiance, the larger the energy imbalance it causes, and thus the larger the radiative forcing. Studies have reconstructed TSI over the past 300 years. Wang, Lean, and Sheeley (2005) compared a flux transport model with geomagnetic activity and cosmogenic isotope records and to derive a reconstruction of TSI since 1713.

        Figure 1: Total Solar Irradiance from 1713 to 1996 (Wang 2005)

        Satellites have directly measured TSI since 1978.

        Figure 2: Total Solar Irradiance as measured by satellite from 1978 to 2010

        As you can see, over the past 32 years, TSI has remained unchanged on average. In the early 20th century, from about 1900 to 1950 there was an increase in TSI from about 1365.5 to 1366 W-m-2. The change in global temperature in response to a radiative forcing is:

        Where ‘dT’ is the change in the Earth’s average surface temperature, ‘λ’ is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in Kelvin or degrees Celsius per Watts per square meter (°C/[W-m-2]), and ‘dF’ is the radiative forcing.

        So now to calculate the change in temperature, we just need to know the climate sensitivity. Studies have given a possible range of values of 2 to 4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007), which corresponds to a range of 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W-m-2) for λ. We can then calculate the change in global temperature caused by the increase in TSI since 1900 using the formulas above. Although Wang, Lean, and Sheeley’s reconstruction puts the change in TSI since 1900 at about 0.5 W-m-2, previous studies have shown a larger change, so we’ll estimate the change in TSI at 0.5 to 2 W-m-2.

        with a most likely value of 0.15°C

        We can confirm this by comparing the calculation to empirical observations. From 1900 to 1950 the Earth’s surface temperature warmed by about 0.4°C. Over that period, humans increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about 20 parts per million by volume. This corresponds to an anthropogenic warming of:

        with a most likely value of 0.22°C.

        Therefore, the solar forcing combined with the anthropogenic CO2 forcing and other minor forcings (such as decreased volcanic activity) can account for the 0.4°C warming in the early 20th century, with the solar forcing accounting for about 40% of the total warming. Over the past century, this increase in TSI is responsible for about 15-20% of global warming (Meehl 2004). But since TSI hasn’t increased in at least the past 32 years (and more like 60 years, based on reconstructions), the Sun is not directly responsible for the warming over that period.

        Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used multiple linear regression to quantify and remove the effects of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and solar and volcanic activity from the surface and lower troposphere temperature data. They found that since 1979, solar activity has had a very slight cooling effect of between -0.014 and -0.023°C per decade, depending on the data set (Table 1, Figure 3).

        Table 1: Trends in °C/decade of the signal components due to MEI, AOD and TSI in the regression of global temperature, for each of the five temperature records from 1979 to 2010.

        Figure 3: Influence of exogenous factors on global temperature for GISS (blue) and RSS data (red). (a) MEI; (b) AOD; (c) TSI.

        Like Foster and Rahmstorf, Lean and Rind (2008) performed a multiple linear regression on the temperature data, and found that while solar activity can account for about 11% of the global warming from 1889 to 2006, it can only account for 1.6% of the warming from 1955 to 2005, and had a slight cooling effect (-0.004°C per decade) from 1979 to 2005.

        Note that this multiple linear regression technique it makes no assumptions about various solar effects. Any solar effect (either direct or indirect) which is correlated to solar activity (i.e. solar irradiance, solar magnetic field [and thus galactic cosmic rays], ultraviolet [UV] radiation, etc.) is accounted for in the linear regression. Both Lean and Rind and Foster and Rahmstorf found that solar activity has played a very small role in the recent observed global warming.

        Indirect Solar Effects
        Ultraviolet Radiation
        It has also been proposed that ultraviolet (UV) radiation, which varies more than other solar irradiance wavelengths, could amplify the solar influence on the global climate through interactions with the stratosphere and atmospheric ozone. Shindell et al. (1999) examined this possibility, but found that while this UV variability has a significant influence over regional temperatures, it has little effect on global surface temperatures.

        “Solar cycle variability may therefore play a significant role in regional surface temperatures, even though its influence on the global mean surface temperature is small (0.07 K for December–February).”
        Moreover, Shindell et al. found that anthropogenic ozone depletion (via chlorofluorocarbon emissions) may have reduced the impact of UV variability on the climate, and may have even offset it entirely.

        “Another consideration is that upper stratospheric ozone has decreased significantly since the 1970s as a result of destruction by halogens released from chlorofluorocarbons. This ozone decrease, which has been much larger than the modeled solar-induced ozone increases, may have limited the ability of solar irradiance changes to affect climate over recent decades, or may have even offset those effects.”
        Galactic cosmic rays
        Henrik Svensmark has proposed that galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) could exert significant influence over global temperatures (Svensmark 1998). The theory goes that the solar magnetic field deflects GCRs, which are capable of seeding cloud formation on Earth. So if solar magnetic field were to increase, fewer GCRs would reach Earth, seeding fewer low-level clouds, which are strongly reflective. So an increased solar magnetic field can indirectly decrease the Earth’s albedo (reflectivity), thus causing the planet to warm. Thus in order for this theory to be plausible,

        Solar magnetic field must have a long-term positive trend.
        Galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth must have a long-term negative trend.
        Cosmic rays must successfully seed low-level clouds.
        Low-level cloud cover must have a long-term negative trend.
        Fortunately we have empirical observations with which to test these requirements.

        Solar magnetic field
        Solar magnetic field strength correlates strongly with other solar activity, such as TSI and sunspot number. As is the case with these other solar attributes, solar magnetic field has not changed appreciably over the past three decades (Lockwood 2001).

        Figure 3: Solar Magnetic Flux from 1967 to 2009 (Vieira and Solanki 2010)

        Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux
        Cosmic ray flux on Earth has been monitored since the mid-20th century, and has shown no significant trend over that period.

        Figure 4: Cosmic Ray Intensity (blue) and Sunspot Number (green) from 1951 to 2006 (University of New Hampshire)

        GCR Cloud Seeding
        Numerous studies have investigated the effectiveness of GCRs in cloud formation. Kazil et al. (2006) found:

        “the variation of ionization by galactic cosmic rays over the decadal solar cycle does not entail a response…that would explain observed variations in global cloud cover”

        Sloan and Wolfendale (2008) found:

        “we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11-year cycle changes in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays.”
        Kristjansson et al. (2008) found:

        “no statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and GCR”
        Calogovic et al. (2010) found:

        “no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude.”
        Kulmala et al. (2010) also found

        “galactic cosmic rays appear to play a minor role for atmospheric aerosol formation events, and so for the connected aerosol-climate effects as well.”

        Low-Level Cloud Cover
        Unfortunately observational low-level cloud cover data is somewhat lacking and even yields contradictory results. Norris et al. (2007) found

        “Global mean time series of surface- and satellite-observed low-level and total cloud cover exhibit very large discrepancies, however, implying that artifacts exist in one or both data sets….The surface-observed low-level cloud cover time series averaged over the global ocean appears suspicious because it reports a very large 5%-sky-cover increase between 1952 and 1997. Unless low-level cloud albedo substantially decreased during this time period, the reduced solar absorption caused by the reported enhancement of cloud cover would have resulted in cooling of the climate system that is inconsistent with the observed temperature record.”

        So the jury is still out regarding whether or not there’s a long-term trend in low-level cloud cover.

        Inability to explain other observations
        In addition to these multiple lines of empirical evidence which contradict the GCR warming theory, the galactic cosmic ray theory cannot easily explain the cooling of the upper atmosphere, greater warming at night, or greater warming at higher latitudes. These are fingerprints of the increased greenhouse effect, the major mechanism of anthropogenic global warming.

        Dansgaard-Oeschger Events
        Some individuals, most notably Fred Singer, have argued that Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O, a.k.a. Bond) events could be causing the current global warming. D-O events are rapid climate fluctuations that occur quasi-periodically with a 1,470-year recurrance time and which, according to Singer, are “likely caused by the sun.” However, there is significant debate as to the cause of these D-O events, with changes in solar output being just one possibility (NOAA Paleoclimatology).

        Regardless, the most obvious flaw in this argument is that the planet wasn’t warming 1,470 years ago. The previous warm event was the Medieval Warm Period approximately 1,000 years ago.

        Figure 5: Global temperature reconstructions over the past 2,000 years (Wikipedia)

        Bond et al. (1999) added further evidence that the timing of D-O events disqualifies them from being responsible for the current warming, by showing that the most recent D-O event may have contributed to the Little Ice Age (LIA):

        “evidence from cores near Newfoundland confirms previous suggestions that the Little lce Age was the most recent cold phase of the 1-2kyr cycle”

        And a study by Rahmstorf (2003) also concludes that the LIA may be the most recent cold phase of the D-O cycle, and his research suggests that the 1,470-year periodicity is so regular that it’s more likely due to an orbital cycle than a solar cycle.

        “While the earlier estimate of ±20% [Schulz, 2002] is consistent with a solar cycle (the 11-year sunspot cycle varies in period by ±14%), a much higher precision would point more to an orbital cycle. The closest cycle known so far is a lunar cycle of 1,800 years [De Rop, 1971], which cannot be reconciled with the 1,470-year pacing found in the Greenland data. The origin of this regular pacing thus remains a mystery.”

        However, according to Braun et al. (2005), D-O events could be caused by a combination of solar cycles and freshwater input into the North Atlantic Ocean. But their study also concludes that D-O events are not expected to occur during the Holocene (the current geologic epoch).

        “the 1,470-year climate response in the simulation is restricted to glacial climate and cannot be excited for substantially different (such as Holocene) boundary conditions…Thus, our mechanism for the glacial ,1,470-year climate cycle is also consistent with the lack of a clear and pronounced 1,470-year cycle in Holocene climate archives.”

        The bottom line is that regardless of whether or not the D-O cycles are triggered by the Sun, the timing is clearly not right for this cycle to be responsible for the current warming. Particularly since solar output has not increased in approximately 60 years, and has only increased a fraction of a percent in the past 300 years, as discussed above.

        Ironically, prior to publishing a book in 2007 which blamed the current warming on D-O cycles, Singer argued that the planet wasn’t warming as recently as 2003. So the planet isn’t warming, but it’s warming due to the D-O cycles? It’s quite clear that in reality, neither of these contradictory arguments is even remotely correct.

        Inability to explain empirical observations
        Aside from the fact that solar effects cannot physically explain the recent global warming, as with GCRs, there are several empirical observations which solar warming could not account for. For example, if global warming were due to increased solar output, we would expect to see all layers of the atmosphere warm, and more warming during the day when the surface is bombarded with solar radiation than at night. Instead we observe a cooling of the upper atmosphere and greater warming at night, which are fingerprints of the increased greenhouse effect.

        Conservation of Energy
        Huber and Knutti (2011) have published a paper in Nature Geoscience, Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance. They take an approach in this study which utilizes the principle of conservation of energy for the global energy budget, and summarize their methodology:

        “We use a massive ensemble of the Bern2.5D climate model of intermediate complexity, driven by bottom-up estimates of historic radiative forcing F, and constrained by a set of observations of the surface warming T since 1850 and heat uptake Q since the 1950s….Between 1850 and 2010, the climate system accumulated a total net forcing energy of 140 x 1022 J with a 5-95% uncertainty range of 95-197 x 1022 J, corresponding to an average net radiative forcing of roughly 0.54 (0.36-0.76)Wm-2.”

        Essentially, Huber and Knutti take the estimated global heat content increase since 1850, calculate how much of the increase is due to various estimated radiative forcings, and partition the increase between increasing ocean heat content and outgoing longwave radiation. The authors note that more than 85% of the global heat uptake (Q) has gone into the oceans, including increasing the heat content of the deeper oceans, although their model only accounts for the upper 700 meters.

        Figure 6 is a similar graphic to that presented in Meehl et al. (2004), comparing the average global surface warming simulated by the model using natural forcings only (blue), anthropogenic forcings only (red), and the combination of the two (gray).

        Figure 6: Time series of anthropogenic and natural forcings contributions to total simulated and observed global temperature change. The coloured shadings denote the 5-95% uncertainty range.

        In Figure 7, Huber and Knutti break down the anthropogenic and natural forcings into their individual components to quantify the amount of warming caused by each since the 1850s (Figure 7b), 1950s (7c), and projected from 2000 to 2050 using the IPCC SRES A2 emissions scenario as business-as-usual (7d).

        Figure 7: Contributions of individual forcing agents to the total decadal temperature change for three time periods. Error bars denote the 5–95% uncertainty range. The grey shading shows the estimated 5–95% range for internal variability based on the CMIP3 climate models. Observations are shown as dashed lines.

        Solar and volcanic activity are the main natural forcings included in the Huber and Knutti study. Both are slightly positive since 1850, and account for approximately 0.2°C of the observed 0.8°C surface warming over that period. Since 1950, the volcanic forcing has been negative due to a few significant eruptions, and has offset the modestly positive solar forcing, such that the net natural external forcing contribution to global warming over the past 50 years is approximately zero (more specifically, the authors estimate the natural forcing contribution since 1950 at -10 to +13%, with a most likely value of 1%).

        The authors also note that they chose a reconstruction with high variability in solar irradiance, so if anything they may have overestimated the natural contribution to the observed warming.

        “Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07°C (0.03-0.13°C) to the warming since 1950.”

        Other Attribution Studies
        A number of studies have used a variety of statistical and physical approaches to determine the contribution of greenhouse gases and other effects to the observed global warming, like Lean & Rind, Foster & Rahmstorf, and Huber & Knutti. And like those studies, they find a relatively small solar contribution to global warming, particularly in recent decades (Figure 8).

        Figure 8: Solar contribution to global warming according to Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, blue), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, red), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, green), and Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, purple).

        It’s not the Sun

        As illustrated above, neither direct nor indirect solar influences can explain a significant amount of the global warming over the past century, and certainly not over the past 30 years. As Ray Pierrehumbert said about solar warming,

        “That’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one.”

        Now that’s the science…..for the pictures and graphs….go to link…….when you
        have some science to argue with…..get back to me……bye now.

        • George E


          I don’t know if I’ll conclude the same as you, but I do appreciate the intelligent post rather than all of the personal attacks I’ve been wading through.

      • GALT

        George E says:
        November 21, 2012 at 11:14 pm


        Is there a serious point to all of your posts? If so, please make it. I’m tiring from trying to figure out what you’re saying in these riddles.

        And your “functionally illiterate state of willfull ignorance” should matter to me

        • George E

          That’s a childish and disgusting response to a serious question. Can’t we keep our posts mature and intelligent?

      • GALT

        George………I need you to pay close attention………

        1.) This link has been up for 24 hours+ and is contained in the third response
        to todays article……

        170+ scientific reasons that prove globing warming is NOT REAL, pick your favorite.

        It has also been repeated several times for specific questions like this one…….so
        if you really wanted to understand what the science was……you could have gone
        there and found whatever “myth” you believed……and then checked the science…
        for any question you might have had…….

        2.) Since you couldn’t be bothered to do this… forced me to copy and paste
        what was in the link…..and bring it to you……and you are missing all the graphs,
        pictures, tables, etc.

        and then you say:Galt,

        I don’t know if I’ll conclude the same as you, but I do appreciate the intelligent post rather than all of the personal attacks I’ve been wading through.

        Well I do really feel sorry about that george…….but that you are lazy and stupid
        is not a personal attack…..because now you have the science and you still don’t
        know what it means…….

        meanwhile, the rest of us……have dealt with the same “ignorance” week in and week out
        and all the science is in one place…… are the first twenty

        Climate Myth vs What the Science Says
        1 “Climate’s changed before” Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
        2 “It’s the sun” In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions
        3 “It’s not bad” Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
        4 “There is no consensus” 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
        5 “It’s cooling” The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.
        6 “Models are unreliable” Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
        7 “Temp record is unreliable” The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.
        8 “Animals and plants can adapt” Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.
        9 “It hasn’t warmed since 1998″ For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.
        10 “Antarctica is gaining ice” Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate.
        11 “CO2 lags temperature” CO2 didn’t initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.
        12 “Ice age predicted in the 70s” The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.
        13 “Climate sensitivity is low” Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.
        14 “We’re heading into an ice age” Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.
        15 “Ocean acidification isn’t serious” Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains.
        16 “Hockey stick is broken” Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.
        17 “Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy” A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.
        18 “Hurricanes aren’t linked to global warming” There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming.
        19 “Glaciers are growing” Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.
        20 “Al Gore got it wrong” Al Gore book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.

        Finally George…….please look at the time stamps on the post you just responded
        to……….it precedes your’s by 7 hours……..if you do not wish to be included as
        a “willfully ignorant functional illiterate”……….then stop acting like one………

        among “intelligent adults” this is a closed subject……..what is needed is…….
        what should we do…..and how quickly…..and as soon as you are ready you
        can take part…………BTW there are 150 more myths….and a whole lot of
        science………..then you can help out with the DavidH crowd…….instead of
        being an “enabler”…….and who knows…….maybe Myer’s will stop attempting
        to feed the “mushrooms”….at least on this topic……..

        Ignorance is a correctable condition……..get to it…… are way behind.

        • George E


          Your insults are childish and uncalled for. I will have no further dialogue with you until you start showing some respect to others on this site. Please GO AWAY!

      • GALT

        George……You have not been insulted… have been EXPOSED.

        You have just seen the evidence of this……but being the

        “willfully ignorant functional illiterate”

        that you are…….you demand respect for yourself ( and others )

        EARN IT…….stop being a “willfully ignorant functional illiterate”

        of course your solution will also work…….and either way, works for me.

        • George E


          We should be able to disagree without attacking each other’s character and motives. I get the distinct impression, however, that most of the Obama apologists and supporters on this site, don’t seem to understand that principle. They just want to over-power the rest of us with their leftist talking points and personal attacks. Go ahead as long as the webmaster here allows your unruly behavior, but I won’t waste my time discussing serious topics with you as long as you continue with this childish behavior. My advice. Go to another (liberal) website and disrupt it.

      • GALT

        George…….you are STILL NOT getting it……….


        We should be able to disagree without attacking each other’s character and motives. I get the distinct impression, however, that most of the Obama apologists and supporters on this site,”

        1.) The subject here is the SCIENCE of CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING.
        2.) The author MYERS is attempting to link Obama and SCIENCE and the FEAR he is selling.
        3.) This site is about BUSINESS, the rhetoric on these pages and the comment sections
        are actually irrelevant……to the primary purpose of this site….which is SALES……not
        accuracy of information, not the truth of any kind, and it is primarily directed at those
        who are predisposed to responding to the words used………
        4.) Agreeing to disagree about SCIENCE is only possible when there is doubt…..
        and for this topic……there is no doubt…….because there is no SCIENCE available
        to support that doubt………and any posts PRETENDING to do so……are FALSE.
        5.) The present situation on climate change is similar to that regarding the SCIENCE
        on evolution…..prior to 1950 there were many doubters disputing the science…..
        this became harder after the structure of DNA was confirmed…….it became impossible
        to continue to doubt after the completion of the Human Genome Project and the
        work since then……..( deniers of evolution still persist……but there is no SCIENCE
        available to support that position. )……..and this is also the case here, but the time
        frame is simply more compressed…… that the SCIENCE which has been conducted
        in the last decade……has eliminated any possibility of doubt… have “doubt” therefor
        indicates either ignorance of the science or refusing to accept what the science is…..
        6.) In such circumstances……..both motive and character come into play……for Mr Myers
        directly and for the “mushrooms” he is feeding.
        7.) I am neither an apologist nor supporter, this is about the SCIENCE…and
        connecting Obama’s name to the SCIENCE does not change what the SCIENCE says.

        Now you should be able to follow that…..and regarding the SCIENCE, agreeing to
        disagree is not an option…….which places you one of the categories above…….
        and if your doubt is the product of being IGNORANT of the SCIENCE……you have been
        provided with the means to correct that condition………

        Someone who wished to participate in an adult discussion and offer an informed
        opinion based on mutual respect and founded on the application of intelligent logical reasoning would have no problem understanding how to do that for this situation
        or any other……and I would have no problem with them.

        So, do we still have a problem?

        • George E


          I do actually appreciate your attempt to explain your position to me in adult terms. Having said that, I really don’t appreciate your insistence that the “science is settled” and follow with ridicule at those of us who don’t agree with that conclusion.

          It’s very difficult for me to believe that CO2 in the upper atmosphere in quantities of about 3% of the total green house gases, of which the man-made portion is something less than that…..I would guess no more than ½ (bringing the total to around 1.5% of the total green house gases), can actually be so devastating to our climate and cause such a dire crisis that we have to yield to the pressure of politicians to give them our money and our liberties……solutions that only lead to higher taxes and costs for all of us, but may have very little impact on reducing green house gases. Therefore, I will only yield to this theory when 1) solutions are left to voluntary compliance, or 2) I’m absolutely convinced that the science is settled, the crisis is dire and eminent, and solutions are practical and will have a positive impact on the outcome. Until then, I’ll take my chances and bet that all this is just another attempt by the socialists to gain more control over our lives, our liberties, and our money. I’ll focus my energies on trying to improve the economy instead of allowing others to refocus our resources on fixing a problem like this that will hurt the economy.

      • GALT

        This ended up in the wrong place

        Well then George, I appreciate that you appreciate, my efforts to explain
        the SCIENCE…to you in an adult manner……and that you seem to have
        some objection to “socialists”, although “not in this instance”?

        BTW if you are new here, or if I am NEW TO YOU……if you need a label
        for ME I am a “self admitted”…….P.L.F. and an E.I. one……….

        For P.L.F.’s….economic’s is invalid in it entirety…..therefor distinctions
        are irrelevant.

        As for your objection to “socialism” it does not seem to apply here……
        .because our adult discussion…that you appreciate……requires me
        to “educate” you, for free….. simply because you are “ignorant” and
        refuse to do the work yourself….even though I have already given you directions…….

        And it is clear that your “ignorance” is even worse than previously
        indicated based on the content of this response………..but am
        going to give you the benefit of the doubt……..and allow you to
        exploit me……. ( in your paradigm this is theft ) because
        you choosing to remain ignorant…… more harmful.

        As you should know, our atmosphere is comprised of ( in descending
        order of volume ) nitrogen N2, oxygen O2, and CO2………

        and you should be familiar with the “law of gravity”……..and taking
        these two things together…….understand how these gases perform………

        Now it is true that CO2 is by volume ridiculously small by percentage……
        but it has two distinctive properties from nitrogen and oxygen……

        1.) It is heavier that either of the other two.
        2.) It has heat trapping properties which the other two do not.

        Now your suggested argument, or actually stated argument ( and evidence
        of your ignorance ) can be paraphrased thusly……how can something
        so small, be responsible for an effect claimed to be so large?

        I am going to answer your question with another question which will
        answer your question………..or it should.

        How is it that plant life…….which is entirely dependent on CO2……
        is more abundant that any other life form of life on this planet, with
        the exception of single celled bacteria and viruses? And that every
        other form of complex life, is dependent on plant
        life for their existence either directly or indirectly?

        If you can follow the train of logic here……you are now know more
        that you did…..although none of what is here……is new to you…….
        you simply have not done the work……and you certainly are not
        paying me……which also says something, although probably
        not anything you “want” to hear….or will admit to??????

  • Gea

    The problem with Obama is that he does not know what he is doing, either in health care or with implementing sustainable economy, that will get US away from burning fossil fuels, and prticularly away from Arab and Iraanian oil that finances Islamic terrorism against US and Western civlization.

    If we harvest solar and wind energy from our roofs, and back yards, then we do not need to depend on large solar, wind or hydro powerplants which are intrinsrinstically unsafe, because when something goes wrong int goes wrong big way. US could become totally sustainable within 10 years if EVERYBODY harvest solar (both thermal and photovoltaic), wind and geothermal energy at their roofs and back yards, and also rain water, making large corporations that burn fossil fuel irrelevant. Being green is much much cheaper than being wasteful as we are now.

    Obama is a great community organizer, which last eletion showed, but he cannnot manage anything that involves business, science and/or techology. He is a great story teller but his efforts in health care as well as efforts in solar energy had been dismall failures. As an incompetetnt lawyer who is helping Muslims subvert US Constitution to hide how vile Islamic teachigns are, he is unable to manage anthing that requires actuall competence rather that his gift of gab.

    • GALT

      You do kinda, sorta understand that there are likethree branches of government?

  • Marathon Man

    Obama’s is “Fundamentally Changing America” as he PROMISED. The “green light bulb” doesn’t mean SHXT when you understand what Obama is doing behind the scenes

    On the economic side, get ready for another recession without Twinkie’s and Wonder Bread, thank’s to UNIONS. Be willing to live with 10 % unemployment permanently. That “government unemployment number” will translate to 18+ % actual unemployment.

