Former NASA Scientists Challenge Government Narrative On Global Warming

1 Shares
157145308

A new study group composed of former NASA scientists is challenging the mainstream narrative on the validity of global warming.

About 20 scientists, most of them former members of the U.S. space program’s Apollo Team (the team that put America on the moon) organized The Right Climate Stuff research team last year to re-examine the belief that human-generated carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are creating a global warming crisis.

The team invited a number of scientists both for and against the conventionally accepted theory of global warming to study the issue, but stipulated that all presentations had to be backed by data.

A year later, the team has come out with a sort of progress report that indicates the way it’s leaning so far. The report makes six assertions:

  1. The science that predicts the extent of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is not settled science.
  2. There is no convincing physical evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming; most of the alarm results from output of unvalidated computer models.
  3. Computer models need to be validated before being used in critical decision-making. “Our manned aerospace backgrounds in dealing with models of complex phenomena have convinced us that this rule must be followed to avoid decisions with serious unintended consequences.”
  4. Because there is no immediate threat of global warming requiring swift corrective action, scientists have time to study global climate changes and improve prediction accuracy.
  5. The U.S. government is overreacting to concerns about anthropogenic global warming. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be beneficial for forest and crop growth to support the Earth’s growing population, so control of carbon dioxide emissions is not an obvious best solution to hyped-up concerns regarding anthropogenic global warming.
  6. A wider range of solution options should be studied for global warming or cooling threats from any credible cause.

The findings aren’t unique among scientists who dissent from the mainstream take on global warming. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change organized in the early 2000s as a research team united by a lack of a standing agenda on environmental policy.

“Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the [U.N.-backed] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ignores,” explains the group’s website. “Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary.”

Ben Bullard

Reconciling the concept of individual sovereignty with conscientious participation in the modern American political process is a continuing preoccupation for staff writer Ben Bullard. A former community newspaper writer, Bullard has closely observed the manner in which well-meaning small-town politicians and policy makers often accept, unthinkingly, their increasingly marginal role in shaping the quality of their own lives, as well as those of the people whom they serve. He argues that American public policy is plagued by inscrutable and corrupt motives on a national scale, a fundamental problem which individuals, families and communities must strive to solve. This, he argues, can be achieved only as Americans rediscover the principal role each citizen plays in enriching the welfare of our Republic.

Join the Discussion

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.

  • GALT

    Breaking News: Personal Liberty Digest continues to demonstrate its SERIOUS COMMITMENT to RECYCLING GARBAGE.

    Journalism 101 ( for w.i.f.i.’s )

    A new study group composed of former NASA scientists is challenging the mainstream narrative on the validity of global warming.

    The group of 49 FORMER employees sent a letter to the then current NASA administrator in April of 2012.

    About 20 scientists, most of them former members of the U.S. space program’s Apollo Team (the team that put America on the moon) organized The Right Climate Stuff research team last year to re-examine the belief that human-generated carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are creating a global warming crisis.

    These are not climate scientists, but the strategy reflects the same tactics attempted earlier which claimed that 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs, in 2001….who were organized for the purpose of opposing the Kyoto Treaty.

    The team invited a number of scientists both for and against the conventionally accepted theory of global warming to study the issue, but stipulated that all presentations had to be backed by data.

    Current consensus among “climate scientists” is 98%…….do you think they used “data”?

    A year later, the team has come out with a sort of progress report that indicates the way it’s leaning so far. The report makes six assertions:

    But these are hardly NEW….and they are “assertions”…..of course, here at P.L.D. the definition of a “word” is in itself……??????

    The science that predicts the extent of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is not settled science.

    The data from the past 800,000 years shows a natural range of atmospheric CO2, from 180 to 280 ppm. Current number is 395 ppm which suggest that everything above 280 is caused by man, however this would only be true if the natural range, without man and ( carbon based fuels ) were expected to be at the natural upper limit. Also this calculation requires an adjustment for the oceans capacity to absorb CO2, which it is still doing……and clearly this would apply to both the natural CO2 as well as man made…….so to that extent it is not settled science.

    We can not say for certain that man’s “carbon based” fuel contribution is limited to the simple figure of 115 ppm……the actual contribution could be MUCH, MUCH HIGHER!!!!!!!!

    There is no convincing physical evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming; most of the alarm results from output of unvalidated computer models.

    Not to be confused with “invalidated” computer models.

    Computer models need to be validated before being used in critical decision-making. “Our manned aerospace backgrounds in dealing with models of complex phenomena have convinced us that this rule must be followed to avoid decisions with serious unintended consequences.”

    For a “computer model” to be “completely” accurate……would require that every aspect of a “simulation” be accounted for……..at which point the system and the model of the system would be identical. Science experiments always produce a “range of results”……therefor the preceding assertion by these “scientists”, would seem to be stating that science ITSELF is “unvalid”…….which makes any “scientific claim” regarding the science of “global warming”, rather absurd under the circumstances.

    Because there is no immediate threat of global warming requiring swift corrective action, scientists have time to study global climate changes and improve prediction accuracy.

    At what degree of accuracy does science become science? When does Gravity stop being a “theory” and become a LAW?????

    The U.S. government is overreacting to concerns about anthropogenic global warming. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be beneficial for forest and crop growth to support the Earth’s growing population, so control of carbon dioxide emissions is not an obvious best solution to hyped-up concerns regarding anthropogenic global warming.

    Government funding devoted to this “problem” is minimal to non-existent and completed negated by subsidies and tax breaks to the “carbon based fuel industry”. In addition, the external costs of environmental destruction and health care costs, are also being borne by the taxpayor to maintain low fuel costs and other damaging uses of petroleum based products. Were these costs included in the PRICE of this “energy”……. the entire industry would be unable to compete with any “alternative energy” source.

    A wider range of solution options should be studied for global warming or cooling threats from any credible cause.

    The consensus of 98% of climate scientists is sufficient, because that is what “science” is…….both in the evaluation of “data” and in the publication of it by the “peer review process”………20 former “scientists” will not change this……today, any more that the 30, 000 scientists did in 2001…….but to understand the “game”……..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXyTpY0NCp0

  • GALT

    NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority

    Posted on 24 January 2013 by dana1981

    In April of 2012, 49 former NASA employees sent a letter to the current NASA administrator requesting that he effectively muzzle the climate scientists at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). None of those former NASA employees have conducted anyclimate science research, but based on their own lack of understanding of the subject, they objected to the conclusions drawn by the climate experts at NASA GISS. This letter drew media attention because folks who have worked at NASA are well-respected (and rightly so), but there was really no substance to it, or any particular reason to lend it credence. Astronauts and engineers are not climate experts.

    Now in January of 2013, a group of 20 “Apollo era NASA retirees” has put together a rudimentary climate “report” and issued a press release declaring that they have decided human-caused global warming is not “settled” and is nothing to worry about. This time around they have not listed the 20 individuals who contributed to this project, but have simply described the group as being:

    “…comprised of renowned space scientists with formal educational and decades career involvement in engineering, physics, chemistry, astrophysics, geophysics, geology and meteorology. Many of these scientists have Ph.Ds”

    The project seems to be headed by H. Leighton Steward, a 77-year-old former oil and gas executive. The press release also links the NASA group to his website, “co2isgreen”, which also has an extensive history of receiving fossil fuel industry funding.

    This story can be summed up very simply: a group of retired NASA scientists with noclimate science research experience listened to a few climate scientists and a few fossil fuel-funded contrarian scientists, read a few climate blogs, asked a few relatively simple questions, decided that those questions cannot be answered (though we will answer them in this post), put together a very rudimentary report, and now expect people to listen to them because they used to work at NASA. It’s purely an appeal to authority, except that the participants have no authority or expertise in climate science.

    Answering the NASA Retirees’ Questions

    Most of the group’s report is devoted to summarizing some basic aspects of climatescience, such as the greenhouse effect. At the end it lists seven “conclusions”, most of which are questions they claim “are still to be resolved”, but in reality are generally simple to answer.

    1) How really well known is the global temperature of the earth over the past century?

    Quite really well known. The accuracy of the surface temperature record has been confirmed by many different studies using a variety of different approaches, including bynatural thermometers and satellites. There is very little difference between the results of different groups analyzing the surface temperature data (Figure 1).

    Figure 1: The four main global surface temperature measurement datasets (Source)

    Ocean measurements also show an immense amount of heat accumulation in the world’s oceans, well outside the margin of error (Figure 2).

    Figure 2: Time series for the World Ocean of ocean heat content (1022 J) for the 0-2000m (red) and 700-2000m (black) layers based on running pentadal (five-year) analyses. Reference period is 1955-2006. Each pentadal estimate is plotted at the midpoint of the 5-year period. The vertical bars represent +/- 2 times the standard error of the mean (S.E.) about the pentadal estimate for the 0-2000m estimates and the grey-shaded area represent +/- 2*S.E. about the pentadal estimate for the 700-2000m estimates. The blue bar chart at the bottom represents the percentage of one-degree squares (globally) that have at least four pentadal one-degree square anomaly values used in their computation at 700m depth. Blue line is the same as for the bar chart but for 2000m depth. FromLevitus et al. (2012)

    2) How important to the factors that determine the surface temperature of the earth are the human related increases of CO2?