    At the global level, Obama will yield US sovereignty to the UN with four new UN treaties ….Hillary already signed the ATT treaty and it awaits Obama’s signature, and then democrat controlled senate’s approval. The “LOST Treaty” is next, and there are two more after that. I trust you all know that the UN is working to TAX the Internet and the UN had Poll watchers in “selected” US polling places ( all “working” to insure OBAMA was not cheated )

    So, all of the useful idiots that justify these sweet sounding PC government programs and are hung up on “lightbulbs, toilets and carbon footprints” may want to refocus on the bigger picture. Our government LIES and OBAMA is the biggest lier of the bunch. (BENGHAZI is only one example and Susan Rice, UN Ambassador, is the biggest fool in the Obama Administration).

    The “coalition voters” that voted the PIED PIPER back into office will get exactly what they asked for and love it; the rest of us will be reduced to the lowest common denominator in OBAMAS socialistic society. Any resistance will be futile, branded as “Domestic Terrorism”, and delt with accordingly by Obama’s “Brown Shirted” Homeland Security,

    OBAMA continues to make history because on November 7th, at approximately 2:00AM, America as we knew it DIED………… Welcome to the OBAMA NATION !

    • GALT

      NO SEVENTH TERM!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      IMPEACH NOW!!!!!!!!!

      Mind your p’s and q’s…….life wouldn’t be the same without them……

      Long live Guinness and Fischer Gold

      • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

        Death to the infidels!!!!

    • Doc Sarvis

      President Obama won because the American people (largely) understand that he is for making all of America a better place and lift all Americans together to better lives in this world. The composition of the Democratic Party looks like America than that of the Republican Party. The Democratic Party understands that America is, and always has, evolved (that’s why people of color and women can vote). The Republican Party is stuck in the past.
      Challenger Romney lost because the American people (largely) saw big money interests pushing to get their guy in charge of making more policy that would favor the 1%. Americans know that when big money interests (Citizen’s United decision from the Conservative Supreme Court, the Tea Party, and the 1%ers). They saw no steady hand in leadership from him.

      • Marathon Man

        ” A better place for all ” ….. That is exactly what socialism is about.
        You may recall that socialism was tried in the Soviet Union, lasted about 80 years, and developed a class of dependents and then crashed. So much for the government making a better place for all people. People can make a better places for themselves with limited government. Anytime the government gives you something there are always strings attached. However, under Obama, they are no longer strings but the chains of financial slavery thru confiscatory taxes. If you like BIG GOVERNMENT you are gonna love your new taxes.

        As far as big money and leadership ….. Unions donated one half BILLION dollars to Obama and what do you think OBAMA is going to give them in return. Why don’t you ask the 18,000 folks that used to make Twinkie’s and Wonder Bread? Maybe Obama will bail out the Twinkie Industry next all in the name of “making it a better place for everyone”.

      • GALT

        You may recall that “economic’s” has been tried everywhere…….it has never worked.

        Why is it that you can never find an assyrian….when you need one?

      • Doc Sarvis

        Marathon Man
        You state that Unions donated one half BILLION dollars to Obama. Please provide a citation for that “information”.

      • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

        The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) spent more money to re-elect Obama than Obama’s super PAC even spent to re-elect Obama!

        The SEIU is one of the most powerful unions in the nation. It is also essentially a government union. Not all the members of the SEIU work for the government, of course, but a large number of them do.

        The SEIU spent $64 million to re-elect Obama. Obama’s own super PAC spent a third less for the same purpose.

        The SEIU isn’t the only government union that spent millions to re-elect Obama and to push Democrats into office. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) spent over $100 million — a fifth of which went to re-elect Obama — on Democrat politicians and causes this year.

        The SEIU and AFSCME weren’t the only ones, either.

        Of course, these unions spent hundreds of millions on Democrats because Democrats favor unions over workers and the private sector. Obama and Democrats favor giving billions in tax dollars directly to the greedy union bosses that use that money to pad their pockets and re-elect more Democrats to continue the destructive, un-American cycle.

        These government unions should not exist. Even the left’s most beatified President, Franklin Roosevelt, knew that government unions were an illicit idea. The fact is, government unions are antithetical to good government. It is a parasitic relationship.

        Unions give Democrats money for their election efforts so that Democrats will give unions more money. Once unions get the money courtesy of the tax payers, they donate even more to Democrats who then turn around and give yet more tax dollars to unions… and so it goes, on and on in perpetuity.

        And who is cut out of having any say or influence in this destructive cycle? You the voters.

      • George E

        Obama won because 1) he started off with the 84 electoral votes of New York and California in his back pocket before the election began, 2) Americans still aren’t paying attention to what’s going on, and 3) the Democratic propaganda machine did a better job of characterizing Romney as an out-of-touch rich guy than the Republicans did of convincing Americans that Obama should be held accountable for the poor economic conditions. That’s about all the election results mean. Nothing really changed. There is no mandate for change.

      • eddie47d

        What do you have against Californians and New Yorkers? They are still Americans.

        • George E


          I have nothing against Californians and New Yorkers, except that I think their politics has gone too far left, but that’s just my opinion. I am just saying that so long as the Democrats can count on winning the two largest states regardless what else happens, it gives them a big advantage in the electoral college over Republicans. When you add in the other “reliable” blue states, the Democrats only have to win one or two other large states, usually in the mid-west to win the WH. Nice for them, but it means that they have managed to manipulate the electoral process to their advantage, and the result will be that they can get anyone, even an inexperienced, undocumented, socialist elected President. Imagine that.

      • Marathon Man

        DOC: The one half billion dollars donated to Onama’s campaign was verbalized by the head of the AFL-CIO in a news conference right after the election. He was very proud of the unions financial support and further stated that the union had 400,000 members working to elect OBAMA. Then The Union president went on to innumerate specifics of exactly what the union expected in return including: abolishment of the right to work laws and modification of the Taff Heartly Bill to eliminate secret elections within the unions and much more. Now if you like research the AFL-CIO president comments for your self.

      • Marathon Man

        Doc: The AFL-CIO president name is Richard Trumka…. this should help you verify my comments.
        Previously, I stated “unions donated” and should have more correctly stated,”according to Trumka , the AFl-CIO donated the half billion”. I suspect other unions, as mentioned, such as the SEIU contributed their own funds too.

        Funny how you always hear BIG BUSINESS getting slammed for greed but never ever hear about BIG UNION GREED…. as in Twinkies and Wonder Bread …. Oh by the way, as you research Trumka you just may find his fingerprints on the Twinkie demise.

        PS: The 18,000 Twinkie jobs lost is a harbinger of what Obamas second term is to be and he is powerless to stop the monster he created.

        Again …… welcome to THE OBAMA NATION.

  • Humpty Dumpty

    Perhaps some questions ought to be asked about ‘Frankenstorm Sandy’. What role(s) did chemtrails and HAARP play to drive Sandy close to New York City? Have you seen the YouTube that shows chemtrails on the inside wall of the eye of the hurricane? Some are saying that Sandy may be similar to a false flag event to galvanize the election returns. What will they think of next?

    • GALT

      Who cares if harp players can drive closer to New York City which has public transportation……and don’t try to blame chemicals because you can’t keep your balance……..oh and just to be clear……just because somebody managed to put you
      back together…….doesn’t mean it can’t happen AGAIN!!!!!!!

      • S.C.Murf

        Are you a satanist?

        up the hill

        • tlgeer

          “Are you a satanist?”

          What leads you to ask this question?

      • GALT

        yeah……what she said?

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Babby660

    What makes this round of global warming so serious is the fact that the 7 billion of us here are putting far more pollutants into the air than was the case before man learned to farm & heat his dwelling spaces. There were only a few humans then, but we’ve increased our numbers dramatically, as well as our ability to poisen the atmosphere & the waters with the fruits of our labors. At this point in time, the harvest is becoming bitter indeed.

    • Marathon Man

      Perhaps you missed the comment above which stated” Global warming started when in ice age came to an end”.

      The earth has been cooling and warming up for eons. Countless volcanic eruptions have spewed tons of pollutants into the air and the earth is still here. Global warming yes but not just because earth is populated. When the next ice age gets here, if your federal government is still here, they will again hoodwink citizens into believing it can be reversed “if we only tax and spend more”.

      Now here is a lesson in false government: The Mayans, super astronomers that they were knew the movement of the stars and planets, and had calendars and star charts that were accurate to three decimals deep. They knew exactly when eclipses would take place and used that information go get the general population into “fear mode” just as politicians do today to bend to their will . Nothing has changed on that score. So, the first thing you want to remember as Rohm Emmanuel says: “never let a crisis go to waste” ( even if you have to create it) . Politicians have mastered this art.

  • wheels

    All this pro and con discussion is well and good. My one and only question: Just how much of your pay are you willing to give up to the nobama government monthly to keep all of his programs running? Those that exist and those that he proposes will not fund themselves. So that leaves taxing your paycheck either directly or by higher costs to you the ultimate consumer of products or services. But hell, we don’t need to work. Nobama says (and he ALWAYS tells the truth) government will supply us with everything we need from cradle to grave. But what happens when all soles are on welfare and nobody is left to pay the bills?
    Remember, government does nothing to generate $$$$ except to tax you the individual and business. And business passes that tax cost on to you. Have a happy THANKS GIVING!

  • sean murry

    Screw you obummer take your green stuff and shove it.

    • GALT

      wow…….a barter economy already?

  • DaveH

    Kinetic says — “And I want our kids to have fun, but I also want them to be aware of the costs of their fun”.
    Since you are a Liberal Progressive, Kinetic, I doubt very seriously that you want your kids to be aware of anything but the Liberal Progressive Propaganda version of everything. In fact that’s why you Liberal Progressives are on this board — to do your best to spread misinformation and stifle good people from being aware of both sides of the story using name-calling, ridicule, equivocation, or whatever other manipulative techniques that you can muster.

    • GALT

      Yo David baby…… you have any concept of terms like “pejorative” or “prejudicial”?

      pe·jor·a·tive (p-jôr-tv, -jr-, pj-rtv, pj-)
      1. Tending to make or become worse.
      2. Disparaging; belittling.
      A disparaging or belittling word or expression.
      pe·jora·tive·ly adv.

      i picked that one because it has your “favorite” word in it…….

      adjective harmful, damaging, undermining, detrimental, hurtful, unfavourable, counterproductive, deleterious, injurious, inimical, disadvantageous

      Sucks being ‘functionally illiterate” AND “willfully ignorant”, huh Dave……?

      • DaveH

        Yet another nonsensical personally attacking comment from Galt.
        But please keep posting, Galt. I couldn’t come even close to doing as much damage to your Liberal Progressive reputations as you guys are doing for me. And it’s Free. What more could I ask for?

      • GALT

        yup……it’s DEFINITELY going to take a while…………wait for it………..

      • Right Brain Thinker

        I’m waiting with you, Galt. Want to start a pool on when the BA-DA-BOOM hits? I pick “never”. And he-who-is-getting-to-be-impossible-to-ignore-because-he-is-so-out-of touch-with-reality-and-entertaining actually asks “What more could I ask for?” LOL

        I think he needs to get on the yellow brick road and follow the lead of the Straw Man. That’s if he can even find the yellow brick road, of course. It’s considerably to the left of where he is presently looking.

  • Jimbo

    When the new “Green Technology” predictably fails to achieve the results the politicians and environmentalists want, the fall back will be population control (abortion, forced sterilization, and mandatory birth control), just as Malthus’s long discredited theories were once used to justify population control. All this suits Satan quite well.

  • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

    The New Sacrilege

    To begin with, for decades environmental cultists have been indoctrinating Americans to see the environment—that is, everything that isn’t us or isn’t made by us—as somehow of value not to us but, rather, above, beyond, and independent of us. Trees aren’t of value because their owners can enjoy walking through a forest of them or cut them down to make their houses. Those trees are sacred! They deserve respect. They have “rights.” We should feel guilty about harming them.

    A generation has been raised on this anti-human dogma. Few dare to object or to explore its implications. Many are as scared to raise questions about environmentalism today as a skeptic would have been to raise questions about religious dogma in Dark Age Europe—or would be in many Islamic countries today. Sacrilege is a terrible charge for many.

    Al Gore, the Savonarola of this cult, has declared carbon to be satanic. It must be sequestered! It must be exorcized! And those indoctrinated in the cult will let themselves be driven to frenzy, to abrogate their minds, to follow the dictates of their deity.

    Enter the other idea found in a small group of elites who believe that most adults are simply incapable of running their own lives and, in any case, don’t deserve to. These elite politicians see people as their playthings to be remolded, along with the world in which they live, in light of elite dogmas, including the environmental ones.

    The eco-cult has given them the perfect excuse to claim unrestricted authority over every aspect of our lives. If they control everything that has to do with carbon, they control everything that has to do with life. And any individuals who might otherwise speak up in defense of their own right to life will be self-silenced for fear of being accused of heresy about the environment by the cult.

    In Congress the move to take the power to control carbon emissions from the EPA will likely fail. But the debate could indeed be damaging to the cult and its political proponents. It could expose the hell-on-earth that such regulation will bring. It could expose the malevolent, anti-individual, and anti-human premises on which the regulation is based. And that could put Obama and the Democrats in a very awkward political position.

    But that’s just why those who oppose the EPA regulation should force the debate, even though they’ll likely lose this time around. They need to educate the public and the upcoming generations about what is behind such controls.

    Just as Enlightenment thinkers in the past prepared the ground for individual liberty, so those dedicated to a human-centered philosophy must prepare the ground for the reestablishment of individual liberty in the future.

    • tlgeer

      “Al Gore, the Savonarola of this cult, has declared carbon to be satanic.”

      lolololol When, exactly, did Al Gore say this?

      “Those trees are sacred! They deserve respect. They have “rights.” We should feel guilty about harming them.”

      No, they, and their roots, help to stop land sliding in the rain. They house birds, insects and other beings that help our natural infrastructure.

      “Many are as scared to raise questions about environmentalism today”

      This is no more than nonsense.

      “The eco-cult has given them the perfect excuse to claim unrestricted authority over every aspect of our lives.”

      In what way?

      “It could expose the hell-on-earth that such regulation will bring. It could expose the malevolent, anti-individual, and anti-human premises on which the regulation is based.”

      Hell-on-earth??? WT H are you babbling about? How about being more specific? Are you able to do that?

      What malevolent, anti-individual and anti-premises are you talking about? Do you have any facts that back ANY of these contentions up?

  • Karolyn

    Well, it appears as though we are getting close to free energy. my friend sent me this link. I have not read everything he sent; however, he told me that free energy is already available. I believe he said that Meyl has worked on Tesla’s theory and come up with a viable plan. My friend has contacted these people about using their technology to power the small town he lives in. I am not claiming to have all the answers, but my friend is really excited about this; and he is the one with the technical mind.

    • Karolyn

      This is part of what Keshe posted that was in his invitation to representatives from around the world to a meeting in September. This is VERY interesting regarding FREE or nominal cost Energy! He makes a point of saying that current energy companies are gonna end up with empty hands. I also heard that Meyl’s plans are available to all.

      •1: On 21 September 2012 the Keshe Foundation will release the first phase of its space technology and the gravitational and magnetic (Magravs) systems it has developed, to all scientists around the world simultaneously, for production and duplication.

      From that point on, international borders will cease to have any real significance. This is because, once the first flight system has been built and put into operation by public, the time of travel for example from Tehran to New York will be about 10 minutes maximum.

      The new airborne systems will enable every individual to make the same length of journey in the same time and at hardly any cost from any point on this planet. The craft will not be detectable with present radar technology.

      •2: The energy crisis will be resolved at a stroke, and once the technology is put into practice the powers that control energy supplies and through them the present financial structures will find their hands empty.

      •3. The world water shortage will be addressed and resolved by presenting this technology to the public soon after the release of our energy and space technology.

      How we have done this?

      For the past six years we have used the international patent system to make sure that every nation and major scientists around the world have a copy of our patents in their possession. (Please check the European patent and international servers downloads for number of downloads)

      Thus we have prevented any possible blocking of this technology by any individual or group and now most nations are in possession of our patents for energy generation, medical systems and space travel.

      In this way the methods used in the past to prevent international development have been circumvented and now all nations have the same opportunity to work together to see that this technology is developed safely.

      The principal point is that our technology is intended to be freely available to every government for the benefit of all its citizens. Through the systems we have developed every nation can have access to as much energy, water and food as they need, as well as to new methods of health care and of transport, all at very little cost.

      According to its charter the Keshe Foundation and all its technologies are owned by the peoples of the world. The patents are the assets of every individual on this planet and cannot be claimed by any one person or organization or nation. This means that all income generated by the technology belongs to the nation that makes use of it.

      We will release the list of countries invited to the meeting on 6 September 2012 and the full e-mail addresses of those who receive invitations, so it will be up to you as a government to make it known who from your nation will be attending this meeting.

      By the time this email arrives at your embassies a copy will be posted on the Foundation forum and website so your citizens will be aware of the offer that has been made to you. Then it will be for you to make your response known to them, as well as to the Foundation, and we will gather the names of the delegates appointed and let your officials know where and how to meet.

      • Right Brain Thinker


        Your postings have shown that you are a good person that cares for others and for the future of the country. You apparently don’t have much of a science background or you would see that this is wing nut stuff akin to “we are going to be taken up into a spaceship by aliens and transported to a land of milk and honey”.

        In one of your comments you stated that “details have not been given because it’s too complicated”. That’s what Paul Ryan said when asked to give details of the non-plan tax plan that he and Romney pitched. And for the same reason, neither their tax plan nor this wing nuttery work.

        Please don’t waste your time on this topic. It is not based on any real science and leads nowhere.

      • Karolyn

        Right Brain – For a “right brain thinker” you’re not thinking very creatively and out of the box. You sound like the naysayers when Edison was creating the lightbulb. The technical details have not been given to me by my friend, but they are available. How do you know there are no “space aliens?” How do you know that’s not where we came from? There is yet much to be discovered. There is much our tiny little brains cannot comprehend. But there is also much we can discover if wr if we keep our minds open.Quantum physics anyone?

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Have you noticed that it has been just over two months to the day that this great discovery (patents pending, of course) was released to the world? Why have we heard nothing since 9/12 about it? Please tell me where the “details” are available—I looked on the Keshe site and didn’t see any. And when they do become available, it is highly unlikely that they will be based on any rational examination of Quantum physics.

        This situation calls not for “creative” thinking or getting out of “the box” (padded)—the Keshies do that kind of thing. What it needs is RATIONAL thinking based on science and the facts—right brain thinking is “creative” only in that it assembles data and examines it in many ways before it reaches conclusions.. You sound too much like our friends on the far right when you believe something just because you want to rather than because it is in any objective sense true.

        And space aliens? They may exist, but they’re not “beaming us up” any more than the Keshies have the answers.

        • Gea

          I work in the field of sustainability, energy efficiency and environmental risk analysis and was a US Congressional Fellow in 1999, working on all environmental issues and Kyoto Protocol. There is enough solar, and wind energy falling on our roofs to satisfy needs of an average 10 households, if properly harvested. Both solar, wind and geothermal energies are free of charge, and so is rain water that fall on our roofs and can be easily captured in cisterns or large Coca Cola plastic containers (260 gallons each).

          I have NO utility bills and when I purchase E-6 from China, which goes 260 miles on one charge and battery can recharge in 1-2 hours, I will burn no gasoline either. Since I will have them install solar roof, the car battery will be recharging during day light. Now, I am working on design of a vertical windmill to recharge and capture energy at night too, when there is no sun and wind blows.

          Green is much much cheaper than being wasteful as we are now. The large solar and wind farms are dumb, because they damage environment and the transmission can fail durinbg bad weather which will be increasing due to the global climate change.

          By each person taking care of their energy and water needs at places where we live, we will run large energy and car corporations out of business, since they will not keep us captive to their sales of energy. O sole mio!

          • George E

            Sounds like the basis for a good business. What’s the capital investment, maintenance cost, and payback period?

      • Karolyn

        RBT – Here is a link to Meyl’s website. There does not appear to be a lot on it. He is the person that my friend is most excited about. I do not claim to be knowledgeable in such things; however, the person who turned me on to this is; and as I said, he is very excited about it, working on getting his town involved in experimental usage of the technology.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Thank you, Karolyn

        There does not appear to be a lot on the website because there really isn’t anything “there” to post It is ALL conjecture and wild-eyed ideas and is generally scientifically insupportable. Some of the things he mentions have been hypothesized about for decades, even by folks as reputable as Tesla. Nothing has ever come of any of this.

        I am particularly amused by the idea of “neutrino power”. FYI, Karolyn, neutrinos are very tiny and nearly “weightless” particles that move at very high velocities. Most of them go right through the earth without hitting anything on the way through.. We have a hard time even “trapping” one so that we can study it, never mind using them to generate power. Why anyone would even consider that is beyond understanding. Especially when we have the sun shining every day and the wind that results from the sun’s heating of the atmosphere blowing steadily somewhere. We know how to tap them right now. (And they don’t contribute to the CO2 burden of the planet).

        I hope that your friend who is very excited about it and is working on getting his town involved in experimental usage of the technology knows the definition of the word “scam”. He should try to get his town involved in proven solar, wind, geothermal, or nuclear power rather than in “experimental” things.

    • George E


      Thanks for the info. I read through the website you provided, but I can’t really tell very much from it. They did not provide enough detail to evaluate this idea. However, it would be wonderful if they have discovered a way of utilizing natural physical energies to create motion inexpensively. Maybe this is one of the ideas which the government should fund some basic research on rather than trying to fund wind and solar businesses to sell equipment the market doesn’t want right now. I would also point out that some folks say wind, solar, hydro, tidal, nuclear, etc. energies are free as well because they utilize natural energy forces. They are not free because the cost of the equipment as well as operation and maintenance is very expensive. In fact, the real cost of all these types of electricity production is more than it is for natural gas in this country right now.

      • Karolyn

        George – I really think more people should learn about this stuff. My friend is really up on this stuff and is totally psyched abut it. he says that there is no way it can be stopped by Big Energy. He told me there is more info, but it is very technical; and he didn’t send it to me. He did say that anyone can get the specs and create it. Of course, by “anyone”, he means people with that kind of ability. There is hope!

        • George E

          Good luck.

  • Jimbo

    Many of these same scientists and politicians demanding action on “global warming” are the same scientists who got the “ozone hole” wrong. They said Freon and chlorinated compounds were depleting the ozone. Unless we did something quick, millions of Australian and New Zealand children would die of skin cancer. They got world governments to ban the R-12 refrigerant in our auto air conditioners, and the freon in aerosol cans. All across the US, (and probably, the entire world), mechanics told their customers that they had to remove that illegal R-12. They VENTED the stuff into the atmosphere. Yet somehow the ozone hole cleared up. Years later, other scientists, drilling ice cores in the Antarctic, discovered that the ozone hole is a NATURALLY occuring event that happens every 50,000 years.

    And what has the solution given us? Less efficient R-134 refrigerant, which causes our vehicles to burn more gasoline, increasing our “carbon footprint”. Aerosol cans filled with CO2 propellent, which being a much smaller molecule, leaks from the cans prematurely, and into the atmosphere. The cans, with their paint, glue, solvents, oils, and hair sprays, go to the dump, contents un-expelled, and promptly leak into, and poison our water.
    Now these same scientists are telling us our carbon footprint is causing “global warming”! If that’s true, THEY CONTRIBUTED TO THE PROBLEM!

    Look at what the enviro-whackos have given us:

    Gasohol (gasoline + ethanol) It ruins the carburetors, seals, and fuel lines in our vehicles and power equipment. It reduces our MPG. It takes more energy to make the ethanol than we get out of it. And ethanol production causes food prices to go up. My immaculate 25 year old motorcycle gets 60MPG. I can’t get parts for it. When the gasohol ruins the seals and carb, it will go to the dump, and I will drive my 20MPG Jeep!

    Incandescent light bulbs – Now instead of sitting under a warm lamp reading a good book, people will be turning up the thermostat, warming the entire room! More people with Seasonal Affective Disorder. Mercury poisoning our environment. Loss of jobs to China. Bulbs (fluorescent and LED), which won’t work in industrial or outdoor applications where heat, cold, or vibration are present. I put 100 miles on my car to get a 40W brass base oven bulb, because the company which used to make them can’t afford to keep their lines running, unless they can also make 100W incandescents. Should I have discarded the otherwise good condition oven? How much energy would be involved in building a new one? Does the industry even HAVE a fluorescent or LED bulb that will survive oven temperatures?

  • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

    I am a strong supporter of a clean environment. We need to be vigilant to keep our land, air, and waters free of real pollution, particulates, heavy metals, and pathogens, but carbon dioxide (CO2 ) is not one of these pollutants. Carbon is the stuff of life. Our bodies are made of carbon. A normal human exhales around 1 kg of CO2 (the simplest chemically stable molecule of carbon in the earth’s atmosphere) per day. Before the industrial period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 270 ppm. At the present time, the concentration is about 390 ppm, 0.039 percent of all atmospheric molecules and less than 1 percent of that in our breath. About fifty million years ago, a brief moment in the long history of life on earth, geological evidence indicates, CO2 levels were several thousand ppm, much higher than now. And life flourished abundantly.

    Now the Environmental Protection Agency wants to regulate atmospheric CO2 as a “pollutant.” According to my Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, to pollute is “to make or render unclean, to defile, to desecrate, to profane.” By breathing are we rendering the air unclean, defiling or desecrating it? Efforts are underway to remedy the old-fashioned, restrictive definition of pollution. The current Wikipedia entry on air pollution, for example, now asserts that pollution includes: “carbon dioxide (CO2)—a colorless, odorless, non-toxic greenhouse gas associated with ocean acidification, emitted from sources such as combustion, cement production, and respiration.”

    As far as green plants are concerned, CO2 is not a pollutant, but part of their daily bread—like water, sunlight, nitrogen, and other essential elements. Most green plants evolved at CO2 levels of several thousand ppm, many times higher than now. Plants grow better and have better flowers and fruit at higher levels. Commercial greenhouse operators recognize this when they artificially increase the concentrations inside their greenhouses to over 1000 ppm.

    Wallis Simpson, the woman for whom King Edward VIII renounced the British throne, supposedly said, “A woman can’t be too rich or too thin.” But in reality, you can get too much or too little of a good thing. Whether we should be glad or worried about increasing levels of CO2 depends on quantitative numbers, not just qualitative considerations.

    How close is the current atmosphere to the upper or lower limit for CO2? Did we have just the right concentration at the preindustrial level of 270 ppm? Reading breathless media reports about CO2 “pollution” and about minimizing our carbon footprints, one might think that the earth cannot have too little CO2, as Simpson thought one couldn’t be too thin—a view which was also overstated, as we have seen from the sad effects of anorexia in so many young women. Various geo-engineering schemes are being discussed for scrubbing CO2 from the air and cleansing the atmosphere of the “pollutant.” There is no lower limit for human beings, but there is for human life. We would be perfectly healthy in a world with little or no atmospheric CO2—except that we would have nothing to eat and a few other minor inconveniences, because most plants stop growing if the levels drop much below 150 ppm. If we want to continue to be fed and clothed by the products of green plants, we can have too little CO2.

    The minimum acceptable value for plants is not that much below the 270 ppm preindustrial value. It is possible that this is not enough, that we are better off with our current level, and would be better off with more still. There is evidence that California orange groves are about 30 percent more productive today than they were 150 years ago because of the increase of atmospheric CO2.

    Although human beings and many other animals would do well with no CO2 at all in the air, there is an upper limit that we can tolerate. Inhaling air with a concentration of a few percent, similar to the concentration of the air we exhale, hinders the diffusional exchange of CO2 between the blood and gas in the lung. Both the United States Navy (for submariners) and nasa (for astronauts) have performed extensive studies of human tolerance to CO2. As a result of these studies, the Navy recommends an upper limit of about 8000 ppm for cruises of ninety days, and nasa recommends an upper limit of 5000 ppm for missions of one thousand days, both assuming a total pressure of one atmosphere. Higher levels are acceptable for missions of only a few days.


    • Right Brain Thinker

      I congratulate WTS(Jay) on doing an excellent job of writing a comment that looks and sounds reasonable, contains a few “references” to lend gravitas, and will be accepted unquestioningly by those who want to believe that anthropogenic global warming is a “hoax” in spite of the ever accumulating evidence that it is real. Goebbels would approve.

      Unfortunately, Jay’s piece is full of the bad science and bad thinking that so characterizes his “denialism”. To address just some of the bad thinking:

      He states “About fifty million years ago, a brief moment in the long history of life on earth, geological evidence indicates, CO2 levels were several thousand ppm, much higher than now. And life flourished abundantly”.

      Yes, life “flourished”, sort of—just not in the same places as now—-plants and animals did exist 50 million years ago in what is now called the “Fossil Greenhouse World”, which is thought by many real scientists to be a picture of where the earth’s climate is again headed.

      Jay conveniently omits the fact that it was also much HOTTER then and that Antarctica was TROPICAL and the OCEAN LEVELS WERE HUNDREDS OF FEET HIGHER. Yes, let’s do all we can to deny the problem and continue our efforts to increase CO2 levels to those of 50 million years ago (or as close as we can get to that).

      The folks in Kansas will enjoy having beachfront property when the ice AGAIN melts and sea levels worldwide rise 200+ feet. I have to laugh also at his citing of what CO2 levels are allowed in submarines. A totally irrelevant piece of information (unless many of us end up living on submarines when the ocean rises and inundates the land).

      The rest of his piece is just more of the same meandering in the fields of irrelevant and useless facts—-piled one upon the other in an attempt to make an argument that can not be made—-it does not make any contribution to a real understanding of our dilemma. And Wallace Simpson and anorexics? Lord love a duck (love that phrase).

      Jay says “Various geo-engineering schemes are being discussed for scrubbing CO2 from the air and cleansing the atmosphere of the “pollutant”. How interesting that Jay put quotation marks around “pollutant”—more evidence of his denial of truth. I have read much on the “schemes” myself—-they all seem quite unworkable, both scientifically and economically, especially when compared to the simple and common sense approach of NOT PUTTING THE POLLUTANT INTO THE ATMOSPHERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

      Jay says “continued;”? Please, no more!—I beg you! The only “continued” we need to concern ourselves about is the relentless, year-by-year increase in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

      • GALT

        Well done RBT…….sucks having to do all that work… that work……because you
        know…..we may be doing this again on friday………maybe Root will have a prop bet on Agw……….

        BTW did you know you can access this site by changing the date in the address bar…..

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Yes, Galt. Just by accident, I DID discover that you can access this site by changing the date. Any date before 1900 will get the job done. I myself like to use Darwin’s birthday.

  • http://n/a Arlen Elliott

    Mr. O is out of his mind and out of his element (a fifth grader can easily see that he is out of his element). He is obviously trying to permanently bankrupt this nation on the basis of his unjustifiable “whims”. He not only knows nothing about how a free enterprise system is supposed to work but he also knows nothing about science and what makes weather patterns change.

    If we had a thousand years of weather records, we could easily see that both long term and short term changes occur in our weather patterns. We may see a hundred years of unusually cool weather followed by 10 or 50 years of hot weather. For instance, just because we had a hot summer in the central Rocky Mtns. this year with lots of forest fires means absolutely nothing over the long term. It simply means that for one summer, this small area experienced a warmer than usual season (following several years of cooler than normal weather).

    So you think the world is warming up overall? Witness the fact that new ocean ice formed in the Arctic Ocean 2 winters ago and that the Antarctic has been setting new COLD records over the past few winters. Where is the so called global warming there?

    Before you or anyone says that the world is warming up, they should read the book “State of Fear” and then get your facts straight first.

    • wavesofgrain

      Well said, Arlen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Arlen talks about “getting your facts straight first” and “knowing nothing about science” and then proceeds to demonstrate to us that HE is the one who knows nothing about science or what a ‘fact” looks like. I shudder to think what is contained in the book “State of Fear” if it is the source of his “knowledge”.

      Doesn’t Arlen know that we DO have many hundreds of thousands of years of CLIMATE change evidence and that’s a good part of what the science of climate change is based on? Weather is local and is affected by climate change but is not really the focus of our concern except for the guys and gals on TV called “meteorologists”.

      Arlen states: “Witness the fact that new ocean ice formed in the Arctic Ocean 2 winters ago”. Well, Duh—”new” ocean ice forms every winter in the Arctic and melts back every summer and may have gone up a bit 2 years ago but the long term trend is for the ice to become thinner and cover less ocean each year—-IT’S GOING AWAY, Arlen.. I’d like to see a reference for the “2 winters ago” bit so I can discuss that with you..

      That loss of ice cover changes the albedo of the Arctic ocean and allows the sun to heat the water which changes the dynamics of the atmosphere up there which changes the flow patterns of the jet stream which causes the formation of Greenland highs which causes a storm like Sandy to make an abrupt left turn, which……I can go on an on. Galt has more energy than me so I’ll let him.

      Arlen asks “Where is the so called global warming there?” It’s right there in front of you in what I just said and in myriads of studies done by myriads of true scientists. The weight of evidence is overwhelming and we are just beginning to understand all the complexities. Too bad that you would rather blindly deny truth rather than help seek it.

    • deerinwater

      “Mr. O is out of his mind and out of his element (a fifth grader can easily see that he is out of his element).”

      Hmm? Oh really? ~ and what element is that exactly? The watermelon patch?

      You can say that as many times as you wish, but Bronco Bama no longer require any personal defending and will do his second term as President of these United States.

      But if he was as you say, “out of his element” , ~ this does not speak well of the GOP, much less their candidate of choice now, ~ does it?

      It’s not called “FoX News” for nothing ~ya know? programming at it’s finest ! I think FoX might actually work for the DNC.

      Just one more “Dittohead” bites the dust and does the “Dying Cockroach” for our amusement and pleasure.

  • wavesofgrain

    You need to read the entire story within the link. It is outrageous that a scheme like this could be pulled on the American people. I copied only a few paragraphs from the article…click the link to find out more…


    “”””I warn you, the first part is a little boring, but stick with it.The second part connects all the dots for you (it will open your eyes). The end explains how Obama and all his cronies will end up as multi-billionaires.(It’s definitely worth the read. You will not be disappointed). “””

    “””When Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, he “funneled” thousands of charity dollars to a guy named John Ayers, who runs a dubious education fund. Yes, you guessed it. The brother of Bill Ayers, the terrorist.

    Howard Stanback is a board member of Shorebank. He is a former board chairman of the Woods Foundation. Obama and Bill Ayers, the terrorist, also sat on the board of the Woods Foundation. Stanback was formerly employed by New Kenwood Inc., a real estate development company co-owned by Tony Rezko.

    (You will remember that Tony Rezko was the guy who gave Obama an amazing sweet deal on his new house. Years prior to this, the law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland had represented Rezko’s company and helped him get more than 43 million dollars in government funding.Guess who worked as a lawyer at the firm at the time. Yes, Barack Obama).

    Adele Simmons, the Director of ShoreBank, is a close friend of Valerie Jarrett, a White House senior advisor to Obama. Simmons and Jarrett also sit on the board of a dubious Chicago Civic Organization.

    Van Jones sits on the board of ShoreBank and is one the marketing directors for “green” projects. He also holds a senior advisor position for black studies at Princeton University. You will remember that Mr. Van Jones was appointed by Obama in 2009 to be a Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House. He was forced to resign over past political activities, including the fact that he is a Marxist.

    Al Gore was one of the smaller partners to originally help fund the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE. He also founded a company called Generation Investment Management (GIM) and registered it in London, England. GIM has close links to the UK-based Climate Exchange PLC, a holding company listed on the London Stock Exchange. This company trades Carbon Credits in Europe (just like CXX will do here) and its floor is run by Goldman Sachs. Along with Gore, the other co-founder of GIM is Hank Paulson, the former US Treasury Secretary and former CEO of Goldman Sachs. His wife, Wendy, graduated from and is presently a Trustee of Wellesley College. Yes, the same college that Hillary Clinton and Jan Piercy, a co-founder of Shorebank attended. (They are all friends).

    Interesting? And now the closing…

    Because many studies have been exposed as scientific nonsense, people are slowly realizing that man-made global warming is nothing more than a money-generating hoax. As a result, Obama is working feverishly to win the race. He aims to push a Cap-and-Trade Carbon Tax Bill through Congress and into law.

    Obama knows he must get this passed before he loses his majority in Congress in the November elections. Apart from Climate Change he will “sell” this bill to the public as generating tax revenue to reduce our debt. But, it will also make it impossible for US companies to compete in world markets and drastically increase unemployment. In addition, energy prices (home utility rates) will sky rocket.

    But, here’s the KICKER (THE MONEY TRAIL).

    If the bill passes, it is estimated that over 10 TRILLION dollars each year will be traded on the CXX exchange. At a commission rate of only 4 percent, the exchange would earn close to 400 billion dollars to split between its owners, all Obama cronies. At a 2 percent rate, Goldman Sachs would also rake in 200 billion dollars each year.

    But don’t forget SHOREBANK. With 10 trillion dollars flowing though its accounts, the bank will earn close to 40 billion dollars in interest each year for its owners (more Obama cronies), without even breaking a sweat.

    It is estimated Al Gore alone will probably rake in 15 billion dollars just in the first year. Of course, Obama’s “commissions” will be held in trust for him at the Joyce Foundation. They are estimated to be over 8 billion dollars by the time he leaves office in 2013, if the bill passes this year. Of course, these commissions will continue to be paid for the rest of his life.

    Some financial experts think this will be the largest “scam” or “legal heist” in world history. Obama’s cronies make the Mafia look like rank amateurs. They will make Bernie Madoff’s fraud look like penny ante stuff.”””

    • wavesofgrain

      While Obama has been bashing the “rich”, he has not disclosed his involvement in the Carbon Trading commissions. The article was published during his first term, but all facts still hold true. Imagine the BILLIONS waiting for these schemers when this admin forces Cap and Trade on America. Isn’t there a law against government officials bilking tax dollars from Americans for person gain? Is this NOT a conflict of interest?

      • GALT

        Well then…..get to exposing…….I mean bilking is serious stuff……and if it’s true,
        I’ll give a “what for” personally…….” it ain’t fittin, it just ain’t fittin.”

    • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

      Skeptics of the Al Gore School of “We’re All Gonna Die” Climate Panic often refer to global warming as a religion. Close, but not quite. It’s more like a cult – a suicide cult. It’s tempting, pardon the pun, to compare global warming alarmists to religious zealots because, like the devout, the beliefs of global panic kooks are impervious to reason. When NASA’s erroneous temperature readings were recently corrected, revealing no measurable change in temperature since 1998, global alarmists were, well, alarmed. Aren’t they always? And, like the religious, climate-change cultists can make any set of facts fit within their belief system.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        The only part of this little propaganda piece that really has relevance is the part about the NASA “erroneous temperature readings”. That sounds like REAL science rather than the usual transparent brainwashing attempts in the rest of it..

        TELL US ALL ABOUT THE NASA DATA. GIVE US A SOURCE. We open-minded types live on looking at data and forming conclusions, as opposed to the people who listen to you, who appear to be living on the proverbial Kool-aid.

        With a small change, I can fully support your closing sentence. “And, like the religious, climate-change DENIAL cultists can make any set of facts fit within their belief system”.

      • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)
      • Right Brain Thinker

        Typical of the type of “evidence” that folks like Jay put forth in support of their denial of the truth. Horsepucky thrown against the wall that won’t stick once examined.

        May I suggest that a posting on an obviously conservative blog by a NON-scientist OVER FIVE YEARS AGO hardly constitutes scientific evidence of anything except confirmation bias and a desperate grasp for anything that seems to support denial?

        Especially since the data over the past five years since that post show that temperatures are indeed continuing to go up, Arctic ice and the Greenland ice cap continue to melt at an accelerating rate, oceans continue to rise, etc etc. And the CO2 that seems to be the main cause is also continuing its steady rise unabated.

        Just because some unqualified wing nut puts something in writing on a scientifically irrelevant website doesn’t mean it’s true (except for the motivated reasoners like you who have such serious issues with confirmation bias and disconfirmation bias that you can hardly be said to “reason”).

      • GALT

        Look, it’s the GOODRICH BLIMP!!!!!!!

        And people are worried about censorship of the internet…….SERIOUSLY??????

        Hey JAY…….how many more “identity changes” are you anticipating?

  • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

    Global warming alarmists tell us the horrors of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. Skeptics tell us that it’s not all that bad. Finally, there is a non-apologetic treatise that tells us of the benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment in an alphabetical format. This extensively referenced 360-page color book by Drs. Idso and Idso tells us of fifty-five benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, and belongs in the library of all who study CO2 and climate.

    The benefits are not squeezed out of computer models, but are based on real data. CO2,
    after all, is plant food, absolutely necessary for all of the biosphere.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Wake The Sleepers(Jay) Is now sending us to COMIC BOOKS as a source of scientific information! Lord love a duck!

      This pamphlet is a nice looking piece of propaganda with pretty pictures that might impress the very uninformed but will hardly stand the scrutiny of anyone with even minimal science knowledge. The first clue that it is NOT scientific is its extensive use of “fudge” terms like “nearly always, likely, should, often, generally, and helps to” without ANY sort of evidence that what is asserted has any basis in fact. Opinions given as fact do not constitute science.

      In addition to the outrageousness of the non-scientific language, the actual “55 Benefits of CO2″ that are given are a complete stitch—-almost like Saturday Night Live for scientists. (Galt—if you haven’t looked at this comic book yet, you must do so). I had to stop at #21 because it cracked me up so much. I will go back and read the rest when I need a laugh.

      #21 on the ‘Benefits of CO2″ list refers to human longevity and says 1) CO2 has been increasing steadily for 150-200 years 2) Over the same 150-200 years, human life span has increased. It then tries to say that HUMAN LIFE SPANS HAVE INCREASED BECAUSE OF THE INCREASE IN CO2 AND THEREFORE CO2 IS BENEFICIAL. I kid you not! It did! In spite of the fact that there is no correlation, causality, or logical connection between them beyond having occurred during the same time span. Lord love a duck again! And many of the first 20 “benefits” are nearly as insane and laughable—can’t wait to see the rest!.

      WTS(Jay) “Finally, there is a non-apologetic treatise that tells us of the benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment in an alphabetical format. This extensively referenced 360-page color book by Drs. Idso and Idso tells us of fifty-five benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, and belongs in the library of all who study CO2 and climate”.

      The comic book is certainly “non-apologetic” in the brazenness of its disinformation. It is hardly “extensively referenced”—-no more so than a pile of you-know-what in a barnyard. It is put out by the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), a group that is known to be so supportive of bad science and climate deniers that it has a nickname—”The SPINStitute Jay should apologize to me and anyone else who went to the link expecting to see any truth. I do thank him for the entertainment value, though.


      • GALT

        CO2 saves lives………cool…..and all this time, I thought that “improved public sanitation”
        was the single most significant factor……..I guess this is good to know, since all
        the sanitation systems are breaking down…….now we don’t have to concern ourselves
        with maintaining them………..thanks JAY……..

  • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

    Can Carbon Dioxide Be A Good Thing? -Physicist Explains Benefits Of Carbon Dioxide
    June 1, 2007 —

    A physicist from Colorado State University and his colleagues from the North American Carbon Program (NACP) have discerned and confirmed the unforeseen advantages of rising carbon dioxide levels. Through the processes of photosynthesis and respiration, scientists have been able to elucidate why plants are growing more rapidly than they are dying. The NACP is employing methods, such as the use of cell phone and aircraft towers to monitor and retrieve carbon data for their continuing study.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Jay is in too much of a hurry to try to bury us in disinformation that he PURPORTS will support his denialism. He shot himself in the foot here. This article DOES nicely explain some aspects of CO2 usage and take-up by plants and how scientists are going to study it. Jay would have us think that this is somehow a miraculous revelation and has some meaning.

      Unfortunately, Jay has shot one toe off by failing to remember that the CO2 taken up by plants RETURNS to the atmosphere when they die. IT DOESN’T GO AWAY, just spends some time locked into the plant before becoming part of the global warming problem again, i.e., the phenomena of greater uptake of CO2 may postpone the inevitable somewhat, but inevitable is inevitable no matter how much one tries to deny it.

      Jay has shot off several toes by failing to notice just one obscure little sentence in the article, here copied exactly from the article but capitalized for emphasis..


      OOOPS! Can we all see what that says and why Jay is again being dishonest in trying to pull the wool over our eyes about what these scientists believe?

      In fact, the scientists that said “THE BAD PART IS PLANTS CAN’T CLEAN THE AIR AS FAST AS WE POLLUTE IT” are the same ones that Jay mistakenly thinks are on his side.

      • Drifter

        “Jay is in too much of a hurry to try to bury us in disinformation” Be carefull what you call disinformation… I notice that Jay also sites sources with his ‘disinformation’

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Yes, and Jay’s sources are virtually all bad ones that employ bad science and should not be believed. Just because someone cites a “source” doesn’t make what he or the source say true.

  • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

    Global warming scare industry suppresses benefits of CO2

    A 300 ppm increase in CO2 results in a 30- to 50-percent increase in the yield of most food crops.

    Bombarded by the incessant fear-mongering of the global warming industry, many people now see carbon dioxide (CO2) as evil incarnate – the bane of civilization and source of an ever-growing list of planetary problems – from erupting volcanoes and tectonic earthquakes to shrinking sheep and reduced circumcision rates.

    The climate experts, joined by their lazy and interminably gullible allies in the mainstream media, have managed through guile and deception to orchestrate a successful fear campaign against A TRACE ATMOSPHERIC GAS THAT IS ESSENTIAL TO ALL LIFE ON EARTH.

    Around the clock, these self-anointed saviors of Mother Earth hector mankind, scolding the thoughtless masses for increasing CO2 to “climate tipping” levels that will eventually bake our planet unless we cork our gaseous emissions, shut down industry and hand over more of our paychecks to the Gods of Cap and Trade.

    Hypnotized by their “science is settled” theory, the self-professed climate experts have abandon the practice of science and morphed into political-scientist advocates, manipulating and fine-tuning their research so it matches their pre-ordained conclusions. (A brief look at the Climategate e-mails, made public last November, illustrates the
    abysmal level to which climate science has descended.)

    The snakeoil scientists have worked indefatigably to give CO2 – a molecular friend of mankind – a dirty name. They have hidden the facts of CO2 from the people, lest they awake to the grand AGW deception. And they have studiously engaged in a premeditated attempt to deceive the innocent (they have already deceived themselves), always with a finger to the wind and an eye on the next juicy research grant.

    Here are a few truths about the benefits of CO2, routinely suppressed or glossed over in the hysterics-laden propaganda about catastrophic global warming (a term renamed “climate change” as global temperatures leveled off and began to decline) disseminated by agenda-driven scientists and politicians and their chief ally, the negligent and slothful reporter.

    CO2 NOT A POLLUTANT – Atmospheric CO2 is essential to life on earth and is directly responsible for the food we eat and the oxygen we breathe. Plants feed on CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste gas, and humans and animals breathe oxygen and exhale CO2. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more CO2.

    Current CO2 deficiency – With a current CO2 concentration of 388 ppm, Earth’s atmosphere is CO2 deficient. (During the last 600 million years, only the Carboniferous Period and our current age, the Quaternary Period, have experienced CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.) Millions of year ago, when CO2 concentrations were 10 times higher than today, plant life flourished. Falling, not rising, CO2 levels, would seriously impact life as we know it, reducing agricultural production for a growing population and increasing the likelihood of food shortages and famine.

    CO2 NON-THREATENING AT 10,000 PPM – CO2 is not a threat to humans unless it reaches 50,000 ppm (exhaled breath is about 45,000 ppm). Sailors in U.S. submarines experience no harmful effects while routinely working in spaces where CO2 concentrations reach 8,000 ppm. Concert-goers in a packed auditorium are steeped in 10,000 ppm. The recommended level in workspaces for an eight-hour day is 5,000 ppm, and the typical office worker inhales air containing up to 2,500 ppm. So why the fuss about the potential doubling of life-enriching CO2? (Contrary to the AGW theory, runaway temperatures are not a catastrophic side-effect of CO2 increases.)


  • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

    The Benefits of CO2

    In the latest UN climate “warning,” the UN argues that the costs of CO2 abatement are not all that high because we have to offset these costs with ancillary benefits of these actions. Many, many folks have demonstrated that these numbers are way understated, but let’s accept this premise for a moment. If this approach is correct, then should we not also offset the expected harms from global warming with expected benefits, like a longer growing season, and this:

    Carbon dioxide is not the dreaded greenhouse gas that the global warmers crack it up to be. It is in fact the most important airborne fertiliser in the world and without it there would be no green plants at all.

    In fact, a doubling of the levels of this gas in the atmosphere would bring about a marked rise in plant production — good news for everyone, especially those malnourished millions who can’t afford chemical fertilisers.

    Perhaps the time is ripe to really start worrying (again) about the fact that for the last 200 million years the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has been falling.

    Indeed it dropped to dangerously low levels during recent ice ages. The Plant Kingdom responded to this potentially catastrophic (no carbon no food) situation by producing the so-called C4 plants that can survive low CO2 by using sunlight more efficiently.

    Climate Skeptic:

  • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

    Not a day goes by in the media that doesn’t promulgate the catastrophic effects of carbon dioxide. Lest we believe the disasters while ignoring the good, let us look at the beneficial effects of a little more CO2.

    Surprised, are you? Yes, there’s another side to the story. It’s one that many haven’t heard, for all of the insidious screaming from Al Gore and his likes. The advocates of a manmade heating Earth hide the benefits they derive while alarming the rest of us. Let us speak of the benefits everyone derives from the naturally enriched CO2 in the air.

    Drs. Sherwood and Craig Idso, a father-and-son team of environmental scientists, published their book entitled “The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment.” It carries the subtitle “HOW HUMANITY AND THE REST OF THE BIOSPHERE WILL PROSPER FROM THIS AMAZING TRACE GAS THAT SO MANY HAVE WRONGFULLY CHARACTERIZED AS A DANGEROUS AIR POLLUTANT.” You won’t see the book on the New York Times best seller list as it counters the warmist agenda and alarmist message of the mainstream media. You’ll see CO2 on EPA’s list of pollutants, however.