    Human greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant cause of global warming (Figure 3). The science is entirely settled on this question, which simply boils down to physics. Long-term global warming is caused by a global energy imbalance. Human greenhouse gasemissions are responsible for by far the largest such energy imbalance over the past century.

    Figure 3: Net human and natural percent contributions to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, light green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), andWigley and Santer 2012 (WS12, dark green).

    3) What exactly are the true feedback effects and how do they vary?

    There are a number of different climate feedbacks which amplify or dampen global warming. The NASA document accurately summarizes their net effect.

    “The net effect, which includes feedbacks) on the temperature anomaly from the IPCC (AR4) was … 2.0 – 4.5 K”

    By itself, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will cause an energy imbalance sufficient to ultimately warm global surface temperatures about 1.2°C. Through a variety of different types of studies, climate scientists have concluded that the net effect of the various temperature feedbacks will amplify that warming to somewhere in the range of 2 to 4.5°C in response to doubled CO2.

    4) Since the 1988 Hansen paper and presentation to Congress, through the IPCC 2000 and subsequent projections of the global temperature anomaly, the models have consistently over-projected the actual measured temperature anomalies in the subsequent years.

    This statement, derived from a blog post, is simply incorrect. As we at Skeptical Science have shown several times, the IPCC temperature projections have been exceptionally accurate (Figure 4).

    Figure 4: IPCC temperature projections (red, pink, orange, green) and contrarianprojections (blue and purple) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average ofNASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; black and red) for 1990 through 2012.

    Conclusion 4 in the document also incorrectly states that “the IPCC projections are intended to represent the worst-case scenario.” The IPCC projections are based on a wide variety of human greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, not simply a single worst-case scenario. Given that many climate variables are changing faster than the IPCC anticipated, it would make for a pretty terrible worst case scenario.

    5) What accounts for some of the observed differences between the steady increase in CO2 concentrations over the last century and the more erratic changes in estimated global temperature anomaly?

    Cooling from human aerosol emissions offset warming from human greenhouse gasemissions in the mid-20th century, and on top of that there is natural internal variability in the climate system, as Kevin C’s video illustrates.

    6) What are the relative effects of natural climate oscillations such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation, (ENSO), the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) on the earth’s temperature trends? Are they compensating for theradiative forcing of CO2 (and other GHG) increases?

    These are some of the contributors to the short-term natural internal variability mentioned in the answer to the last question. No, natural variability is not ‘compensating’ for theradiative forcing (global energy imbalance) caused by greenhouse gases. Recent research by Sedláček & Knutti (2012) found that warming caused by internal variabilitycreates a very patchy pattern, whereas we observe a very smooth pattern of warming, consistent with an external forcing like an increased greenhouse effect. However, the ocean cycles mentioned in this question have caused a short-term dampening of global surface warming over the past decade or so.

    7) Why is it assumed that, aside from the more obvious impacts of significant sea level rise on existing infrastructure, that the net effect of more CO2 is negative? After all, CO2 is often added to commercial greenhouses to promote plant growth

    This is not an assumption, it is the result of a wide body of scientific research. More CO2means more global warming, which means more climate change, which means more extreme weather, like more heat waves and droughts, which does not bode well for plant growth or for most other life on the planet. Species are already going extinct at a relatively rapid rate. And on top of climate change, there’s the damage CO2 causes via ocean acidification, global warming’s evil twin.

    These are not difficult questions, in fact we have answered them all here on Skeptical Science.

    Risk Management – Uncertainty is not Your Friend

    After failing to do more than the most rudimentary climate research, the NASA retirees wrongly conclude that uncertainty can be used to justify inaction.

    “Despite claims of consensus and other appeals to authority, no one knows these answers. Once politics is removed, the evidence so far (2011) is that the actual net effect is low or uncertain (considering multiple known and potential feedbacks). As such, aggressive and extraordinarily far-reaching steps by governments to reduce production of CO2 is not warranted.”

    This conclusion illustrates a risk management failure which is very common amongstclimate contrarians. It’s no different than saying “I don’t think that I’ll be in a car accident, so I won’t purchase auto insurance.” The average American has a 30% chance of being involved in a serious automobile accident in his or her lifetime, and the odds of very dangerous and damaging climate change are even higher if we continue on a business-as-usual path – in fact that is the most likely scenario.