    Specific studies have been published in journals driven by science rather than public policy. Such studies are conducted by scientists with nothing to gain and show the
    enhanced plant growth effects of CO2 on oranges and many other agricultural products. FARMERS, TAKE NOTE.


    • Right Brain Thinker

      Jay can pile it higher and deeper than any mortal can hope to shovel away, but someone must try or we will be buried in the stuff. (and he said CONTINUED—Lord help us)

      First, the link here is refers to the same comic book masquerading as science that he gave us in an earlier link at 8:10. Nothing new to be learned from this link and you can look back to my comments there if you want to see why this new message is wasting our time.

      The lesson to be learned from the statements in this comment of Jay’s is that Jay seems to subscribe to that school that says “If you repeat a lie enough times and say it loudly enough, people will come to think it’s the truth” Didn’t work for Romney, Ryan, and the Republicans, and shouldn’t work here with any rational reader..

      Jay may ask what lie I’m accusing him of in his comment. The answer is the whole thing is a lie from the very first word to the last. It seeks to deny the facts of global warming by trying to make CO2 into something we might actually want to have more of in our lives. Just because you can point to a few unimportant ways in which increased CO2 may be of benefit and make up some others, you can’t then blithely ignore the fact that the earth kept CO2 in balance for millions of years and man is now disrupting that balance to the detriment of all living things. That’s dishonest, Jay.

  • Charles A

    Uboma isn’t smart enough to understand how economics works, but he is intent on destroying this country. That’s obvious in everything he has done. He was raised on the ideas that Cloward and Piven put forth. He has the power to bring this country down, and he will use every method he can lay his hands on to do so. Unfortunately, too many people believe the crap that spews out of his mouth when he tries to sound as though he shares the same values as the majority of our population. It is nothing more than smoke to keep everyone off balance while he wreaks havoc on our nation.

    • deerinwater

      Where do you people come from? ~ There is nothing “obvious” other then your ability to operate a keyboard, log in, make outlandish statements without an ounce of support.

      I see no threat from such people so completely void of critical thinking and no defense necessary.

      You are smart, you represent the majority ~ President Obama is dumb, yet can cast a great illusion to hide just how dumb he really is, as he goes about destroying the world.

      ~ I got it ~ Charles

  • kneepoint

    about 11000 years ago we were in the ice age, that was yesterday in geological terms.Climate changes with or without man – get used to it.

  • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

    Frightening Quotes from Environmentalists (Attack Of The Socialist-Luddites)

    The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state.

    —Kenneth Boulding, originator of the “Spaceship Earth”
    concept (as quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)

    We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion—guilt-free at last!

    —Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue).

    Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process…. Capitalism is destroying the earth.

    —Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

    We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects…. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.

    —David Foreman, Earth First!

    Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed.

    —Pentti Linkola

    If you ask me, it’d be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won’t give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.

    —Amory Lovins in The Mother Earth–Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p.22

    The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world.

    —John Shuttleworth

    What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.

    —Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

    I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.

    —John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

    Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.

    —John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

    The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing….This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run.

    —Economist editorial

    We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.

    —David Foreman, Earth First!

    Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.

    —Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

    If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS

    —Earth First! Newsletter

    Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

    —David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

    The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.

    —Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

    If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.

    —Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

    Cannibalism is a “radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.”

    —Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995


    Folks, these are the maniacs we are dealing with. These are the psychopaths behind the green-movement; the same psychopaths we argue with on this board. You better get to know them before engaging them in discussion.

    • George E

      My God, these people are nuts…….and dangerous! I wouldn’t turn over management of an insane asylum to them, much less management of the government over our lives.

  • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

    “People first feel things without noticing them, then notice them with inner distress and disturbance, and finally reflect on them with a clear mind.” – Giambattista Vico; The New Science, pg. 94.

    “No, the demons are not banished; that is a difficult task that still lies ahead. Now that the angel of history has abandoned the Germans, the demons will seek a new victim. And that won’t be difficult. Every man who loses his shadow, every nation that falls into self-righteousness, is their prey…. We should not forget that exactly the same fatal tendency to collectivization is present in the victorious nations as in the Germans, that they can just as suddenly become a victim of the demonic powers.” – Carl Jung; The Postwar Psychic Problems of the Germans (1945).

    “Politics,” said Henry Kissinger, “is the management of people.” Based on this definition, shadow politics is the management of the mass death of people. Specifically, it is the management of public perceptions about acts of mass destruction and mass death as carried out by government leaders.
    The premeditated destruction of Iraq by the United States government provides a present-day example of how government leaders justify the mass murder of foreign populations to their own people. Neoconservative thinking was the ideological source of both the destruction of Iraq and the destruction of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001.

    Neoconservatism and Environmentalism are the two schools of thought in this age that call for the mass destruction and mass death of human communities. Neocons want to conquer the Earth, and Environmentalists want to save it. Both groups are politically powerful, media savvy, financed by big money, and filled with psychotics who have fantasies of mass destruction and mass death.

    Their death wish is our worst collective nightmare. When we wake up to a world gone crazy, they wake up to a world of beautiful orgies of destruction and death, of mass cleansing and social renewal, of new beginnings and old pleasures.

    George Reisman, a Professor Emeritus of Economics at Pepperdine University and author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, wrote in February 2008 about the dangers of the environmental movement to freedom, human life and world civilization in an article called, “The Nature of Environmentalism.” Reisman wrote:

    Now imagine that a prominent environmentalist writes an article or gives a speech in which he expresses the wish for a virus to come along and wipe out a billion people. What will be the reaction of the environmental movement? Will that individual be denounced for misrepresenting the movement? Will the rest of the movement’s leaders rush to assure the world that that individual was so far from representing environmentalism that he actually represented the diametric opposite of its principles?

    Not at all. There will be no negative reaction of any kind from within the movement, not even a raising of eyebrows. I can say this with the utmost confidence, because such statements have already been made, and made repeatedly. And there has been no outrage, no negative response of any kind from within the environmental movement.

    There is no negative reaction from the environmental movement because what such statements express is nothing other than the actual philosophy of the movement. This is what the movement believes in. It’s what it agrees with. It’s what it desires.

    And this is why environmentalism evil. It’s evil to the core. In the environmental movement, contemplating the mass death of people in general is no more shocking than it was in the Communist and Nazi movements to contemplate the mass death of capitalists or Jews in particular. All three are philosophies of death. The only difference is that environmentalism aims at death on a much larger scale.

    The useful idiots in the environmentalist movement believe the propaganda about climate change and develop a deep-seated animosity towards human beings.



  • Peter

    John Myers, I’m sorry, but your arguments make about as much sense as a muslem in a pig farm!
    Seriously man, you do not have one clue about the dire situation our planet is in at the moment, from our own doing!
    I claim neither left nor right in my political leanings, I only seek the truth wherever it is found.
    Here are some facts, you knopw, things that can be verified?
    “In “An Inconvenient Truth” Al Gore talked about how a major storm surge would flood lower Manhattan and other parts of the New York and New Jersey coasts. Now we see the reality of Superstorm Sandy hitting the region.”
    When climate change was first mooted, scientists claimed “To ignore it will cost many billions of dollars more than to try to prevent it.” Now, I ask you, as a hard-nosed oil-drenched business type, “What does that say to you?”
    In case you don’t care to answer me directly, here’s your answer, “Let’s see, if I help protect the earth from climate change, it will make billions of dollars for businesses like mine, but if I do NOTHING, it will generate hundreds of billions of dollars in insurance and repair income for businesses like mine!”
    Now, which side of politics is favoring doing nothing about climate change?
    Let me see, could it be the GOP?
    Those connected with big business?
    Those who stand to make unbelievable profits from climate change denial?
    Yet these same people pretend to be those who are ‘conservative’ politically.
    Friends to those who hold to the Christian faith, who believe the Bible to be the real and inspired Word of God, like me.
    Yet you are wolves in sheeps clothing.
    Destroying God’s gift of this beautiful earth, simply for your greedy profits.
    Remeber in Genesis where God told Adam to ‘have husbandry over the earth’?
    Godly husbandry is this: to take care of the earth, to feed from it, but to nurture it for your children, so that all may be blessed.
    This command was given BEFORE the fall of man into sin, so it was pure and unadulterated.
    This clearly does NOT match with your ideals of destroying God’s perfect gift for profit and greed.

    • Peter

      Oh, and look at Norway, they got rid of their criminal bankers, and have gone almost 100% renewable energy. Yes, it is possible. As the Bible says, God has given us every good and perfect gift.
      All we have to do is use it, NOT abuse it.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        And Norway has just about the least income inequality of the 136 countries on the CIA listing. Could there be a connection there too?

        The USA is 42nd. from the bottom, over 90 places behind Norway. A lesson in there somewhere?

        • George E

          Why is income inequality all that important? Income inequality in Cuba may be small, but their standard of living is not very high. I’d rather we focus on improving our standard of living.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        It’s important because the reason our standard of living needs improving is the fact that income (and wealth, they’re not the same) have been redistributed UPWARDS into the hands of the 1%, thereby lowering the standard of living for the 99%.

        The Scandinavian countries have both the least income disparity AND the highest standard of living on the planet. We should follow their lead.

    • Marathon Man

      Right Brain Thinker:
      Scandinavian countries have the highest tax rates and under Obama and the Democrat party WE ARE FOLLOWING THEIR LEAD.

      Remember, Socialism for all except the imperial ruling class just like in the days of Monarchies. As illustrated by the Imperial congress’s exemption form the “Affordable Health Care Act)

      The question is how will you like getting taxed to support those who are on the government dole? The fact remains when the percentage of dependents exceeds the private sectors ability to support, the system fails as in Greece, Spain, Portugal, France and the rest of these socialistic countries.

      Think of it like this: How long before the goose that lays the golden eggs (Taxpayers) can no longer keep up with demand (tax consumption by the entitled which including all FEDERAL, STATE and MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES) . It is only a matter of TIME for the collapse as Spain, Portugal, Italy, France and Greece prove

      Think of this: We have a president that tripled the debt ( 6 trillion in four years) thats More than all previous presidents combined. Now, he is all about bringing down the debt the massive debt he generated. And how will he do this, by taxing “the rich”. And what happens when this golden goose dries up? Well, then there is the middle class and they will be his next revenue source.
      And then what? …..will he have achieved what he (OBAMA) considers social justice for the US. Will he be finished? Apparently not, because there is the rest of the globe to consider. And on that score we will have OBAMA’s pending treaties with UN yielding our sovereignty and further draining financial resources from the US. (Consider the impact of the pending LOST and the ATT treaties.) The UN’s nose is in our tent and the rest of it will follow. How about the UN working to tax the Internet and why is the financial enrichment of the UN its top priority?

      Now here is the bigger question ….. in four years will Obama have secured enough governmental power to trash the constitutional two term limit, follow the lead of HUGO CHAVEZ and seek a third term by fiat ? Don’t say that this is far fetched because you may recall another “world leader” did exactly that in the 1930′s

      AMERICA WAS NOT fFOUNDED TO EMULATE EUROPE ! And yet it appears to some that the grass is always greener on the other side. Anyone that thinks the European model is to their liking should go there and experience it for yourself. Then if you are happy there; stay there and enjoy the establishment.

  • Right Brain Thinker

    Looking at the time stamps on his postings, it appears that WTS(Jay) has given up sleeping so that he can pile it higher and deeper on us 24/7.

    I have also come across one of the funniest comments ever seen on this site:

    “Like I would care what your biased website has to say, Galt?” Guess who said that? One of those who, like Jay, cites nothing BUT biased websites. LMAO


    • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

      I am a strong supporter of a clean environment. We need to be vigilant to keep our land, air, and waters free of real pollution, particulates, heavy metals, and pathogens, but carbon dioxide (CO2 ) is not one of these pollutants. Carbon is the stuff of life. Our bodies are made of carbon. A normal human exhales around 1 kg of CO2 (the simplest chemically stable molecule of carbon in the earth’s atmosphere) per day. Before the industrial period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 270 ppm. At the present time, the concentration is about 390 ppm, 0.039 percent of all atmospheric molecules and less than 1 percent of that in our breath. About fifty million years ago, a brief moment in the long history of life on earth, geological evidence indicates, CO2 levels were several thousand ppm, much higher than now. And life flourished abundantly.

      Now the Environmental Protection Agency wants to regulate atmospheric CO2 as a “pollutant.” According to my Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, to pollute is “to make or render unclean, to defile, to desecrate, to profane.” By breathing are we rendering the air unclean, defiling or desecrating it? Efforts are underway to remedy the old-fashioned, restrictive definition of pollution. The current Wikipedia entry on air pollution, for example, now asserts that pollution includes: “carbon dioxide (CO2)—a colorless, odorless, non-toxic greenhouse gas associated with ocean acidification, emitted from sources such as combustion, cement production, and respiration.”

      As far as green plants are concerned, CO2 is not a pollutant, but part of their daily bread—like water, sunlight, nitrogen, and other essential elements. Most green plants evolved at CO2 levels of several thousand ppm, many times higher than now. Plants grow better
      and have better flowers and fruit at higher levels. Commercial greenhouse operators recognize this when they artificially increase the concentrations inside their greenhouses to over 1000 ppm.


  • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

    For years, the concept of Global Warming was just a scientific theory based on anecdotal evidence, climate models, extrapolations and worst-case scenarios. Today, it has bloomed into a full-fledged political movement where contradictions are labeled heresy and dissenters ridiculed as non-believers and fools.

    Jim Jones would be proud.

    Cults have several classic characteristics. More and more, the political wing of the “Global Warming Movement” looks less like scientific guesswork and more like a cult.

    A cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of its members’ behavior. Cults are likely to dictate in great detail not only what members believe, but also what members wear and eat, when and where members work, sleep, and bathe, and how members think, speak and conduct relationships.

    Global Warming demands that you think “green,” accept theories as gospel truth and only support others who adhere to the same beliefs.

    A cult tends to have an ethical double standard. Members are urged to be obedient to the cult and carefully follow cult rules. They are also encouraged to be revealing and open in the group, confessing all to the leaders. On the other hand, outside the group they are encouraged to act unethically, manipulating outsiders or nonmembers, and either deceiving them or simply revealing very little about themselves or the group.

    Global Warming demands that you behave according to specific sets of rules and purchase certain food, cars and other products. Meanwhile, most of the advocates do not adhere to the same rules.

    A cult has only two basic purposes: recruiting new members and fund-raising. They may claim to make social contributions, but in actuality such claims are superficial and only serve as gestures or fronts for recruiting and fund-raising. A cult’s real goal is to increase the prestige and often the wealth of the leader.

    Billions of dollars have been raised in donations, charity events and government grants for Global Warming. This year’s Academy Awards were engulfed in Global Warming fever — a high-profile move that grabbed the attention of millions of people and built the prestige of the movement. The worldwide “Live Earth” concerts will further add to the coffers and visibility, despite the enormous “harmful” emissions generated by the air travel, electricity use and other energy demands associated with the massive event.

    A cult appears to be innovative and exclusive. The leader claims to be breaking with tradition, offering something novel and instituting the ONLY viable system for change that will solve life’s problems or the world’s ills. But these claims are empty and only used to recruit members who are then surreptitiously subjected to mind control to inhibit their ability to examine the actual validity of the claims of the leader and the cult.

    Renewable energy certificates, or RECs, perpetuate a false impression of conservation, while lining the pockets of the movement’s leaders. Businessweek documented cases of Vail Resorts and the city of Seattle as they perpetuated an entagled web of half-truths, misdirections and obfuscations to lay claim to phony conservation efforts. “Carbon offsets,” Al Gore’s justification for his massive personal energy use, has been touted as a brilliant innovation, yet exposed to be a ridiculous scam.

    A cult is authoritarian in its power structure. The leader is regarded as the supreme authority. He or she may delegate certain power to a few subordinates for the purpose of seeing that members adhere to the leader’s wishes. There is no appeal outside his or her system to a greater system of justice.

    Al Gore appears to be the mouthpiece for now, but the authority comes from higher up in the overall movement. His power to sway the followers serves the overall system which, in the hardcore corners of Global Warming, supercedes all other governments, corporations and people.

    A cult’s leader is a self-appointed messianic person claiming to have a special mission in life.

    Al Gore “remade” himself over and over until morphing into the messenger of Mother Earth. Everyone must bow down to the Goddess of Green, thus saith the prophet.

    A cult’s leader tends to be determined, domineering, and charismatic. Such a leader effectively persuades followers to abandon or alter their families, friends, and careers to follow the cult. The leader then takes control over followers’ possessions, money, time, and lives.

    From The Oprah Winfrey Show: “Al Gore has changed the way millions view global warming, including one of Hollywood’s hottest stars…Leonardo DiCaprio. Leo says Gore first introduced him to this environmental issue eight years ago. ‘[Al Gore] is an amazing environmental leader,’ Leo says. ‘He’s a great genius of our time.’


  • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

    At the end of last year, the media widely trumpeted the “recantation” by Richard Muller, a physics professor at Berkeley. Muller’s confession of faith was met with the unreserved glee of fanatics who believe that conversion equals validation of the True Faith.

    Now Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a prominent German chemistry professor and green activist, announced that he is coming out with a book breaking with the Warmist view. Naturally, this recantation wouldn’t receive nearly the same prominence, except when the inevitable stories kick in about Vahrenholt being a tool of the oil companies.

    But set aside the partisan bickering, and one professor accepting a view he had formerly rejected, while another rejects a view he had formerly accepted, is all part of the normal scientific debate. The journey from hypothesis to rock solid consensus is a long one, and it doesn’t end just because Al Gore makes a documentary or a few ads show crying polar bears. Positions are argued, minds change and then a century later the graduate students have fun mocking the ignorance of both sides. That’s science.

    Unfortunately, the Cult of Warm doesn’t accept that there is a debate. As far as they are concerned, the debate never happened because it never needed to happen because they were always right. They can’t intelligently address dissent, because their science is not based on discovering the evidence needed to lead to a consensus, but on insisting that there is a consensus and that accordingly there is no need to debate the evidence.

    In an ordinary scientific debate, a professor leaving one side and joining another might occasion some recriminations and name calling, but it wouldn’t make him anathema. But like being gay or Muslim, hopping on board the Warm Train makes you a permanent member, and there is no room for changing your mind. Once a Warmist, always a Warmist. That’s not a rational position, but then the Cult of Warm is not a rational faith.

    Scientific debates have often had big stakes for human philosophy, but Global Warming is one of the few whose real world implications are as big as its philosophical consequences. At stake is nothing less than the question of whether the human presence on earth is a blight or a blessing, and whether every person must be tightly regulated by a global governance mechanism for the sake of saving the planet.

    The Warmists have pushed their agenda through with alarmist claims and hysteria. They have flown jets around the world to argue that everyone must be taxed for their carbon footprint. They have smeared and intimidated anyone who stood up to them. That is not the behavior of people arguing over numbers. It’s a battle of much larger ideas.

    If you believe that freedom is at the core of what it means to be human, then the Warmists and what they stand for are instinctively repulsive to you. On the other hand, if
    you believe that human society must be organized into a moral collective for the betterment of all, then the Warmist idea provides a wake up call compelling us to form into ranks and goose step in recycled rubber boots into the green future.


  • Alan

    Sorry Tlgeer, but not only am I old enough to have beheld the cleanup of the ’60s and ’70s, I’ve done my research as well. I think perhaps it is you who should take a better look at things before responding in such a smug manner.

  • nickkin

    So much information, so many web sites… put this all together you need to go one site… Everyone will begin to hold their own personal body gas and then the extermination will begin. The lefties have more gas than the right so they will explode first ……the flip flop righties will be next. With the decrease in left wing peops we can start right, all over again. Galt will be the first, followed by flashy etc..

  • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

    “We’ll invest $15 billion a year over the next decade in renewable energy, creating five million new green jobs that pay well, can’t be outsourced, and help end our dependence on foreign oil,” candidate Barack Obama pledged in a November 1, 2008 radio address.

    Three years and eight months later, as unemployment has exceeded 8 percent for 41 straight months, Obama seems incapable of keeping this promise. With the worst employment figures since at least 1948, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ started measuring them, Obama has made a dog’s breakfast of jobs – green and otherwise.

    Consider three key Department of Energy programs. DOE’s website boasts that its “clean energy” initiatives – dubbed 1703, 1705, and Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) – loaned $34.7 billion and launched “nearly 60,000” jobs. This totals a staggering $578,333 per position.

    According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, private employers pay average workers $62,757 in wages and benefits. So, Obama is “creating jobs” at 922 percent of the private sector’s cost. Thus, for every green job that Obama supposedly spawns with taxpayer dollars and borrowed Chinese money, private enterprises could hire nine people.

    Obama touts green-energy “investments,” even though this is not Obama’s money to invest. Rather than choose winners and losers, which would be bad enough, Team Obama picks losers. It subsidized at least ten “clean” companies that went kaput.

    Abound Solar- consumed $70 million of its $400 million Energy Department loan guarantee. The Loveland, Colorado-based company blamed Chinese subsidy payments and European subsidy cuts for falling prices in its thin-film-panel sector. On July 2, Abound Solar filed for Chapter 7 liquidation and prepared to lock shop and fire its 125 employees.

    Solar Trust- envisioned Earth’s largest solar-power plant. DOE enthusiastically offered it a $2.1 billion loan guarantee in April 2011, provided that it raised private capital. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar attended the company’s Blythe, California groundbreaking and hailed “a historic moment in America’s new energy frontier.” Solar Trust missed DOE’s benchmarks, however, and announced Chapter 11 bankruptcy last April 2.

    Energy Conversion Devices- a solar-laminate supplier, received a $13.3 million Stimulus tax credit in January 2010 to update its Auburn Hills, Michigan factory and hire some 600 people. ECD pleaded Chapter 11 bankruptcy last Valentine’s Day.

    Ener1- received a $118.5 million DOE Stimulus grant in August 2009. Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Greenfield, Indiana to tour Ener1 on January 26, 2011. “Here at Ener1,” Biden said, “we’re going to harness electricity and bring it to the world, like Edison did more than a century ago.” The electric-car battery company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last January 26, exactly one year after Biden’s visit.

    Aptera Motors- aspired to build three-wheel electric cars. DOE offered it a $150 million ATVM loan, conditioned upon Aptera’s raising $150 million in non-government capital. Aptera never convinced private investors to finance glorified tricycles. So, last December 2, CEO Paul Wilber stated: “After years of focused effort to bring our products to the market, Aptera Motors is closing its doors, effective today.”

    Massachusetts-based Beacon Power Corp. received a $43 million loan guarantee in October 2010 – DOE’s second such subsidy. The energy-storage concern declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy on October 30, 2011.

    Solyndra- the most notorious of Obama’s green-energy baubles, filed for bankruptcy on August 31, 2011. Taxpayers are liable for this solar-panel maker’s $535 million in loan guarantees – the first that DOE made under Obama.

    In death, Solyndra has proved to be anything but green. As San Francisco’s KCBS-TV reported last April, Solyndra’s Milpitas, California facility features metal drums marked “Hazardous Waste.” Cadmium, lead, unidentified black chemicals, and other toxins haunt the premises. A company called iStar said it would remove these poisons — as soon as Solyndra pays its bills.

    Solyndra also discarded still-valuable solar-panel components, even though selling them could have generated capital to reimburse it creditors, including America’s


    • George E

      It’s bad enough that the Obama administration is subsidizing unprofitable wind and solar companies to bring products to the market when the market doesn’t want them right now, but to further make matters worse, they are putting up barriers to traditional fossil fuels industries making it difficult for them to expand their businesses to serve “real” demand that the market does want. We’re paying for bankrupt wind/solar companies and getting higher unemployment as well because of policies like this. This administration has absolutely no idea how to really stimulate the economy, or they do and just don’t care because they are determined to drive their stupid leftist agenda regardless of the consequences. So much for reducing the national debt and adding jobs……….

  • Bird

    Obama is off track with rational thinking for what he thinks is the good of the US. He has his own agenda which differs from natural evolution of the world. He wants to become savior for the people and country – king – without the right knowledge of what transpires in our earth. His real objective is to kill enterprise – coal production, power generation, rail transportation, vehicle transportation and the well being of the basic citizens of our country.

  • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

    Obama’s Danish Wind Power Deception

    Speaking in Iowa on “Earth Day”, Pres. Obama lamented that only 3% of America’s electricity comes from renewable sources such as wind and solar. He held Denmark out as a model, mentioning that the Scandinavian country produces almost 20% of its electricity via wind.

    He also bragged about the new jobs being created in Iowa and elsewhere in the wind power industry.

    Does PBO think we don’t read? Does he really expect to pull the windy wool over our eyes? Can he really expect the facts about the failure of the Danish wind power experiment not to be cited in reaction to his airy talk?

    Here are some factoids about Danish wind power, that PBO doesn’t want Americans to hear about:

    From “Wind Power Is A Complete Disaster”

    Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).

    Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.”

    Recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character.

    [Denmark's] electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen, the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”

    A recent detailed analysis (focusing mainly on Spain) finds that for every job created by state-funded support of renewables, particularly wind energy, 2.2 jobs are lost. Each wind industry job created cost almost $2-million in subsidies.

    Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. Most cannot simply be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises, and the quick ramping up and down of those that can be would actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide (the primary “greenhouse” gas). So when the wind is blowing just right for the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus and sold to other countries at an extremely discounted price, or the turbines are simply shut off.

    84% of western Denmark’s wind-generated electricity was exported (at a revenue loss) in 2003, i.e., Denmark’s glut of wind towers provided only 3.3% of the nation’s electricity. According to The Wall Street Journal Europe, the Copenhagen newspaper Politiken reported that wind actually met only 1.7% of Denmark’s total demand in 1999. (Besides the amount exported, this low figure may also reflect the actual net contribution. The large amount of electricity used by the turbines themselves is typically not accounted for in the usually cited output figures.

    A German Energy Agency study released in February 2005 after some delay stated that increasing the amount of wind power would increase consumer costs 3.7 times more than otherwise and that the theoretical reduction of greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved much more cheaply by simply installing filters on existing fossil-fuel plants.

    If Pres. Obama understood or respected capitalism and free markets, he would know that less than 3% of American electricity comes from wind power because, in the real world and without government mandates and huge government subsidies, wind power makes no sense.

    • George E

      I’m pretty sure Obama doesn’t really care about economics, He wants wind and solar……………….just because he does. Screw the rest of us that have to budget our money and care what we have to pay for energy. In the USA, natural gas and coal are both more economical sources of electricity than wind or solar. In countries that don’t produce their own fossil fuels, they might be able to justify wind, and possibly solar, on a large scale economical basis, if other conditions are favorable, but I’m pretty sure there won’t be too many countries that fit into that category.

  • GALT

    Well then George, I appreciate that you appreciate, my efforts to explain
    the SCIENCE…to you in an adult manner……and that you seem to have
    some objection to “socialists”, although “not in this instance”?

    BTW if you are new here, or if I am NEW TO YOU……if you need a label for ME
    I am a “self admitted”…….P.L.F. and an E.I. one……….

    For P.L.F.’s….economic’s is invalid in it entirety…..therefor distinctions are irrelevant.

    As for your objection to “socialism” it does not seem to apply here…….because our
    adult discussion…that you appreciate……requires me to “educate” you, for free…..
    simply because you are “ignorant” and refuse to do the work yourself….even though
    I have already given you directions…….

    And it is clear that your “ignorance” is even worse than previously indicated based
    on the content of this response………..but am going to give you the benefit of the
    doubt……..and allow you to exploit me……. ( in your paradigm this is theft ) because
    you choosing to remain ignorant…… more harmful.

    As you should know, our atmosphere is comprised of ( in descending order of volume )
    nitrogen N2, oxygen O2, and CO2………

    and you should be familiar with the “law of gravity”……..and taking these two things together…….understand how these gases perform………

    Now it is true that CO2 is by volume ridiculously small by percentage……but it has
    two distinctive properties from nitrogen and oxygen……

    1.) It is heavier that either of the other two.
    2.) It has heat trapping properties which the other two do not.

    Now your suggested argument, or actually stated argument ( and evidence of
    your ignorance ) can be paraphrased thusly……how can something so small, be
    responsible for an effect claimed to be so large?

    I am going to answer your question with another question which will
    answer your question………..or it should.

    How is it that plant life…….which is entirely dependent on CO2…….is more abundant
    that any other life form of life on this planet, with the exception of single celled bacteria
    and viruses? And that every other form of complex life, is dependent on plant
    life for their existence either directly or indirectly?

    If you can follow the train of logic here……you are now know more that you did…..
    although none of what is here……is new to you…….you simply have not done
    the work……and you certainly are not paying me……which also says something,
    although probably not anything you “want” to hear….or will admit to??????

    • George E


      I appreciate the information, but I don’t like your self-ingratiating and narcissistic attitude. You may be knowledgeable, and even bright for that matter, but I’d bet you don’t know as much as you think you do. Personally, I’d rather deal with an ignorant person who is willing to learn than a knowledgeable person who thinks he knows everything.

      So what if you are correct about the science (and I really don’t think you are), what would you propose doing about it? Here’s a clue, if the cure is worse than the problem, I’m not interested.

      • Right Brain Thinker


        I can see where you might hang “self-ingratiating and narcissistic” as well as a number of other terms on Galt—those two are perhaps overstating things a bit. I see him more as exasperated with those who refuse to see the truth and confident in his own knowledge. He does sometimes frustrate me too with his stream-of-consciousness style but I wade through that in order to find the information that he buries in there.

        Having spent time in academia, there is no question in my mind that he is both “knowledgeable” and “bright—-no “may be” about it—-I have known hundreds of folks all along the spectrum and he stacks up well. He may not know “as much as he thinks he does”—few of us do, but he knows a heckuva lot more than 99% of the folks on this site. I have a couple of degrees in science and have read widely on environmental issues since the 1960′s—I have not yet seen a single error in what Galt has said. You need to get past his perhaps “off putting” style and pay attention to what he says. You have no basis for saying Galt is incorrect about the science because it doesn’t appear you know enough science yourself to make that judgment, and I don’t mean that unkindly. You can’t reject his knowledge just because you don’t like his “style”.

        And you need to learn the science from someone and Galt is here—why not listen? Or would you rather listen to someone like Wake The Sleepers (Jay) who really doesn’t understand the science and just copies links from sites that distort truth and promote bad science for political purposes? WTS(Jay) is a propagandist that will say nice things to you and then mislead you. As he did with the “frightening quotes” comment., which I will address in another comment. You were badly used by Jay.

        You said “Personally, I’d rather deal with an ignorant person who is willing to learn than a knowledgeable person who thinks he knows everything”. Don’t you see the logic failure in that statement? Maybe you’d like to have an “ignorant person who is willing to learn” as a friend, but you need to “deal with” (or learn) from those with knowledge if you want to become knowledgeable yourself.

        And your question “What would you propose doing about it?” IS something that Galt and I and others have alluded to many times. Your saying “Here’s a clue, if the cure is worse than the problem, I’m not interested” shows that you have some internal bias that relates to what the “cure” is and how it may be “worse” than the problem. From reading your other postings, I think it’s because of your economic/capitalist beliefs. If it costs too much or cuts into corporate profits, or requires government regulation, your mind seems to snap shut sometimes. What Galt and I and others have been preaching looks far beyond those concerns and to where we are heading in the longer term. We may all be gone before things come to a head, but whatever humans may still be around will likely not be running hedge funds or worrying about corporate bottom lines.

        • George E


          Thanks for explaining Galt’s personality and attitude as well as the error of my logic to me. Unlike Galt, I don’t think I know everything there is to know about climate science. I do use my limited knowledge and logic to sort it all out. I expect that’s what nearly everyone else does as well. The fact is, I’ve heard scientists discuss this issue with opinions on both sides of the argument, so that just tells me that the science probably isn’t quite as settled as the proponents of man-made global warming want us to believe. That’s one of my high level assessments of this issue. I also believe that no one probably knows everything there is to know about this subject, so most of what we’re getting is nothing more than opinions. Admittedly, some are based on better information and science than others, but opinions none the less, meaning no one really knows the final outcome since no one is 100% certain they are correct, and therefore, either outcome is possible.

          Regarding some of the things I said to Galt, it offends me when people talk down to me like I feel Galt has been doing. He may know more than I know about this subject, but he isn’t any smarter or any better than I am. I’m not going to sit back and let someone talk to me disrespectfully just because they have more knowledge on a particular subject than I have. If I was taking a college course and the professor tried that with me at my age, I would walk out. I was raised in the South, and you just don’t talk to people like that. If Galt really knows as much as you and he think he does, and he really wants to educate the rest of us dumb poor souls, then he needs to tone down the rhetoric so people will appreciate what he is saying and not be distracted by how he says it. I’m open to new information, like I’d bet most people are. After all, we are all in this together whether we like it or not, so it would be nice if we could all (or at least most of us) work together.

          You’re correct in that my mind is sort of closed on this subject because 1) the issue has been so politicized by the left, folks who also embrace socialism, and 2) because the solutions always lead to growing government and paying more taxes. When proponents stop with the socialism, focus strictly on the science, and embrace capitalist solutions, balancing cost and benefits, I’ll be much more open minded to this issue. I’d bet that’s the big turn-off for most of us on the right. I also won’t accept any solution that constrains economic growth by any substantial amount. That’s a “real” threat that I can understand and get my hands around, unlike man-made global warming.

      • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

        Well, Galt and RBT, i see you two have alienated yet another possible proselyte from your twisted-cult with your religious, global-warming, mumbo-jumbo. It appears that George is smarter then the both of you put together, and has figured out that the tactics you two use to bully people into surrender, are the same tactics commonly used by religious-fanatics.

        But fortunately for you and Galt, your severe, mental-disorder brought on by religious-fanaticism is curable, since it is not a genetic or neurodegenerative condition, though a person in a advanced stage of religious fanaticism, such as some of the global-warming fanatics on the Internet display, probably have much less chance of being cured. However, i’ve noticed that you two demonstrate a religious psychosis that does seem to produce many of the symptoms of schizophrenia. Interesting!

        But I am not at all suggesting that all religious schizophrenics have a purely psychological condition, which can be cured, in most cases, since studies have shown that a advanced stage of schizophrenia is also related to a neurological condition, such as brain-demage, and as such, of course, you would have no control of said condition. Logically, once the brain has been damaged, psychoanalysis is rendered ineffective, and one cannot merely talk a person out of their condition by the use of psychoanalysis.

        However, and in light of the evidence, you and Galt appear to be suffering from religoius fanaticism, and may in fact be psychotic. On the other hand, and here’s some good news, your psychotic condition may not in fact be schizophrenia, but your religious psychosis you seem to display has many of the same symptoms as schizophrenia. Are you still with me? Oh dear, listen to me go on, completely unaware that my observations may have caught you by surprise and may be causing you considerable distress. I think i’ll stop here…

      • Right Brain Thinker

        You say: “I do use my limited knowledge and logic to sort it all out. I expect that’s what nearly everyone else does as well.” That’s my point, George—that makes you vulnerable to those who would manipulate and use you —as WST(Jay) did. You need to increase your knowledge so you can’t be misled.

        You also say: “The fact is, I’ve heard scientists discuss this issue with opinions on both sides of the argument, so that just tells me that the science probably isn’t quite as settled as the proponents of man-made global warming want us to believe.” Actually, the science is more settled every day, and the hugely overwhelming weight of it is on the side of global warming. Most of the scientists on the denial side (and thare are very few of them) have motives other than “good science” and show much “bad science” in what they say. What the science IS is less complete than we’d like it to be. We have only had satellites for 50 years, and computers powerful enough to do the necessary modeling have been around for only a couple of decades. It should tell you something that the scientists who are coming out FOR global warming show more evidence every that it IS occurring, while the skeptics and deniers come up with little to show that it isn’t—-they really can’t, so they just attack the truth instead..

        You show us that you really do understand much of what I’ve said above when you say: “I also believe that no one probably knows everything there is to know about this subject, so most of what we’re getting is nothing more than opinions. Admittedly, some are based on better information and science than others, but opinions none the less, meaning no one really knows the final outcome since no one is 100% certain they are correct, and therefore, either outcome is possible”. The old saw “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts” comes into play here. Science does not rely on opinions—it examines facts and comes to conclusions, sometimes tentative or provisional, but something quite a bit more systematic than “opinion”. You have been misled by “opinions” that are not science -based but come from other agendas. There is no “equivalency” here, George. This is not a “fair and balanced” situation as on FAUX news where one guy says this and the other guy says the opposite and therefore “we don’t know”.

        George, I can’t find fault with a single thing you have said here about Galt. You have spoken for a lot of people (even for me when you talk about “toning down” and “being distracted by HOW he says it”). It’s a good and honest “I” message from you, if you know what they are, and I hope he takes it to heart. If it helps, try to think of Galt as one of those brilliant geeky types you see on CSI and other TV shows—sometimes annoying but always ready to make a big contribution to the greater good. Galt DOES do that for us.
        “Regarding some of the things I said to Galt, it offends me when people talk down to me like I feel Galt has been doing. He may know more than I know about this subject, but he isn’t any smarter or any better than I am. I’m not going to sit back and let someone talk to me disrespectfully just because they have more knowledge on a particular subject than I have. If I was taking a college course and the professor tried that with me at my age, I would walk out. I was raised in the South, and you just don’t talk to people like that. If Galt really knows as much as you and he think he does, and he really wants to educate the rest of us dumb poor souls, then he needs to tone down the rhetoric so people will appreciate what he is saying and not be distracted by how he says it. I’m open to new information, like I’d bet most people are. After all, we are all in this together whether we like it or not, so it would be nice if we could all (or at least most of us) work together”.

        You also show some self-awareness when you say: “You’re correct in that my mind is sort of closed on this subject because 1) the issue has been so politicized by the left, folks who also embrace socialism, and 2) because the solutions always lead to growing government and paying more taxes”.
        You are unfortunately unwilling to accept the fact that it is the RIGHT that has politicized the issue—THEY have “brainwashed” people into making a connection with socialism, bigger government, and increased taxes. And they have used good conservative patriotic Americans like you in the process. The scientists just want to do science—continue to seek truth—think about it..

        You say: “When proponents stop with the socialism, focus strictly on the science, and embrace capitalist solutions, balancing cost and benefits, I’ll be much more open minded to this issue. I’d bet that’s the big turn-off for most of us on the right. I also won’t accept any solution that constrains economic growth by any substantial amount. That’s a “real” threat that I can understand and get my hands around, unlike man-made global warming” I hope you will become more open-minded because, with all respect, you have circled back to the closed-mindedness you admitted to earlier. I understand your “capitalist” concerns and even share them to some degree. What you need to understand is that the threat of global warming is so severe that capitalism may no longer exist if it is not dealt with. You understand the concepts of insurance and “hedging”, I’m sure. It’s what smart capitalists do to protect their capital. What Galt and I propose is that we stop listening to those who would politicize the issue so that they can profit RIGHT NOW at the expense of future generations of capitalist, humans, and every living thing on the planet. Yes, there are costs, but they should be thought of as insurance, not as constraint.

        And all that brings to mind a question that should stimulate some thought.

        What have future generations ever done for us?

      • Right Brain Thinker

        WTS(Jay) once again shows his disrespect for everyone on this site by starting his oh-so-clever propaganda-slinging and manipulating. He would have you believe George is “alienated” because it suits Jay’s purposes to say so. George is not “alienated”. George is an honest guy who seems to be seeking truth and merely feels upset about some things that have been said to him.. Galt and I speak to him—Galt upsets him more than I do because of “style” issues but George is talking to me and I am talking to him. George can tell us himself how alienated he is, Jay—stop putting words in his mouth. At someplace down the road I hope to help George see what the Jays of the world are trying to do to him. YOU, Jay are the alienator—you would alienate your closest brethren on this site if it allowed you to push your sick agenda, and, with time, the folks on this site will see that. You are your own worst enemy, Galt and I just help you show that to the world.

        And jay moves into his new propaganda twist—the “cult-religious fanatic” thing, with the added embellishment of mental disorders. George and the rest of you are smarter than Jay—you won’t let him “bully you into surrendering” to his crap, will you?.

        Jay had hit on the cult thing in a couple of earlier postings. He moved into that when his “CO2 is good for us” was exposed for the idiocy it is (and I’m not done doing that yet, Jay—be prepared). Jay is now zeroing in his laser-sharp intellect on Galt and I. That tells everyone that Jay is UNABLE to combat our facts and arguments and must now fall back to the last defense of the beaten—-attack the messenger. He oh-so-cleverly slings a bunch of psychobabble at you in the hopes you will swallow it. It only shows how desperate he is if he would risk alienating you by doing this rather than stay on topic—to remind you Jay—-ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING !!!.

        Jay says: “Oh dear, listen to me go on, completely unaware that my observations may have caught you by surprise and may be causing you considerable distress. I think i’ll stop here”

        LMAO over that bit of smugness, Jay, particularly when you state you are “going on completely unaware”—how true that you are “unaware”—I will soon make the world aware of some things about you and the game you play.—perhaps that will raise your own awareness level a bit.

        Your “observations” catch no one on this site by surprise, least of all me—it is the type of thing we have all come to expect from you. And rather than distress, they are actually causing me considerable relief, because you have now released me from any qualms I may have had from stating to all that on the site that you are A MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL PIG. In fact, I may have to “upgrade” that title to reflect the new depths to which you have sunk with this message. We shall see.

        CONTINUED AFTER BREAKFAST>>>>>>>>>>>>>

        • George E

          I appreciate everyone’s concern for me. Thank you all for that. However, what I really want is for all of us to address this very serious issue in scientific, political, economic, and ethical terms, instead of the childish bantering that goes on much of the time. If the global warming theorists are correct, we may be in for some rather dire times ahead. If they’re not, they could destroy our economy and some personal liberties dealing with the issue. Neither of these outcomes are pretty and therefore should be taken seriously by all of us. I also don’t think that everyone who participates in this discussion needs to be a scientist to be able to make a positive contribution. Science is one very important part, but there are other things to consider like, is the data correct?, are the models correct?, how long do we have?, what’s it going to cost?, how can we pay for it?, what impact can we have on this issue?, do we have the resources to deal with this issue and other issues?, if not, what should our priorities be?, what’s ethical?, what will the public accept?, will other countries do their part?, etc. Regardless which political ideology everyone subscribes to, I’m pretty sure we know that this is one of those issues that we have to deal with because we’re all in this together, and we’d better get it right because if we don’t we will see that this “movie” will end badly for everyone. We can’t make the outcome be what we want it to be. We have to accept the “facts” as they are, and manage accordingly.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Breakfast was good—the most important meal of the day..


        WTS(Jay) demonstrates to us what an intellectual and moral pig he really is with this posting. Go Oink-Oink, Jay, as you wallow contentedly in the filth of that intellectual and moral pigpen you inhabit. Strong words, you may say, but I am a bit outraged at Jay’s disrespect for EVERYONE on this site. He has shown many times over on this site that he has little respect for truth or honest debate. Nothing new there and I have come to expect that from him—bothers me not.

        With this posting, however, he has shown almost a complete disrespect for those of you he would like to consider his “flock”. I refer to those of you who hold conservative, Christian, and free-market capitalist views—a majority on this site and the “choir” that he mainly speaks to. This posting of his is directed solely at you. It outrages me when he abuses YOUR trust by very obviously manipulating the truth and attempting to brainwash YOU with what is a clever piece of propaganda. He should not treat his friends this way.

        I speak of folks like George E, who responded to the posting exactly the way Jay hoped you ALL would. I suspect many of you do agree with George.
        George E said in response to Jay:
        “My God, these people are nuts…….and dangerous! I wouldn’t turn over management of an insane asylum to them, much less management of the government over our lives”

        Now let us look at the truth of Jay’s posting and what he did to you in disrespect of your beliefs that people should be treated fairly and honestly, the way he attempted to brainwash you rather than respect your integrity and intelligence. Jay closed with “Folks, these are the maniacs we are dealing with. These are the psychopaths behind the green-movement; the same psychopaths we argue with on this board. You better get to know them before engaging them in discussion”. Note the use of “maniacs”, “psychopaths”, and “psychopaths” again. Note the “behind the green movement”. Note the “same folks we argue with on this board” Note the “get to know them”. .

        Some of the things said in “frightening quotes” may have been distasteful to you, but the people who said them are NOT “maniacs” or “psychopaths” (twice), nor are they “behind the green movement” but merely associated with it to one small degree or another, nor are they the folks that “you argue with” on this board, and the “get to know them” really means “read this piece of twisted propaganda that I have posted in the hopes that it will turn your minds against certain people even though those people are NOT the ones that said the things I quoted”. A clever little “guilt by association” propaganda package, but not very honest or respectful of you, as we shall see even more as we go on.

        These three sentences are designed to leave a final impression in your mind as you move on, the one that George E states and Jay hopes you will agree with—-“My God, these people are nuts…….and dangerous! I wouldn’t turn over management of an insane asylum to them, much less management of the government over our lives”.
        George seems to recognize that “maniac” and “psychopath” are perhaps overdone and uses “nuts” instead. Then he states that these people are “dangerous”, which Jay DIDN’T say outright but he wanted George to somehow infer, and George did just that. George then makes the leap to “insane asylum” and bounces on to “government over our lives”, in spite of the fact that NOT ONE of the 18 people quoted is associated with government (unless a FORMER senator and an obscure Park Service biologist in a lab somewhere count). Jay must be quite happy that he has been able to lead George by the nose like this—-to get George to react emotionally rather than think it through. But of course, that’s what unscrupulous propagandists do, isn’t it?.

        George, you’ve been used, and I apologize to you on Jay’s behalf since he likely won’t.


      • GALT

        George…….well I can see that “facts” are of no concern to you, for all I have done
        is direct you to the “facts”…….and when you have refused to make the journey,
        to where your ignorance can be “corrected”, I have brought the “facts” to you…
        and you have ignored them.

        You have no relevant response…….yet you insist on responding……so now your
        excuse for what is clearly a condition of “willfull ignorance”……is because you “think
        we are equals”……..unfortunately, there is no evidence available to support that
        conclusion……..just as there is no real science available to support what you claim
        to believe……….( that all men are created equal……has never been true….nor
        is there any evidence to support it……….and if one applies correct reasoning
        to this statement…….the logical conclusion is a tautology……”all men are equal
        as men”…….it is therefor meaningless and of no value……although it does say
        a lot about people who use it and claim to believe it……and chances are this
        is not the only deficiency present……that inhibits their ability to “reason” )

        Mr Myers, as has already been explained to you, is here for “business purposes”,
        and this site is a “business site”………you are a “mushroom” and possibly a potential
        customer for “his services”, or Mr. Livingston’s or any of the other people that are
        part of the “group” that are listed for you to see………

        Finally, to attempt to express this in terms of the paradigm which you claim to believe
        in……..I am not being paid by Mr. Livingston to be here………or by anyone else…….

        I have made certain choices with regard to my chosen identity, the writing style which
        I choose to employ and the methods which I use to accomplish MY GOALS………the complaints are myriad………and you will find many who will agree with you…….I do
        make an effort….as I have with you…..and others……to correct that impression…..
        and my position ( self designated ) is that of an e.i. P.L.F………..and it is possible
        for anyone who seeks to actually engage in what has often been referred to as
        ” adult conversation based on intelligence and logical reasoning ” to actually
        achieve that result, if that is what they truly seek…… most cases, this turns out
        not to be true……….

        I have shared with all who care to know, the foundational sources on which MY KNOWLEDGE is based………so they are available to “anyone who wishes to
        make the effort”……..and like the claim of seeking “intelligent discussion” this
        too turns out not to be true……….and is rather easily exposed……..because it
        never happens………and none of the excuses are relevant, no matter how
        convenient………..or how may opinions may be joined together…….logically
        reasoned arguments based on facts are not determined by vote.

        There are some here who have recently expressed the “opinion” that much of
        our problem is based of the fact that much of what we think we know is not TRUE.
        They are correct……..but this is only the first step……..the next part is the process
        of re-thinking everything we have learned……and reformulating it to produce a more beneficial outcome………..

        Of course, many have not reached this point……so the mythologies still need to be
        dismantled……and everyone can participate in this process…….of course, the
        “willfully ignorant, functional illiterate” is determined for this not to occur……which
        is why most of the “discussion” here…… pointless exercise, and for which it
        seems you have chosen to be part of the problem…….

        But the second part, will be easier to understand……..the reformulation part is
        where the actual work lies…….and it has value……so if you are a person who
        believes that “producers” are entitled of “reap the fruits of their labor”…….you now
        understand the second and most important aspect of my goal here……

        If you wish access to the knowledge that I possess, solutions to the problems,
        or special instruction………designed to accommodate your rather fragile ego……
        you may make arrangements to compensate me for the fruits of my labor……
        which of course you are not willing to do……..( because we are equal )

        All is not lost however…….because access to this information and knowledge
        is available to everyone here…… is the purpose of the questions and exercises
        that are posed……… the end…..learning and educating oneself is a process….
        while “telling” someone the answer…….as was done here with you…..and
        others for “this subject”……..had no effect…… the REALITY is…….regardless
        of what method is used……the result is the same…….( and something that
        has been quite obvious to me for a very long time. )

        So now that we have spent all this time together and I have made the effort
        while you have resisted…….we find ourselves left will the original question…..

        And your “functionally illiterate state of willfull ignorance” should matter to me

        • George E

          Galt has spoken so the rest of us are commanded to “shut up, sit down, and do what we are told to do.” In your dreams, mister…………Can you say narcissistic ^&&*(* ? I can, and I will. If you don’t think we’re equals, then you must have more than one vote to cast in political elections, because that’s what I have. Is your vote more important than mine?

      • Right Brain Thinker


        Your 9:27 am comment is disheartening to me. I have spent considerable energy trying to converse with you (in a style very unlike Galt’s) and YOU HAVEN’T LISTENED TO A WORD I’VE SAID. I am looking at the evidence and it’s looking more and more as if Galt has you pegged (although he COULD have said it more nicely).

        Anyone who would characterize discussions of AGW as “childish bantering” is not to be taken seriously. in ANYTHING he says.

        You just keep responding to what is said to you with the same endless comments that show you are trapped in a pit of mindless adherance to ideology, closed mindedness, misinformation, ignorance, and confirmation bias.

        I have called you an honest guy who seems to be seeking truth—I have made a mistake—I should have said “polite” rather than honest—and that politeness blinded me to the fact that you really don’t want to seek truth. That you are fearful of truth and would rather hide in that comfortable conservative world of belief instead of the word of rational analysis of fact.

        • George E


          Are you scolding me for not doing what you want me to do or think? If you think I can be manipulated, you had better think again. I will always “try” to discuss these serious subjects with you and others so long as the conversation is 2-way and equal. If we can’t do that, then I’m out. I don’t have time for childishness.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        George, If you “don’t have time for childishness”, why are you acting so childish?
        Yes, defensiveness, churlishness, irrationality, and being overly sensitive are childish

        You CAN be manipulated and ARE being manipulated by people like Jay, but not by me. I have tried to explain that but you are oblivious. We will never have a 2-way conversation if you don’t open your mind. We will never have an “equal” conversation ON GLOBAL WARMING until your knowledge matches mine, and I don’t mean that as a putdown—yet you refuse to be educated and that’s somehow MY fault?. Sorry to say it , George, but the only thing you seem to try is resisting looking at any facts or ideas that don’t fit what you believe. And if that’s scolding, I’m guilty.

  • djmc42

    As a personal observation and using common sense, the earth has been warming since the last ice age and it will continue to warm until we go into a cooling cycle. The climate is cyclical and it always will be. The sun has more to do with global warming than humans.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      I hope I don’t “alienate you” (as Jay seems to think speaking some truth will do), but as a right brain thinker it is my duty to point out some things to you. You and I weren’t here for the last ice age or any of the time since then, except for our time on the planet. We need to rely on those who can unravel the past, look at the present, and project into the future in order to deal with global warming.

      Your statement that “…it will continue to warm until we go into a cooling cycle. The climate is cyclical and it always will be” is true but not relevant to the issue.

      “The sun has more to do with global warming than humans” is both true and false. It would be more accurate if you had said “The sun has always had something to do with keeping the globe warm but human-caused global warming has disrupted the normal course of events and needs to be dealt with”

      Common sense is a good thing at all times, scientific thinking is more valuable when you talk about things like global warming.

    • Deerinwater

      Well, LOL There much truth to that, ~ along the same line as Guns , are nit the problem, it’s the bullets!

      • Gea

        While sun is a “giver of life on Earth” as old Egyptians understood too, when worshiping Amon Ra (their sun-god), in the case of the rapid climatic changes, sun is irrelevant, but the burning of fossil fuels and cow/sheep burps and farts are the main contributors to greenhouse gases, causing warming due to greenhouse effect. Just go to any greenhouse nursery and feel the heat ;-)!

        Getting away from burning coal and oil, and decreasing our consumption of ruminants, which considerably contributes to greenhouse gasses increases in the Earth atmosphere, is not only the way for US to become sustainable, but will decrease financing Islamic terrorism by money we pay for the oil to Arab states, and which channel it to mosques where they teach young Muslims to hate US and want to killo the Kafir (derogatory name for non-Muslims).

        Obama’s Green idea is as asinine as his Health care, which will only profit his friends who want to build large solar and wind systems, which are both ecologically damaging and require long distance transmission.

        The only sensible way is for all US citizens to take care of their own energy and water needs, by harvesting solar and wind energy and water that falls on their roofs and back yards. This could be done cheaply and combined with storing energy into electric car batteries, each one of us can become self-sufficient and independent of large energy and water grids, which increases costs of living for each US citizens. Sun, wind and rain is free of charge and thus you can avoid utility bills and decrease your need to work for some jerk to pay for your monthly electricity, gas and water bills.

        GO GREEN even if there is no global climate change, because it makes economic sense if done properly. This will also increase your time to participate in democracy and run large corporations, which are based on supporting fossil economy, out of business. Thus this will be true application of the free markets in service of people not large corporate interests which do not care what happens to US as long as they keep their market share and US captive to energy needs of its people..

  • sean murry

    Obummer can shove it up with obamacare and obama green.

  • Joe

    A close read of the scientific literature easily leads to uncertainty over the alternating cycles of heating and cooling. Global warming, when it does occur, is likely traceable to sun spots and more likely unrelated to man made activities. However, extreme environmentalism is a ” feel good” activity which gives some a greater purpose to life. Politicians have successfully seized on this opportunity to further their own interests to the detriment of our society.

    • George E


      Worse, in my opinion, these same politicians will take critical resources, if we let them, from the private sector which are needed to get our economy back on its feet. That would be a nightmare, with it ending when we find out the whole thing (man-made global warming) wasn’t actually real in the first place, or it was, but all of the resources we put into it didn’t have any noticeable positive impact, so these resources were just wasted and our situation was measurably worse because we not only had a global warming issue to deal with, but now we also had a broken economy as well.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        You have not been reading any “scientific literature” very closely if you state things like “Global warming, when it does occur, is likely traceable to sun spots and more likely unrelated to man made activities”. Sun spots have always been with us and DO have some impact, but the steady increase in CO2 concentrations that is the main contributor to global warming exactly parallels man’s use of fossil fuels in the industrial age. That increase in CO2 is SOLELY related to man’s activities (except for a few volcanoes going off). Even WTS (Jay) doesn’t dispute that—-that’s why he has been so busily lying to you about how good CO2 is—it’s here and getting worse—he knows that and he wants to distract you from seeking the truth.

        I don’t know how many “extreme environmentalists” you know (probably not a one), but I belong to or support a long list of environmentally concerned and active organizations (some since since before Earth Day in 1970) and have never met a real “extremist” among their members—some intense and committed folks, but no extremists. The extremists are to be found almost exclusively among the AGW deniers and skeptics. And are you aware that there are no “Destroy the Earth” organizations? Would yo9u care to guess why?

        And we “extremists” don’t “feel good” about any of it. One of our “main activities” in life, one which “gives us greater purpose” is seeking to understand and counter the effects of AGW. We do that through science and rational thinking, rather than through what you see from people like Jay. We actually feel BAD—-over the fact that so little progress has been made, mainly because so many like you have been coopted and hoodwinked into fighting for the special interests so that they can continue to get rich at everyone’s expense. We feel BAD that the 1% cares so little for the planet that the entire 100% live on.

        You are absolutely 100% correct when you state: “Politicians have successfully seized on this opportunity to further their own interests to the detriment of our society”. And some few of those are even Democrats, because some of them have “sold out” to the fossil fuel interests as well. Not as much as those on the right, though. The fact that nearly all of the “conservatives” have signed Grover’s pledge shows whose pocket they are in.

        By the way, have you forgotten that Richard M. Nixon was an “extremist”? He must be, since he signed into law the EPA and the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and that perhaps cost the greedy rich some “profit”, so he can’t be anything BUT an extremist, right?

        And George,

        You have doubled down on your “capitalism fetish” here. Your logic is a bit backwards. Try to look at it from the perspective that AGW IS real and accelerating, which is what the vast weight of the scientific evidence says and the vast majority of climate scientists believe. The “nightmare” will be what happens if it actually IS real and we do nothing about it because we want to accumulate basements full of useless money like you-know-who (only gold and silver coins, of course). Money that is not really invested but used only to make more money. The resources we put into fighting AGW will not be wasted—they will simply go into different pockets than those of the Koch brothers and the other fossil fuel interests. THAT’S WHAT THE WHOLE THING IS REALLY ABOUT—the greedy rich have misled you into thinking they support free markets and capitalism. They don’t. They want to steal money from you, and while doing that, they have no qualms about ruining your health or that of the entire planet at the same time

        And you talk about “a broken economy”? Did you not see my comment about how big insurance companies are now expressing a concern about AGW and saying that we need to do something about it? Their particular corner of the economy IS getting “broken” right now by the ever-increasing frequency of extreme weather events. The scientists and economists they employ have analyzed the data and said “global warming looks to be a root cause”. So, the insurance companies do two things—they speak out about stopping AGW AND they raise their rates so that their bottom line doesn’t suffer. Good capitalists—and everyone pays the price in higher premiums.

        Think a bit more about the insurance companies—they exist to assess risk and insure against it, then they gamble that they are correct. They need good data and good analytic skills to stay on top of the risk curve and make money consistently. SOMETHING is threatening their business and they are concerned and acting on it. Wake up and look at what that something is and consider if the human race might be wise to insure itself against it.

  • Charles E. Higgins

    Back in the 2000′s I was watching NOVA on PBS a known leftist propaganda source when I heard the commentator or the VOLCANO episode say,”This one volcano puts out more CO2 than all the sources in the United States! I was shocked at this admission that nature puts more pollution out than all the United States does. So put the Global Warming Debate away. Nature is creating it. k

    This is not the first round of Climate Change this world has known. Regardless of your worldview we know there have been times when the Earth was warmer or cooler than it is today. We will just have to learn to live with the changes as they occur.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      We can leave aside the fact that your assertion that “PBS (is) a known leftist propaganda source” since it is completely untrue and insupportable.

      Let’s look at the incredibly faulty logic you display when you say “when I heard the commentator on the VOLCANO episode say,”This one volcano puts out more CO2 than all the sources in the United States!” I was shocked at this admission that nature puts more pollution out than all the United States does. So put the Global Warming Debate away. Nature is creating it”.

      This “admission” that you rely on so heavily to pronounce AGW dead and buried is not what you would make it. Do you not recognize that there are, in the world of scientific measurement, such things as UNITS? And that the concepts of RATE and DURATION must be brought into play. You cannot make the leap you did unless you know how much (in quantity), how fast (rate), and how long (duration) these emissions take place. An analogy—you get a lot of rain and some small flash floods in a short period from a brief thunderstorm, but serious floods more often come from steady rain over a long period of time.

      Volcanoes are formidable emitters of CO2 and I have no doubt that the one referred to WAS exceeding the entire US CO2 emission level for some unspecified period of time. The difference being that volcanoes STOP erupting after awhile and man’s emission do not—they just keep piling up at an ever-increasing rate, and THAT is what is “creating it”, not nature. (We ARE fortunate that volcanoes are only intermittent contributors to the problem—if we had a lot of big ones erupting for long periods, we would be in dire straits—the earth’s natural balancing mechanisms would be overwhelmed).

      You finish with: “We will just have to learn to live with the changes as they occur”. How mankind learns to live with a change that may make mankind extinct is hard for me to grasp.

  • Erik Osbun

    The fundamental falsehood of this plan is that man made global warming does not exist.

    • Deerinwater

      We have a hole in our atmosphere, ~Sir. This hole does move about while it seems to stay near the northern polar cap for now.

      What has caused it and if it’s growing or getting smaller might well be a subject of debate inside some circles, the same circles that still pondering what Billy Joe Mc Galaster threw off the Tallahassee Bridge.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        A good link, Deer, to a site that provides good data and interpretations, unlike the “trash” links that WTS(Jay) provides.

        I’m not sure what “hole” you’re talking about, because this link leads us not to “holes” but to data on surface melting on the Greenland ice cap. That’s not a bad thing, because the Greenland ice cap, along with Arctic Ocean ice cover, is an important player in global warming—-everyone should know more about both. People should go there for that.

        What is the hole you’re talking about?

      • Drifter

        The hole in the atmosphere (ozone layer) was yesterdays envirosociialist scare tactic. When it failed to gin up enough money and power, it was abandoned, as was the ‘Global Cooling’ scare before it, in favor of ‘Global Warming’, which could then be used as a tool to herd an ignorant public into ‘useful’ political positions, from which money and power (to further the cause) could be extracted.

        The illusory Report From Iron Mountain apparently has a life of its own…

  • A Clay

    Another Ruse, Obama or anyone else isn’t ready to produce GREEN ENERGY until the technology is complete, the last 500 Billion 50 returned to Obama for re-election was a bankrupt idea day one. Research, yes, production, No. Obama still wastes all or money with unproven gimmicks. STOP THE MADNESS.

  • Drifter

    Obama’s objective from the beginning has been (not so gradually) to degrade and destroy the American economy to the point of facilitating a complete government takeover. He had cover, in blaming Bush, during during his first term. During his second regime he has no fears about re-election and the gloves are off. The entire ‘green thrust’ by this administration has been to loot the taxpayers money by giving gifts of billions to his friends (even as they declare bankruptcy) and to recieve campaign and other (more direct) ‘kickbacks’, directly and illegally benefiting himself and the Progessive Socialist movement, which has taken over the country. Rod Blagojevich went to prison for a much smaller example of exactly the same kind of pay for play.

    Goodbye America…

    • tlgeer

      “Obama’s objective from the beginning has been (not so gradually) to degrade and destroy the American economy to the point of facilitating a complete government takeover.”

      You know, I’ve seen so many people state something like this.

      What FACTS lead you to believe something like this?

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Facts don’t enter into it. People like this HOLD BELIEFS rather than think. Their beliefs may be completely wrong if one looks objectively at the facts of the matter, but they will cling to their beliefs no matter what evidence you may present. They are called “motivated reasoners” and they are many on this site . That’s why you see so much of the “same”.

  • Louis Lemieux

    I’m convinced that with Obamacare Americans are going to save a bundle down the road: better health to a whole lot more people means a lot of savings later on.

    I’m convinced that with Obamagreen Americans are going to save again a bundle: a healthful environment means food will grow better, be more abundant and cost less. It also means without so much pollution Americans will be healthier, have more energy and achieve better in life.

    Of course investing in the future costs money and those who are too shortsighted cannot see well enough the benefits, they just want to hold on to everything they have right now.

    • AJ

      Oh yes a GMO Green environment how lovely!

      • Louis Lemieux

        Nothing wrong with GMO provided there’s adequate regulatory oversight to prevent potential hazards. GMO can be a boon to humans everywhere.

      • jruss45

        Genetic Modification is a tool that can be used for good or evil. Unfortunately, the two genetic modifications of food in the United States make us sick. The first GM is to take a gene from bacillus thuringiensis [Bt] that makes the poison called the Bt-toxin that not only kills open the stomachs of insects, but puts holes in our stomach and gut that causes leakage, inflammation, and many health problems. The second GM is to make foods “RoundUp Ready” by making them able to grow without metal nutrients and therefore unable to sustain life. Without chromium, insulin does not work, i.e. type 2 diabetes. Without cobalt we cannot make vitamin B-12 to regulate cell division and growth. Without magnesium, manganese, zinc, etc. our immune system becomes sick and unable to protect us from disease, including cancer. http://FarTooMuch.Info/GMHC.htm . Much of the cost of non-trauma United States health care can be attributed to the devastation caused by GM foods, the herbicides used with them, GM vaccines, and toxins added to our air, water, land, food & vaccines.

    • George E


      Why shouldn’t people get to hold on to more of the money they earn? Are you willing to give the government more of “your” money for these programs, or do you expect the “1%” to pay for all that as well?

      • Right Brain Thinker


        You say: “Why shouldn’t people get to hold on to more of the money they earn? Are you willing to give the government more of “your” money for these programs, or do you expect the “1%” to pay for all that as well?”

        The problem we are facing is that we have had a certain portion of the population “holding on to their money” at the expense of everyone else and to the detriment of the greater good of the nation. All need to pay for the “programs” that hold our nation together and nearly all do except for the most unfortunate among us. And the greedy 1%, the ones who have been accumulating wealth by stealing it from the nation as a whole, DO need to bear a greater share of the burden. I can’t speak for Louis, but I am willing to pay more, and believe that most REAL Americans would also. Especially if they could see that the burden was being shared equitably.

  • GALT

    For the “functionally illiterate and willfully ignorant.”

    If you believe there is SCIENCE that supports your position, feel free to go here….

    Each of these briefly described arguments is linked to the SCIENCE for BOTH SIDES

    If there is any SCIENCE for your position, it will be posted and the scientist who made
    the claim……identified…….you will find all of the claims made here today in this list….
    if you wish to dispute what the SCIENCE go and bring the science back here……
    and get to refuting…….or better still refute it there……you will be rich and famous.

    Hey WAYNE, what are the odds of any one of these “idiots” becoming rich and famous?

    I hope that was not “too polite”?

    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths

    Here is a summary of global warming and climate change myths, sorted by recent popularity vs what science says. Click the response for a more detailed response. You can also view them sorted by taxonomy, by popularity, in a print-friendly version, with short URLs or with fixed numbers you can use for permanent references.

    Climate Myth vs What the Science Says
    1 “Climate’s changed before” Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
    2 “It’s the sun” In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions
    3 “It’s not bad” Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
    4 “There is no consensus” 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
    5 “It’s cooling” The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.
    6 “Models are unreliable” Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
    7 “Temp record is unreliable” The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.
    8 “Animals and plants can adapt” Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.
    9 “It hasn’t warmed since 1998″ For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.
    10 “Antarctica is gaining ice” Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate.
    11 “CO2 lags temperature” CO2 didn’t initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.
    12 “Ice age predicted in the 70s” The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.
    13 “Climate sensitivity is low” Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.
    14 “We’re heading into an ice age” Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.
    15 “Ocean acidification isn’t serious” Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains.
    16 “Hockey stick is broken” Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.
    17 “Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy” A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.
    18 “Hurricanes aren’t linked to global warming” There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming.
    19 “Glaciers are growing” Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.
    20 “Al Gore got it wrong” Al Gore book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.
    21 “It’s cosmic rays” Cosmic rays show no trend over the last 30 years & have had little impact on recent global warming.
    22 “1934 – hottest year on record” 1934 was one of the hottest years in the US, not globally.
    23 “It’s freaking cold!” A local cold day has nothing to do with the long-term trend of increasing global temperatures.
    24 “Extreme weather isn’t caused by global warming” Extreme weather events are being made more frequent and worse by global warming.
    25 “Sea level rise is exaggerated” A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century.
    26 “It’s Urban Heat Island effect” Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend.
    27 “Medieval Warm Period was warmer” Globally averaged temperature now is higher than global temperature in medieval times.
    28 “Mars is warming” Mars is not warming globally.
    29 “Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle” Thick arctic sea ice is undergoing a rapid retreat.
    30 “Increasing CO2 has little to no effect” The strong CO2 effect has been observed by many different measurements.
    31 “Oceans are cooling” The most recent ocean measurements show consistent warming.
    32 “It’s a 1500 year cycle” Ancient natural cycles are irrelevant for attributing recent global warming to humans.
    33 “Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions” The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.
    34 “IPCC is alarmist” The IPCC summarizes the recent research by leading scientific experts.
    35 “Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas”
    Rising CO2 increases atmospheric water vapor, which makes global warming much worse.

    36 “Polar bear numbers are increasing” Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species.
    37 “CO2 limits will harm the economy”
    The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over.

    38 “It’s not happening”
    There are many lines of evidence indicating global warming is unequivocal.

    39 “Greenland was green” Other parts of the earth got colder when Greenland got warmer.
    40 “Greenland is gaining ice” Greenland on the whole is losing ice, as confirmed by satellite measurement.
    41 “CO2 is not a pollutant”
    Through its impacts on the climate, CO2 presents a danger to public health and welfare, and thus qualifies as an air pollutant

    42 “Other planets are warming” Mars and Jupiter are not warming, and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly.
    43 “CO2 is plant food”
    The effects of enhanced CO2 on terrestrial plants are variable and complex and dependent on numerous factors

    44 “There’s no empirical evidence” There are multiple lines of direct observations that humans are causing global warming.
    45 “Arctic sea ice has recovered” Thick arctic sea ice is in rapid retreat.
    46 “We’re coming out of the Little Ice Age”
    Scientists have determined that the factors which caused the Little Ice Age cooling are not currently causing global warming

    47 “There’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature” There is long-term correlation between CO2 and global temperature; other effects are short-term.
    48 “It cooled mid-century” Mid-century cooling involved aerosols and is irrelevant for recent global warming.
    49 “CO2 was higher in the past” When CO2 was higher in the past, the sun was cooler.
    50 “It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low” Early 20th century warming is due to several causes, including rising CO2.
    51 “Satellites show no warming in the troposphere” The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming.
    52 “Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????”
    Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.

    53 “It’s aerosols” Aerosols have been masking global warming, which would be worse otherwise.
    54 “It’s El Niño” El Nino has no trend and so is not responsible for the trend of global warming.
    55 “There’s no tropospheric hot spot” We see a clear “short-term hot spot” – there’s various evidence for a “long-term hot spot”.
    56 “Mt. Kilimanjaro’s ice loss is due to land use” Most glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, notwithstanding a few complicated cases.
    57 “It’s Pacific Decadal Oscillation” The PDO shows no trend, and therefore the PDO is not responsible for the trend of global warming.
    58 “It’s a natural cycle” No known natural forcing fits the fingerprints of observed warming except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
    59 “It’s not us” Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.
    60 “2009-2010 winter saw record cold spells” A cold day in Chicago in winter has nothing to do with the trend of global warming.
    61 “IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers”
    Glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, despite 1 error in 1 paragraph in a 1000 page IPCC report.

    62 “Scientists can’t even predict weather” Weather and climate are different; climate predictions do not need weather detail.
    63 “Greenhouse effect has been falsified” The greenhouse effect is standard physics and confirmed by observations.
    64 “2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory” The 2nd law of thermodynamics is consistent with the greenhouse effect which is directly observed.
    65 “The science isn’t settled” That human CO2 is causing global warming is known with high certainty & confirmed by observations.
    66 “CO2 limits will hurt the poor”
    Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change.

    67 “Clouds provide negative feedback” Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative.
    68 “Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated” Sea level rise is now increasing faster than predicted due to unexpectedly rapid ice melting.
    69 “It’s the ocean” The oceans are warming and moreover are becoming more acidic, threatening the food chain.
    70 “IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests” The IPCC statement on Amazon rainforests was correct, and was incorrectly reported in some media.
    71 “Corals are resilient to bleaching” Globally about 1% of coral is dying out each year.
    72 “Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans” Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
    73 “CO2 effect is saturated” Direct measurements find that rising CO2 is trapping more heat.
    74 “Greenland ice sheet won’t collapse” When Greenland was 3 to 5 degrees C warmer than today, a large portion of the Ice Sheet melted.
    75 “It’s methane” Methane plays a minor role in global warming but could get much worse if permafrost starts to melt.
    76 “CO2 is just a trace gas” Many substances are dangerous even in trace amounts; what really matters is the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    77 “CO2 has a short residence time” Excess CO2 from human emissions has a long residence time of over 100 years
    78 “CO2 measurements are suspect” CO2 levels are measured by hundreds of stations across the globe, all reporting the same trend.
    79 “Humidity is falling” Multiple lines of independent evidence indicate humidity is rising and provides positive feedback.
    80 “Neptune is warming” And the sun is cooling.
    81 “Springs aren’t advancing” Hundreds of flowers across the UK are flowering earlier now than any time in 250 years.
    82 “Jupiter is warming” Jupiter is not warming, and anyway the sun is cooling.
    83 “It’s land use” Land use plays a minor role in climate change, although carbon sequestration may help to mitigate.
    84 “500 scientists refute the consensus” Around 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming.
    85 “Scientists tried to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperature” The ‘decline’ refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.
    86 “CO2 is not increasing” CO2 is increasing rapidly, and is reaching levels not seen on the earth for millions of years.
    87 “Record snowfall disproves global warming” Warming leads to increased evaporation and precipitation, which falls as increased snow in winter.
    88 “They changed the name from global warming to climate change” ‘Global warming’ and ‘climate change’ mean different things and have both been used for decades.
    89 “Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun” The sun has not warmed since 1970 and so cannot be driving global warming.
    90 “Pluto is warming” And the sun has been recently cooling.
    91 “CO2 is coming from the ocean” The ocean is absorbing massive amounts of CO2, and is becoming more acidic as a result.
    92 “CO2 is not the only driver of climate” Theory, models and direct measurement confirm CO2 is currently the main driver of climate change.
    93 “Peer review process was corrupted” An Independent Review concluded that CRU’s actions were normal and didn’t threaten the integrity of peer review.
    94 “IPCC overestimate temperature rise” Monckton used the IPCC equation in an inappropriate manner.
    95 “Arctic was warmer in 1940″
    The actual data show high northern latitudes are warmer today than in 1940.

    96 “Southern sea ice is increasing” Antarctic sea ice has grown in recent decades despite the Southern Ocean warming at the same time.
    97 “CO2 limits will make little difference”
    If every nation agrees to limit CO2 emissions, we can achieve significant cuts on a global scale.

    98 “Sea level rise is decelerating”
    Global sea level data shows that sea level rise has been increasing since 1880 while future sea level rise predictions are based on physics, not statistics.

    99 “Renewable energy is too expensive”
    When you account for all of the costs associated with burning coal and other fossil fuels, like air pollution and health effects, in reality they are significantly more expensive than most renewable energy sources.

    100 “It’s microsite influences” Microsite influences on temperature changes are minimal; good and bad sites show the same trend.
    101 “Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995″ Phil Jones was misquoted.
    102 “Dropped stations introduce warming bias” If the dropped stations had been kept, the temperature would actually be slightly higher.
    103 “Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity” Lindzen and Choi’s paper is viewed as unacceptably flawed by other climate scientists.
    104 “It’s too hard” Scientific studies have determined that current technology is sufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to avoid dangerous climate change.
    105 “Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate” Humans are small but powerful, and human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.
    106 “It’s albedo” Albedo change in the Arctic, due to receding ice, is increasing global warming.
    107 “Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960″ This is a detail that is complex, local, and irrelevant to the observed global warming trend.
    108 “It’s not urgent”
    A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points.

    109 “It’s soot”
    Soot stays in the atmosphere for days to weeks; carbon dioxide causes warming for centuries.

    110 “Hansen’s 1988 prediction was wrong”
    Jim Hansen had several possible scenarios; his mid-level scenario B was right.

    111 “Roy Spencer finds negative feedback” Spencer’s model is too simple, excluding important factors like ocean dynamics and treats cloud feedbacks as forcings.
    112 “It’s global brightening” This is a complex aerosol effect with unclear temperature significance.
    113 “Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain” Arctic sea ice loss is three times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain.
    114 “It’s a climate regime shift” There is no evidence that climate has chaotic “regimes” on a long-term basis.
    115 “Earth hasn’t warmed as much as expected” This argument ignores the cooling effect of aerosols and the planet’s thermal inertia.
    116 “Solar cycles cause global warming” Over recent decades, the sun has been slightly cooling & is irrelevant to recent global warming.
    117 “Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming” Around 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming.
    118 “Ice isn’t melting”
    Arctic sea ice has shrunk by an area equal to Western Australia, and summer or multi-year sea ice might be all gone within a decade.

    119 “Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project” The ‘OISM petition’ was signed by only a few climatologists.
    120 “IPCC ‘disappeared’ the Medieval Warm Period”
    The IPCC simply updated their temperature history graphs to show the best data available at the time.

    121 “It’s ozone” Ozone has only a small effect.
    122 “Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted” Weather is chaotic but climate is driven by Earth’s energy imbalance, which is more predictable.
    123 “Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were ignored” An independent inquiry found CRU is a small research unit with limited resources and their rigour and honesty are not in doubt.
    124 “The IPCC consensus is phoney”
    113 nations signed onto the 2007 IPCC report, which is simply a summary of the current body of climate science evidence

    125 “Sea level is not rising” The claim sea level isn’t rising is based on blatantly doctored graphs contradicted by observations.
    126 “Tuvalu sea level isn’t rising” Tuvalu sea level is rising 3 times larger than the global average.
    127 “Climate ‘Skeptics’ are like Galileo” Modern scientists, not anti-science skeptics, follow in Galileo’s footsteps.
    128 “Trenberth can’t account for the lack of warming” Trenberth is talking about the details of energy flow, not whether global warming is happening.
    129 “Renewables can’t provide baseload power”
    A number of renewable sources already do provide baseload power, and we don’t need renewables to provide a large percentage of baseload power immediately.

    130 “Ice Sheet losses are overestimated” A number of independent measurements find extensive ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland.
    131 “CRU tampered with temperature data” An independent inquiry went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU’s results.
    132 “Naomi Oreskes’ study on consensus was flawed” Benny Peiser, the Oreskes critic, retracted his criticism.
    133 “A drop in volcanic activity caused warming” Volcanoes have had no warming effect in recent global warming – if anything, a cooling effect.
    134 “Melting ice isn’t warming the Arctic” Melting ice leads to more sunlight being absorbed by water, thus heating the Arctic.
    135 “Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup” By breathing out, we are simply returning to the air the same CO2 that was there to begin with.
    136 “Satellite error inflated Great Lakes temperatures” Temperature errors in the Great Lakes region are not used in any global temperature records.
    137 “Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature” Soares looks at short-term trends which are swamped by natural variations while ignoring the long-term correlation.
    138 “We’re heading into cooling” There is no scientific basis for claims that the planet will begin to cool in the near future.
    139 “Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural” Multiple lines of evidence make it very clear that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions.
    140 “It’s waste heat” Greenhouse warming is adding 100 times more heat to the climate than waste heat.
    141 “The sun is getting hotter” The sun has just had the deepest solar minimum in 100 years.
    142 “Water vapor in the stratosphere stopped global warming” This possibility just means that future global warming could be even worse.
    143 “CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration” That humans are causing the rise in atmospheric CO2 is confirmed by multiple isotopic analyses.
    144 “It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940″ The warming trend over 1970 to 2001 is greater than warming from both 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940.
    145 “An exponential increase in CO2 will result in a linear increase in temperature” CO2 levels are rising so fast that unless we decrease emissions, global warming will accelerate this century.
    146 “Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/2009″ Winter snow cover in 2008/2009 was average while the long-term trend in spring, summer, and annual snow cover is rapid decline.
    147 “Mauna Loa is a volcano” The global trend is calculated from hundreds of CO2 measuring stations and confirmed by satellites.
    148 “Venus doesn’t have a runaway greenhouse effect”
    Venus very likely underwent a runaway or ‘moist’ greenhouse phase earlier in its history, and today is kept hot by a dense CO2 atmosphere.

    149 “Skeptics were kept out of the IPCC?” Official records, Editors and emails suggest CRU scientists acted in the spirit if not the letter of IPCC rules.
    150 “Antarctica is too cold to lose ice” Glaciers are sliding faster into the ocean because ice shelves are thinning due to warming oceans.
    151 “Positive feedback means runaway warming” Positive feedback won’t lead to runaway warming; diminishing returns on feedback cycles limit the amplification.
    152 “Water levels correlate with sunspots” This detail is irrelevant to the observation of global warming caused by humans.
    153 “CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician” The sun was much cooler during the Ordovician.
    154 “CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused” Many lines of evidence, including simple accounting, demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human fossil fuel burning.
    155 “It’s CFCs” CFCs contribute at a small level.
    156 “Scientists retracted claim that sea levels are rising” The Siddall 2009 paper was retracted because its predicted sea level rise was too low.
    157 “Warming causes CO2 rise” Recent warming is due to rising CO2.
    158 “Coral atolls grow as sea levels rise” Thousands of coral atolls have “drowned” when unable to grow fast enough to survive at sea level.
    159 “It’s internal variability”
    Internal variability can only account for small amounts of warming and cooling over periods of decades, and scientific studies have consistently shown that it cannot account for the global warming over the past century.

    160 “Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass” Greenland’s ice loss is accelerating & will add metres of sea level rise in upcoming centuries.
    161 “DMI show cooling Arctic” While summer maximums have showed little trend, the annual average Arctic temperature has risen sharply in recent decades.
    162 “CO2 limits won’t cool the planet” CO2 limits won’t cool the planet, but they can make the difference between continued accelerating global warming to catastrophic levels vs. slowing and eventually stopping the warming at hopefully safe levels
    163 “Renewable energy investment kills jobs” Investment in renewable energy creates more jobs than investment in fossil fuel energy.
    164 “Royal Society embraces skepticism” The Royal Society still strongly state that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming.
    165 “It’s only a few degrees” A few degrees of global warming has a huge impact on ice sheets, sea levels and other aspects of climate.
    166 “It’s satellite microwave transmissions” Satellite transmissions are extremely small and irrelevant.
    167 “CO2 only causes 35% of global warming”
    CO2 and corresponding water vapor feedback are the biggest cause of global warming.

    168 “Sea level fell in 2010″ The temporary drop in sea level in 2010 was due to intense land flooding caused by a strong La Nina.
    169 “We didn’t have global warming during the Industrial Revolution” CO2 emissions were much smaller 100 years ago.
    170 “Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater”
    Hansen was speculating on changes that might happen if CO2 doubled.

    171 “Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick”
    Ljungqvist’s temperature reconstruction is very similar to other reconstructions by Moberg and Mann.

    172 “Removing all CO2 would make little difference” Removing CO2 would cause most water in the air to rain out and cancel most of the greenhouse effect.
    173 “Postma disproved the greenhouse effect” Postma’s model contains many simple errors; in no way does Postma undermine the existence or necessity of the greenhouse effect.

    Many thanks to Dr. Jan Dash, Director of the UU-UNO’s Climate Portal for writing many of the one line responses in ‘What the Science Says’, with some edits by John Cook.

  • AJ

    Hurican Sandy, Global warming?? or HARRP? Mmmmmm?????

  • Rick

    It’s all apart of the UN’s Agenda 21 that’s sitting on O’s desk for his approval. Go read about it, it’s all about power and control even tho they make it sound so sweet… Read the truth, scary as allllll hell. If your the younger generation, you will see the future that the government controls every aspect of your life…… Don’t fall for this bull, if you do, someday you will be sorry. Good luck!

  • Dee

    obummer doesn’t give a damn about the United States. He wants to take us down.

  • GALT

    Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Reach New Record

    Posted on 22 November 2012 by John Hartz
    This is a reprint of a news release posted by the World Meteorological Organization on Nov 20, 2012.

    WMO Bulletin highlights pivotal role of carbon sinks
    Geneva, 20 November (WMO) – The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached a new record high in 2011, according to the World Meteorological Organization. Between 1990 and 2011 there was a 30% increase in radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate – because of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping long-lived gases;

    Since the start of the industrial era in 1750, about 375 billion tonnes of carbon have been released into the atmosphere as CO2, primarily from fossil fuel combustion, according to WMO’s 2011 Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, which had a special focus on the carbon cycle. About half of this carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere, with the rest being absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

    “These billions of tonnes of additional carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will remain there for centuries, causing our planet to warm further and impacting on all aspects of life on earth,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “Future emissions will only compound the situation.”

    “Until now, carbon sinks have absorbed nearly half of the carbon dioxide humans emitted in the atmosphere, but this will not necessarily continue in the future. We have already seen that the oceans are becoming more acidic as a result of the carbon dioxide uptake, with potential repercussions for the underwater food chain and coral reefs. There are many additional interactions between greenhouse gases, Earth’s biosphere and oceans, and we need to boost our monitoring capability and scientific knowledge in order to better understand these,” said Mr Jarraud.

    “WMO’s Global Atmosphere Watch network, spanning more than 50 countries, provides accurate measurements which form the basis of our understanding of greenhouse gas concentrations, including their many sources, sinks and chemical transformations in the atmosphere,” said Mr Jarraud.

    The role of carbon sinks is pivotal in the overall carbon equation. If the extra CO2 emitted is stored in reservoirs such as the deep oceans, it could be trapped for hundreds or even thousands of years. By contrast, new forests retain carbon for a much shorter time span.

    The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin reports on atmospheric concentrations – and not emissions – of greenhouse gases. Emissions represent what goes into the atmosphere. Concentrations represent what remains in the atmosphere after the complex system of interactions between the atmosphere, biosphere and the oceans.

    CO2 is the most important of the long-lived greenhouse gases – so named because they trap radiation within the Earth’s atmosphere causing it to warm. Human activities, such as fossil fuel burning and land use change (for instance, tropical deforestation), are the main sources of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The other main long-lived greenhouse gases are methane and nitrous oxide. Increasing concentrations of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are drivers of climate change.

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Annual Greenhouse Gas Index, quoted in the bulletin, shows that from 1990 to 2011, radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases increased by 30%, with CO2 accounting for about 80% of this increase. Total radiative forcing of all long-lived greenhouse gases was the CO2 equivalent of 473 parts per million in 2011.

    Carbon dioxide (CO2)
    Carbon dioxide is the single most important greenhouse gas emitted by human activities. It is responsible for 85% of the increase in radiative forcing over the past decade. According to WMO’s bulletin, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reached 390.9 parts per million in 2011, or 140% of the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million.

    The pre-industrial era level represented a balance of CO2 fluxes between the atmosphere, the oceans and the biosphere. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased on average by 2 parts per million per year for the past 10 years.

    Methane (CH4)
    Methane is the second most important long-lived greenhouse gas. Approximately 40% of methane is emitted into the atmosphere by natural sources (e.g., wetlands and termites), and about 60 % comes from activities like cattle breeding, rice agriculture, fossil fuel exploitation, landfills and biomass burning. Atmospheric methane reached a new high of about 1813 parts per billion (ppb) in 2011, or 259% of the pre-industrial level, due to increased emissions from anthropogenic sources. Since 2007, atmospheric methane has been increasing again after a period of levelling-off with a nearly constant rate during the last 3 years.

    Nitrous oxide (N2O)
    Nitrous oxide is emitted into the atmosphere from both natural (about 60%) and anthropogenic sources (approximately 40%), including oceans, soil, biomass burning, fertilizer use, and various industrial processes. Its atmospheric concentration in 2011 was about 324.2 parts per billion, which is 1.0 ppb above the previous year and 120% of the pre-industrial level. Its impact on climate, over a 100 year period, is 298 times greater than equal emissions of carbon dioxide. It also plays an important role in the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer which protects us from the harmful ultraviolet rays of the sun.

    Source: 2011 Greenhouse Gas Bulletin

    • marcjeric32

      CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition. CO2 absorbs 1/7th as much infrared heat energy from sunlight as water vapor which has 80 times as many molecules capturing 560 times as much heat making 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Perhaps someone can explain to me why this can be considered a “replY” to the excellent information GALT so graciously provided for us? (Thank you, GALT)

        It adds nothing, clarifies nothing, asks nothing. It does perhaps show us that Marc (like all engineers) is able to look up data in some reference, manipulate it using his slide rule, and then report on it, as useless as that “report” may be. More evidence of why we don’t need engineers intruding on the science of AGW.

        Did you even read the information in GALT’s post, Marc? Did you notice that water vapor is not even mentioned in the WMO report, which IS about greenhouse gases? Do you know why that is? GALT and I and others know, why don’t you?.

  • richard holmes

    obamboo should ware a grass overcoat.

  • marcjeric32

    The global warming conspiracy needs to be put in perspective to be properly understood. This far-left attack by government-paid drones started in the 1970′s with the global cooling scam: we should disarm our nuclear bombers and fill them with soot to be spread over the poles and so prevent those new glaciers from descending south and crushing the New York skyscrapers to dust. When that did not work the same fakers invented the global warming hoax in the 1990′s; we should nationalize all industries and organize a UN-sponsored world socialist government based on “social justice” with the fakers in charge. What with 12 years of substantial cooling the fakers switched to the climate change flimflam in the 2000′s; so whatever happens we should…see above under the global warming hoax. And now we are faced with the cap & trade power grab – but the aim is the same as above. Our socialists, Marxists, communists, Hollywood stars, university professors in social and political “sciences”, and environmentalists are all clamoring for action while spurring President Obama (“Tomorrow the oceans will stop rising and the planet will start healing”) and his 35 czars/commissars to undertake immediate measures to save the planet – with the same aims as described above.
    It is evident from the above quote that our President believes himself to be either Jesus come back to Earth, or at least the 12th Imam so ardently desired by that jihadist terrorist Ahmadinejad. …see above under the global warming hoax. And now we are faced with the cap & trade power grab – but the aim is the same as above. Our socialists, Marxists, communists, Hollywood stars, university professors in social and political “sciences”, and environmentalists (i.e., eco-Nazis) are all clamoring for action while spurring President Obama (“Tomorrow the oceans will stop rising and the planet will start healing”) and his 35 czars/commissars to undertake immediate measures to save the planet – with the same aims as described above. Like to the Pinocchio in the fable, Obama’s nose grows longer with every lie he pronounces, while jumping up the steps to his teleprompter like a marionette.
    Another thing ignored is the “Global Warming Petition” (see Internet) where 31,487 independent US scientists (including 9,029 of them with PhD degrees) dispute decisively the findings of the UN-sponsored panel; also ignored is the “Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change” (see also Internet) where a smaller number of competent world scientists, about 712, including 142 pure climatologists, state the same – i.e., that the man-caused catastrophic global warming is a farce. The books by Christopher Horner, Robert Carter, Patrick Michaels, Lawrence Solomon, John Berlau, Steven Milloy, Ian Murray, Christopher Booker, R. C. Balling, D. Avery, S. F. Singer, Brian Sussman, and AW Montford describing the lies, fakes, phony data, opposite conclusions, redacting by UN political hacks, reverse graphs, etc., have exposed this far-left propaganda in painful detail. In the case of the above mentioned Petition, several “environmentalists” had submitted phony names with phony credentials in order to sabotage that effort. It took several years of painstaking and expensive effort (that effort cost us more private money, no oil money there) to clean up the list from those saboteurs and verify all academic and professional data of the signatories.
    To put this whole conspiracy in terms of numbers, let me say that the projected world-threatening increase of carbon dioxide of 100 ppm (parts per million) by the end of this century would increase thermal absorptivity of the atmosphere by one-eighth of one percent; that is the definition of something totally negligible. On the other hand the sun cycles of cooling and heating are many thousands of times more powerful with regard to the carbon dioxide in the air; when the sun is in its cold cycle the oceans absorb billions of tons of it; and when the sun heats up the oceans release the carbon dioxide in quantities many thousands of times bigger than anything the mankind could produce. To illustrate this point in more accessible terms to somebody who is not a climatologist or a scientist or an engineer; the argument of catastrophic anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming issued by our panic driven socialist/Marxist government-paid hacks is like saying that a burp of a lonely wolf in Alaska will transform Florida into a Sahara-like desert – tomorrow! Perhaps an even better example would be to argue that the Pissing Boy in Bruxelles will inundate the continents by the end of the week. As for that bloviating gasbag and “climatologist” Al Gore; Dr. James Hansen with his tirades designed to get him more taxpayers’ money and who started his career by the global cooling scam in the 1970’s; as well as for Dr. Mann who inverted cause and effect in his “studies”; for Phil Jones who destroyed faked data; and for the corrupt Maurice Strong who started the whole affair – they should all be brought to the International Court in The Hague on charges of crimes against humanity.
    Marc Jeric (MS, PhD, Engineering, UCLA)

    • Right Brain Thinker

      When I got to the end, I was shocked to find that this was not something from WTS(Jay), i.e., a word-for-word quote lazily taken from one of his wing nut denier web sites. No, it is from Marc, who talks somewhere in there about “phony credentials” and proudly gives us his. Does that make him “smarter”? More of an “authority”? What? I have often heard that PhD means “piled higher and deeper” or “piled higher and dumber” but will leave it to others to decide if either of those fit Marc.

      I’m sure Marc’s “credentials” are NOT phony but I do suggest that the contents of this posting clearly illustrate why we don’t have want to have many engineers working on global warming, and the few that do are not among the “experts”. It is NOT their area of expertise and engineers are NOT even scientists. They do know and use some science as it relates to their specialized fields, use math extensively, and may even be called upon to help design apparatus for global warming research, but they are on the bottom of the expertise pile when it comes to being an authority on AGW.

      Climatologists rank first, scientists in general come next (depending on their field), and engineers come last. Well educated laymen can even sneak up in there among the scientists and easily surpass the engineers. Marc even seems to recognize that hierarchy when he condescendingly offers “to illustrate this point in more accessible terms to somebody who is not a climatologist or a scientist or an engineer” and then proceeds to insult us with talk about “wolf burps”. I would suggest that Marc fits best in that category that some have called “Smart Idiots”. Those are people who think that knowledge in one field makes them knowledgeable in ALL fields.

      And to finish with a suggestion that anyone who is concerned about the dangers of AGW “should all be brought to the International Court in The Hague on charges of crimes against humanity” is an incredible thing to say. It shows where Marc is “coming from” and completely destroys his credibility with all but the irrational on this site.

      (It also rates -1/2 Lord love a ducks)

      • George E


        You’re attacking the person, not the information, and calling those of us who line up with Marc as “irrational”. Name calling doesn’t solve the problem.

    • George E

      Thanks, Marc. I appreciate the detailed input.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        What is irrational is your statement that you “line up with” someone who blithely states that people who care about the fate of humanity and the planet “should all be brought to (trial) on charges of crimes against humanity”. If you believe that should happen, you’re irrational.

        There isn’t a single instance of name-calling in my comment. Most of it consists of me not attacking “Marc the person” but attacking his message. I attacked Marc’s attempts to make you believe that he, as an engineer, had any business setting himself up as an expert on climate change and AGW.

        If you think “Smart Idiot” is a name, you’re mistaken—it is an accepted term used by behavioral scientists to describe people “who think that knowledge in one field makes them knowledgeable in ALL fields”, as i said in the next sentence. It’s appropriate to use it to describe Marc.

        You might look at Marc’s use of “drones, fakers, hacks, saboteurs, gasbags, and criminals” if you’re looking for name calling.

        All of that aside, the real problem we have is that people like Marc (with some unknown but likely political agenda, from the sound of of it) spout nonsense and misinformation and mislead people.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Can you tell us why you have such confidence in what Marc tells you? Why do you “line up with Marc” rather than with me even though Marc misleads you and I don’t? It’s time to quit for the night but I’d like to hear some answers from you there. I will talk about why you should NOT be thanking Marc for his “detailed misinformation” tomorrow.

        • George E


          In my judgement, Marc is correct, and you are wrong on this issue. Call it knowledge, instinct, or whatever, that’s where I’m at……………….still, but also still open to new information. No matter how confident you are that you are correct, you can not be 100% confident, which simply tells me you could be wrong, and I believe you know that as well. So, maybe you should open your mind to new inputs as well.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        George E says: “Thanks, Marc. I appreciate the detailed input”.

        What George has thanked Marc for is feeding him a horsepucky sandwich. It is incredible to me that George wolfed it down and actually THANKED Marc. It had to taste awful. But maybe not, now that I think of it. George’s mental “taste buds” have been so dulled by all that mindless dogma he has swallowed that he is no longer able to tell the difference between horsepucky and peanut butter. George says to himself “It looks like peanut butter, I WANT it to BE peanut butter, I won’t listen to anyone who says it is NOT peanut butter” and “lines up with” Marc. Sad but true.

        Marc’s entire posting is so loaded with political diatribe that it is obvious that he is not really concerned about educating anyone about AGW. He is just throwing more horsepucky into the unending stream that comes from the ignorant and uninformed on the right. Let’s look at just one steaming pile of horsepucky that Marc brings up (and remember that PHD means “Piled Higher and Deeper”)

        Marc says: “Another thing ignored is the “Global Warming Petition” (see Internet) where 31,487 independent US scientists (including 9,029 of them with PhD degrees) dispute decisively the findings of the UN-sponsored panel;” This is one of the things that George goes “WOW!” over and says “Feed me more!”

        I CANNOT believe that Marc has said “(see Internet)”. That’s like a bank robber saying to the FBI “Be sure to look at the bank’s security camera tapes because I’m on there”. A quick look at “the Internet” is very illuminating for anyone who doesn’t know the sad story of the Global Warming Petition—I already know the story but went there to refresh my memory and get some FACTS to share with you.

        It is a FACT that the GWP (for short) is probably the biggest embarrassment the AGW deniers have ever had. It has been proven that the petition was started and circulated in a dishonest and misleading way—-so bad that one commentator said “IT STINKS” (Marc’s comments about the need to “clean up” the petition are a clue to part of its “stinkiness” and might lead one to believe Marc is a “driving force” on the GWP). It is a FACT that many of the original signers removed their names after finding out how they had been misled.

        (I signed a similar petition back in the 70’s and had my name appear with hundreds of others in a full-page ad in the Washington Post. It was a petition against nuclear power plants. I would not sign such a petition today because AGW has caused me to rethink my position on nuclear power and I now support it. That’s the difference between Marc and the GWP signers and folks like me. We don’t mindlessly sign Grover Norquist type pledges purely on the basis of wrong-headed ideology. We think.)

        Lets look at some figures from the GWP projects own website. Impressive numbers, 31,487 degreed signers, especially the 9000+ Piled Higher and Deepers. The GWP site lists the academic specialties of all these highly educated folks. When one tallies them up, some interesting FACTS emerge. How do they break down? (rounded off a bit)

        First, only 3800 have degrees in the area called “Atmospheric, Earth, and Environmental”.. They are the only ones of the 31.487 with even a marginal claim to expertise on AGW. Within that group we have fewer than 600 in “Atmospheric” and only 150 in the group that can truly be called “climatologists”. So, the real experts on AGW are not signing the GWP. And among physicists, only 1/2 of 1% of the 50,000 physicists belonging to the American Physical Society signed (99.5% did not and there was some “stink” there too—the APS was mistreated by the AGW project).

        So who is signing? Who are these nearly 35,000 people? Tallying some more numbers, we find the following. Some 935 are in the “Computer and Math” field (not a lot but number crunchers are needed). Another 3,000 are in the “Medicine” field (Nobody goes to a climatologist when they have chest pains—it is illogical to expect medical folks to have expertise in climatology). Another 1000 are in the “Agriculture” field.

        The biggest NON-SURPRISE is that around 15,000 of the signers ARE ENGINEERS of one variety or other—that’s nearly half. And over 9000 of those are in the sub-category “GENERAL Engineering”. I’m starting to hear echoes of “Smart Idiots” here. Or is it the idea of a “General Expert” that gets me chuckling?

        So, it would appear that this part Marc’s horsepucky pile is exactly that. A “petition” that includes only a few individuals that are truly qualified to pass judgment on AGW is meaningless.

        But Marc really knows this. That’s why he then said “also ignored is the “Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change” (see also Internet) where a smaller number of COMPETENT world scientists, about 712, including 142 PURE climatologists, state the same – i.e., that the man-caused catastrophic global warming is a farce”. Notice that he is stressing the word “competent”—perhaps because so many of the truly competent had questioned the collective “competence” of the 31,487. One could ask him to define “competent” but why bother? A look at the numbers says it all—712 is the number that might attend a high school basketball game in a small town and 142 is the number you might find shopping at a K-mart on any Saturday. Not worth talking about (unless you’re desperate).

        So, George—we’ve come full circle. What do you think of MY “detailed input”. There are other “sandwiches” buried in Marc’s “horsepucky” pile that I can give you “detailed input” on, but it smells so bad that I’ll stop digging in it for now and get some fresh air.

        • George E


          Thanks for your “detailed” input, and the time you took to try to explain your position.

          My assessment of what you’ve been saying, however, is “We’re right. You’re wrong, and you’re dumb if you don’t agree with us.” I don’t think that’s a compelling argument.

          As I’ve said in several posts, my bar for agreeing with man-made global warming advocates is very high, primarily because of the “solutions” they propose. I don’t care if you get 10 scientists to endorse that theory to my 1 scientist, that just tells me the question is not settled, so we should continue doing research, gathering data, and debating the “facts”. I’m not ready to throw in the towel on our economy and standard of living to please a group of people that really don’t have my best interests at heart anyway, regardless what they say. If they did care about me, they would show more concern for the damage their solutions would have on most of us when they wreck our economy “fighting” something they may not be able to affect anyway.

          This debate reminds me of a few situations where one of my very bright engineers/scientists has come to me with an idea he/she is convinced will change the world, and wants my approval to proceed with the project. As a manager, I’ve got to weigh his/her inputs with other factors like budget, return on investment, priorities, etc. When I thank him/her for the recommendation and tell him/her I’m not ready to move on the project yet, he/she gets upset because he/she can only see the “science”. I see global warming kind of like that. We’ve got to be very careful with it because the impact of global warming or the “solution” to global warming can be devastating to us. it’s not enough to know that CO2 emissions from man-made sources are contributing to this “problem”. We’ve also got to consider the alternatives and their impact on our life as well.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        I won’t spend much time on this, George. I need to help the wife put up the Christmas Tree. And you need to digest my message about all the horsepucky sandwiches you’ve been eating. I’m waiting to hear your response to my final questions before I say much more on Marc and you. While you’re digesting, consider this also:

        “Judgment” implies weighing facts and arguments and analyzing them in a rational and open-minded way (without bias) until you reach a supportable conclusion. You are incapable of doing that, so you are therefore incapable of pronouncing “judgment” on anything much beyond saying “the sky is blue”.

        Your “judgment” is certainly not based on knowledge—you have time and again displayed your LACK of knowledge on AGW.

        “Instinct” comes much closer to “where you’re at”. If we accept that instinct is an automatic, unthinking response to stimulus, that’s you. You operate from that “thing” I’m always talking about and you’re not alone on this site. That “thing” being blind, mindless, closed minded, and irrational adherence to wrong doctrines, ideologies, and dogma—that “thing” that afflicts so many who call themselves conservatives but are really not.

        And, by definition, RBT’s and “liberals-progressives” ARE open in their thinking. That’s one of the traits that defines us. We DO seek new inputs constantly—-and evaluate them on their merits, not from a base of emotional belief as you do.

        And thanks for the morning laugh—-saying you are “open to new information”. LOL

        • George E


          Criticizing my judgment doesn’t endear me to your arguments or sway my judgment. It just infuriates me that you continue to bloviate about your brilliance and my ignorance. That may be true, but in the end if you want my “vote” you’ve got to do better than that. Criticizing me only puts you farther away from that goal. I will not be intimidated into agreeing with you.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        PS to George
        Just to make sure you get the point, everything I just said relates to your statement that “Marc is correct, and you (RBT) are wrong on this issue”.

        • George E

          That’s simply my current judgment on this matter.

  • Rafael Morales

    Obama’s mission is not saving the environment or giving everybody access to medical care. His mission, received from Soros et al, is to destroy they US as we know it.

  • Right Brain Thinker

    To get away from beating my head against George’s “thick skull” for a while, I will return to some comments I made a while back in the thread. At 8:10 and 8:47 on 11/24, to be specific. I accused Wake The Sleepers (Jay) of being AN INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL PIG for what he said in his “Frightening Quotes from Environmentalists” message and explained why I thought that to be true. That he was abusing your trust and manipulating you. We now need to look at the “Frightening Quotes” in a bit more detail to understand how he used them to try to warp your thinking.

    First, whenever one looks at a collection of quotes like this, one must realize that they are cherry-picked to prove some sort of point. Predictably, they came from a right wing site and Jay picked them from there solely for the “shock” value he knew they would have—predictable for Jay and typical of those who propagandize rather than educate. Jay wants you to blindly and emotionally react to the quotes, and George obliged him by doing just that.

    Accepting that they are cherry-picked, one then needs to look at context—-when were they said (recently or long ago?)—-who is the person who said them? (what is their status and expertise?)—-where were they said? (to a large group in a speech, in an interview, in an article or book). These kinds of things color the meaning of the quotes.

    So, the first manipulation that Jay used was to NOT QUOTE THE FULL SET OF QUOTES. He copied only the first 18 quotes out of a total of 32 and left the last 14 off.

    If Jay ever decides to defend himself (is he on vacation?), he will probably say “I thought the first 18 were enough”. A closer look at all 32 reveals that there may also be some hidden “propaganda” ploys at work—I believe that to be true and it’s another reason I called Jay a “PIG”—-let me list the games I believe Jay played with the data..

    1) There were dates on 12 of the total of 32 quotes—-37.5%. There were dates on only 3 of the 18 quotes Jay included—-16.6%. That is statistically significant—-there’s a “skew” there.
    2) The dates of the 3 quotes Jay included were 1982, 1995, and 1997,and they were the THREE MOST RECENT of all 12 quotes. The dates of the 9 quotes he conveniently left out were scattered across 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1975, and 1976—making them the OLDEST of the 12 quotes. Coincidence? Perhaps, but a test of statistical significance would show that to be very unlikely.
    3) The 6 quotes from Earth First in the total of 32 were all included in the 18 Jay quoted. Perhaps many of you know that Earth First was and is one of the most extreme environmentalist groups. I believe that Jay does and was hoping that seeing quotes from them would influence you.

    In closing, let’s go back to context. Something said 40 years ago in 1970 or 1971, in the context of the Earth Day mood and high level of environmental awareness and activism, and perhaps to a very sympathetic crowd is akin to George C. Scott’s opening speech in the movie Patton. That is perhaps “frightening” in some ways to some people today but in the context of WW2, it is not. We could mention also that Prince Phillip is in many ways the UK’s answer to Joe Biden so what he said may have been a bad joke—they love Prince P and we love Joe, and in the greater scheme of things, it is manipulative to use their quotes..

    I would also suggest that you go back and reread all the quotes several times and THINK about what they SAY, not just react to the words quickly. If you do, you will see that the quotes make valid and “UNfrightening” points from the perspective of the big picture—what is good for the Biosphere. If anyone wants an explanation of that contention for any single quote, just ask—I would be glad to try to provide you one.

    The quotes are not what Jay wants you to believe they are. He was dishonest in using them. the way he did.

  • James

    People that voted for Obama, will never believe anything until it is too late. Al Gore, got rich from Globaal Warming loll Warmingl Warming. China is getting our coal and they keep burning it—–where is the smoke going. I have realitives that lived in a small town and at that time everybody burned coal. In the winter the snow was on the grown and covered with soot, it was all over the snow—–NOT ONE person died of lung problems. Most of the miners that work in the mines, with lung problems—-they smoke or did smoke! Global Warming!!!! lol. One thing about Fox News, they show people saying something and go back and show another clip where they are not telling the truth—-The othe news, only show the first thing was said and people believe the lie. Fox backs up what they are saying!!! Listen and you will see.

  • chris

    REALLY!!!!! beam me up scotty, there is no intelligent life here.

  • James

    We are in trouble—–Obama, along with the EPA will destroy small business by putting stipulations on everything. Obama,said they are drilling—–yes, this is on private land and guess what??? He along with the EPA will stop this also. He is going to destroy America.
    One fellow said Romney was going to do away with coal, he had this wrong it was Obama. This is how people are misinformed. This is why Obama didn’t get WV, and this little state is a democratic state. Global Warming—-People are getting rich from Global Warming and
    Al Gore, for one!!!

  • Right Brain Thinker

    Why do so many threads on PLD peter out in just a few days? Is it because the average PLD commenter has the attention span of a fifth grader? Or because the circular firing squad has killed the willfully ignorant off? Or because the forces of truth have buried all the misinformation and willful ignorance?

    BTW I would recommend a look at the “Political Irony: Humor and Hypocrisy from the World of Politics” website for a piece that has meaning across MANY PLD threads

    “Reality, Triumphant” Sunday, December 2, 2012

    And for a final dose of “reality” on this thread, has anyone noticed the just-released study on ice sheet melting? The Greenland ice sheet is melting at an ever-increasing rate and the Antarctic ice sheet IS now melting rather than growing—the AGW deniers will no longer have that to use as a “but, what about….?” distraction. THE ICE IS NOW MELTING EVERYWHERE, FOLKS! AGW IS REAL AND IT’S COMING TO GET US!

  • JD

    Oh, and our population has done sooo well by our environment that you want to put it in back in dirty hands?? Is it sooo terrible that Obama wants to support sustainable energy sources which can actually create new jobs that would provide people with a better conscience and a better environment?? You right wingers make me sick, as does this article. I’m ashamed of the ignorance contained in the article and the ignorance shown in so many of these comments.

    • George E


      Speaking of ignorance, where all all those jobs that are going to be provided from these “new” sustainable energy sources? They aren’t there are they? The reason is these “new” forms of energy aren’t competitive in the market. People won’t pay more for energy created from those sources than they will traditional forms of energy, ie, fossil fuels. If anything ought to make you sick, it ought to be the waste of our money this government has been doing pushing these uneconomical sources of energy on the market.

  • JD

    Come on George E, you KNOW these things take time to create. Ever heard the expression “Rome wasn’t built in a day”? Obama is cleaning up a big fat mess that was created by the GOP and those that could care less about the environment like yourself (talk about uneconomical). At least we have someone in the White House that has a LONG TERM vision for the future for our environment amongst other things.
    One of the most ridiculous things about this article is that the author actually blames Romney’s loss on Sandy. That made me chuckle.

    • George E

      We should spend a lot of money and time on R&D to “try” to find more economical methods of creating energy. However, we should NOT pay companies to put these technologies in the market before the technology or market is ready…………like we are presently doing. That’s a big waste of our money.

      Obama hasn’t cleaned up anything. He is making a mess of our economy, our health care system, and much of our culture. He’s trying to screw up tax policy as well.

      How do you know Obama’s vision is “long term?” Has anything he’s wanted or tried to do so far actually worked out well? Not in my opinion.

      Romney’s loss was more likely due to voter apathy and ignorance than anything, and possibly a bit of voter fraud thrown in. The media certainly did their part to help Obama by helping the administration cover up details of the Benghazi terrorist attack, and by not highlight the incompetence of the federal government’s response to hurricane Sandy’s devastation to the Northeast.

      I can’t think of anything this administration has done so far that I think is good. I’d rate Obama behind every President from the beginning of the 20th century, except possibly Wilson, FDR, and LBJ, but the way he’s going, I expect him to fall behind them before this second term is over.

  • JD

    Oh, and what good will a job or your money do you when our planet can no longer sustain itself because we’ve abused it so?

    • George E

      The problem is you really don’t know that the planet is being abused so badly by mankind that it can’t repair itself. However, I do know that if we yield to extremists who want to “fix” this “problem” they will wreck our economy and take away many of the liberties we still have. I’d rather fight the problem I know rather than one I don’t know.

  • JD

    George E, are you sure your name isn’t George W? I guess researchers, including NASA scientists, are wrong in concluding that human activity such as burning fossil fuels is causing our planet to warm and sea levels to rise because of rapidly melting polar ice? Give me your credentials as a scientist and prove me wrong here. Something needs to be done to prevent tragedies like Sandy from continuing to happen. How long do you propose putting this off? Until more people lose their homes and/or their lives? or worse? Interesting that you find this R&D a “big waste of money”.

    I voted for Obama (obviously), so apparently you think I’m ignorant? And in terms of voter fraud, I believe it was the Romney campaign that was attempting to prevent people from voting…including our own veterans who don’t possess a “picture ID”. I’m laughing out loud that you think the Obama campaign cheated when he won by a significant number in terms of the electoral vote. Also interesting you think that Obama is capable of forging 4+ million popular votes. I find that to be along the lines of an unwarranted conspiracy theory on your part. As for voter apathy, I guess you would have your own political party to blame.

    Pure and simple, Obama still has A LOT to clean up….especially after what George W inflicted upon our economy. And if you think he’s messed up our health care system, our culture, and could possibly mess up our tax policy…that leads me to believe that you support the 1%.

    • George E

      What would you propose to do to “fix” the global warming dilemma that wouldn’t wreck our economy? My guess is your solution would certainly do more harm than any global warming that might be taking place. This science is not settled, so it would be premature to come to any judgment.

      I am convinced you have immersed yourself 100% in liberal/progressive/socialist philosophies such that you really can’t see any other alternatives. Such a shame because those philosophies are basically wrong in every way possible.

      • AB

        I just HAVE to chime in here. By stating that every progressive philosophy is wrong identifies you as an extremist. Is that really what you are aiming for? Are you trying to say that we are wasting our effort in trying to find alternatives to fossil fuel so that we may stay slaves to the Middle East? That current economic corporate theory is to move production jobs overseas, but retain management and retail services here so that management may reap the rewards of these intelligent economic moves. Plus lower taxes because they are the “job creators.” Amazing right-wing philosophy. Perhaps we should just move to a more religion-centric government, similar to what is currently found throughout the Middle East. That seems to be the way the Republican philosophy has platformed themselves, correct?

        • George E


          I expect to be called an extremist, or worst by progressives, but that’s OK with me because while I may agree with many of their goals/objectives, I clearly don’t agree with their tactics/methods. I think I’m probably closer to mainstream America than most progressives I know.

          I am not saying we are wasting our time trying to find alternative fuels to fossil fuels. I said we should invest in R&D doing this. We should NOT pay companies to bring these technologies to market. They should do that on their own when they are convinced the market is ready for those technologies. Having said that, we are very close now to being energy self-sufficient again, so the argument that we have to have alternative energies to get there just isn’t so. However, if the government continues to throw up barriers to exploration and production of our fossil fuels, we may never again get back to that point.

          US corporations don’t move operations offshore to punish their workers. They do it when they have to to compete in their industries. If we want manufacturers to stay in this country, we’ll have to find ways to help them compete. Raising taxes and loading them up with new government regulations is not the way to do it. If we don’t back off they will continue moving offshore and you can continue blaming the 1% for being greedy and unpatriotic, but that won’t fix the problem. It’s just going to get worse until we get into really bad shape. It would better if we could wise up sooner rather than later.

          I don’t know what you mean by “more religious centric” government. All that I or most conservatives want is to leave that part of our government alone the way it has been from the beginning. In other words, quit trying to take all religious references out of our government. They should be vague enough not to offend anyone, except possibly atheists. They’re such a very small portion of our society that we shouldn’t feel it necessary to change our heritage and traditions to satisfy them.

    • pweiters9

      12/4/12, In 1938 there was a major storm that devastated lives & property; no one blamed any “global warming.” This i the biggest con of our time. Everyone should have ID; you need ID everywhere you go. Some people, like you, evidently, think polls should be exempt; so does Bam. I’ve met the enemy. It’s you.

  • JD

    George E- Looks like AB schooled you before I had the chance. I’ll let him pick apart what you just said if he so chooses as it so deserves to be.

    I won’t waste my time on you as you are uninformed in a number of ways. You want to keep in place policies that have put our economy in this state in the first place, don’t care to change what HAS NOT worked/hurt our economy long before Obama was in office, want to keep feeding the higher-ups/wealthy/corporations, contribute to such corruption, continue to diminish the middle-class, and clearly don’t believe in separation of church and state. You keep supporting those corporate bail-outs, not giving a crap about the environment, and have your elitist attitude that atheists or anyone with a belief system different than yours doesn’t count. You will not sway me toward THAT very unfortunate belief system.

    I’ll exit with this: as George Carlin once so eloquently explained, the planet may be here for a very long time after WE are gone. Perhaps then the earth will heal itself after shaking US off “like a bad case of fleas”.

    Haha! Cheers!

    • George E


      You progressives are soooooo smug and have such elitist attitudes. I can’t figure out why, except I guess you all stand around patting each other on the back telling each other what wonderful and brilliant people you are until you are convinced it’s so. If you guys would take a real economics course and try to run a business, you might just start to understand that so much of that progressive philosophy is nothing more than “pie in the sky.” It might sound good to you, but it doesn’t work.

      You guys have bought into the theory that man-made global warming is destroying the planet, but you don’t have any reasonable solutions to fix it. Your solutions are worse than the problem. It would be insane to go along with the folks that want to lead us down that path.

      It is also unreasonable to expect the overwhelming majority of citizens in this country to accept atheistic standards just to please that very small minority. If we do that, what else will we have to change to satisfy other small groups of people? Stop with the insanity already. Enough is enough. Leave the country, our laws, our culture, our values, our history, and our heritage alone. Some of us (probably most of us) like the country the way it is. We don’t need major changes to make it great. It’s already great, and has been so for a long time, long before progressives decided to “transform” it into something we don’t recognize (probably something like European socialism).

      • Brandon John Haraughty

        Mr. George E.,

        Do you support the right of women to vote? Clean Air Act enacted by Nixon? The separation of church and state enacted by our founding fathers? Child labor laws? The 40 hour work week? Clean Water Act vetoed by Nixon and enacted by Congress? Some would argue that these are liberal ideas, label them whatever you want. The reality is that over history society progresses toward liberal ideas. As we learn more about our world, the way it works and how many of the previous ways in which our society has functioned are foolish, wasteful and destructive, so we disengage from living that way and “progress.”

        The creation is super fund sites through mining for coal, gas, and oil that we tax payers have to end up paying to clean up isn’t worth the exploration. Don’t forget the huge subsidies that those industries receive for mining those fuels out of our grounds.

        Conversely we can look at solar, biofuel, geothermal, wind and other renewable energy sources and make the argument that producing those fuels is more costly at the present moment.

        We should also consider a longer term perspective. If we continue producing the toxic pollution related with fossil fuel use (i.e. it is bad for air, soil and water, much less all the things living in or on those things) and have continuing population growth in which we produce more pollution thus making all those things (air, soil and water) more toxic to life then what kind of world are we going to have when there are 9 billion people or 10 billion people?

        I would argue that a world where we harness the power of the sun, wind, waves, geothermal vents, biofuels and other renewable energy sources has a much brighter cleaner future than one where fossil fuels continues to be our energy source.

  • JD

    Oh boo George E…. you might be disappointed to hear that I am highly educated, have studied business and economics, have worked in corporate finance, and have 10+ years experience being a business owner. Hmmmm.

    I was under the impression that you weren’t happy with “the way that it is”. Oh, and the use of the phrase “most of us” doesn’t really reflect where things are going in our or your world, now does it? Interesting that you decided to re-use the word “elitist” right after I used it to describe your conservative nose-in-the-air mentality. Makes it even more obvious that you are a follower.

    There are reasonable and obtainable solutions to fix these problems (which you refuse to see and could easily research if you cared to know)…but remember that these things don’t happen overnight…just like climbing out of the Great Depression didn’t happen overnight.

    Interesting that you have the audacity to insult any “minority” in terms of religion when our country was built on equal rights (you might want to re-read the Bill of Rights, #1 in particular). Good luck convincing anyone who is even “middle-of-the-road” politically to join your old school beliefs. Unlike you, I hope that you and yours don’t end up being a flea.

    Now since you are hell-bent on having the last word, I’m signing off this conversation for good…but I bet I made you *think*.

    • George E

      Speaking of being “hell bent to get the last word”, I have noticed that you have responded to each of my posts as well. So, I can’t see that I’m any worse than you in that regard. My guess is you’re just upset that I haven’t rolled over and agreed with your “superior” logic and arguments………….. I wouldn’t stay up tonight waiting on that to happen.

      Frankly, I’m a little surprised that someone with your education and experience would fall for the propaganda of the left. My guess is you are against Republicans more than you are for progressive ideology.

      I guess I’ve just missed all those reasonable solutions to global warming that you’re referring to. The primary ones I’ve heard about would 1) levy another big tax on companies, and possibly individuals, that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (that would drive up costs of just about everything we buy), and 2) force us to drive electric cars powered by electricity produced by wind and solar, while shutting down all of our oil, gas, and coal industries which hire thousands of people and pay enormous taxes in this country. Never mind that we can’t produce enough electricity from wind and solar to produce the power we need today, let alone all of the cars we are expected to convert to (at another big cost to us), but this source of electricity is much more expensive than we’re paying today and is much less reliable. Wow, what a reasonable plan is that??????? I can’t wait to get to pay for that one.

      I guess you progressives are more than willing to allow a very small group like atheists drive religion completely out of our government, culture, and traditions because progressives are often atheists themselves. To try to put this into perspective as to how absurd this would be, let’s say a group of Islamists wanted us to allow them to use Sharia law to govern their community in the USA. As you probably know, their religious laws conflict with US law on several accounts, not the least of which means the women of that culture would likely not be granted equal rights with men. Would that be OK with you? As odd as you might think it would be, Christians in this country would “fight” to keep that from happening because we do believe in equal rights under the law for everyone. The point is, we should be considerate of minority rights, but they need to understand that the majority has rights as well, and those usually, or should usually, win out.

      • AB

        I don’t think JD believes her thoughts are superior, just more rational. In terms of global warming, which is not due to us primarily, but is a result of us and Europe industrializing more countries and cultures globally (that means stuff happening in other parts of the world besides America) since the Industrial Revolution. By going to an extreme and saying someone wants to find alternative fuel sources means shutting down oil, natural gas & coal industries is like saying someone who is against rape wants to castrate all men. Fear is not the answer. America was built on ingenuity. It was built on innovation. It was built on the backs of intelligent men who wanted to make the world better. It was NOT built by those that tried to hold them back. Trying to stagnate progress is about as tantamount to ANTI-American as you can get. We are LEADERS in this world, not Sit-Arounders, Reverters, Do-Nothings. If we need to stop importing 5 million barrels of oil a day from overseas, then we do it. The fact to so many of our industries have decided it would be better to kill progress and maintain the status quo is why we struggle now. And it people like you that are to blame.
        And as I said before, there MUST be a separation between church and state. Our forefathers knew that religious extremists would continually attack America from within, claiming to be on the side of God. But the reason this country was founded was to escape religious extremism in England and it was our forefathers intent to honor the majority, but protect the minority. Article One of the Bill of Rights, before it even mentions freedom of speech, respects and protects religion first:

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

        It does not protect one religion over others and it does not favor one over another. If you want to be an American, you should probably re-assess your understanding of what this country was founded on and what we believe in, because you’ve got it wrong and you’re simply displaying your ignorance in your posts. As an American, I find you embarassing.

  • moses

    if the earth is getting warmer then it is hell comeing up from below too get the libs ,demturds ,commies,islam all evil people will burn in hell ,oboma ,gov ,law are not above GODS LAW <HE IS THE CREATOR OF ALL <HE IS I AM THERE IS NO OTHER < SO ALL THE NWO BANKERS ALL WHO GO AFTER THEM WITH THE DEVIL AS THERE god will be burning in hell , that means the ones who are spraying cemtrails all over the world killing everything ,people with there evil .all will be dead in 7 years if this is the strt of the time of GODS WRATH on earth .

  • Leslie

    upto I looked at the paycheck four $5678, I did not believe …that…my friend could actualy bringing home money in their spare time at there computar.. there brothers friend has done this 4 only about 10 months and as of now cleard the dept on there house and purchased a great Jaguar XJ. we looked here, FAB33.COM


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.