    Climate contrarians like these NASA retirees essentially believe that the best casescenario will occur, that the net climate feedback and sensitivity will be near the low end of the possible range, and that we will be able to cope with future climate change. That is a possibility, but the best case scenario is only one possible outcome, and thus represents a very low overall probability of occurring. And when we fail to prepare for or prevent the worst case scenario, or even the most probable scenario, bad things happen.

    Appealing to Authority Requires Actually Having Authority

    Ultimately the NASA Apollo-era retirees expect the public to defer to their opinions onclimate change, despite the fact that they have failed to do more than the most basicclimate research and do not understand the most fundamental aspects of risk management (which is rather strange, since Apollo 13 was a good lesson in preparing for the worst case scenario).

    In reality many of the questions they believe nobody has answered are actually settled science. We know humans are causing global warming, we know there is also natural variability in the climate system, and we know the climate consequences will be bad if we continue on our present course. Just how bad is an open question, which depends in large part on how quickly we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. However, theseNASA retirees are asking us to delay action in the hopes that the best case scenario will occur. This is a total risk management failure, because if they are wrong and the best case does not come to fruition, we will face some nasty consequences, and there will be very little that we can do about it.

    As with the last NASA retiree letter, there is no reason why we should pay heed to this document, and very good reasons why we should reject its conclusions. We are again left wishing that these retirees would leave the climate science to the real climate experts atNASA, who are some of the best in the world.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/NASA-retirees-letter2.html

    see link for pictures, graphs, and video

  • leroy

    When you super intelligent people can definitively answer (backed up with indisputible facts) as to what happened to dinasaurs that made them extinct during a time when the planet was much like a tropical forrest then maybe we non-believers in man-caused global warning might tend to listen. Also, the earth was once totally covered with ice (AKA The Ice Age), which started melting without the help of man…what’s your answert to that one? Was that caused by the advent of caveman camp fires? You people who want to blame modern mankind for everything bad is ridiculous nonsense.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Leroy, before you talk about AGW, you need to display at least minimal intelligence yourself, certainly show us some actual knowledge of scientific facts. The extinction of the dinosaurs has NOTHING to do with AGW or just plain GW. The earth was NEVER “totally covered with ice”. Get serious.

      • leroy

        What do you want from me, a scientific formula used to gauge global warming? The extinction of the dinasaurs has to do with global COOLING. That, my friend, is a drastic environmental change. So, let me get this straight, you believe that GW had nothing to do with the Ice Age coming to an end? If that wasn’t GW than what exactly was it? At what point in the rewarming of the planet did scientists coin the phrase “global warming”…perhaps after 1950 when they became smart enough to coin such a phrase? How about you get serious…..My point is that since the beginning of this earth’s existence it has undergone drastic changes in temperatures and the environment that had absolutely nothing to do with mankind. Perhaps a small portion wasn’t covered in ice, but at one time this earth was almost totally covered in ice. Maybe you need to bone up on what is known about the history of environmental changes this earth has gone through during the ages.

        • Right Brain Thinker

          I need to “bone up”? Spoken with the smugness and ignorance of someone who had read a little, understood only some of it, and has a predisposition to deny AGW for some reason other than the science involved.

          The latest theory on the extinction of the dinosaurs says that they (along with much of the other life on the planet) died out because of an asteroid strike. Cooling because of the materials thrown up into the upper atmosphere, but NOT in any way associated with the ongoing cycles of cooling and warming, i.e.—climate change, that have always been part of Earth’s history.

          Yes, GW does occur at the end of Ice Ages—it gets warmer, ice melts—-not rocket science. But you fail to understand that it’s AGW —-anthropogenic—-man caused—-that we’re talking about. Scientists discussed GW as far back as the 1800’s and the first mention of CO2 and “greenhouse gases” happened back then. Scientists came up with the term AGW (anthropogenic), when it began to look like man WAS having an impact above and beyond the normal climate change cycles.

          YOu need to throw off the shackles of confirmation bias, leroy. Just because you WANT to believe something doesn’t make it true, and the converse is just because you DON’T want to believe something doesn’t make it false.

          I have been “boning up” on AGW and environmental issues for over 40 years now—-when are you going to start?

          • leroy

            And just maybe you may be a little predisposed to the politics behind AGW (anthropogenic). I supposed you might have a very high opinion of Al Gore. I have not discounted that mankind may be contributing to GW, but that contribution in very minimal and recent scientific studies are bearing that out. I guess since you are a person who knows it all you can be selective about which facts to consider and which ones to toss. Not a very objective approach to arriving to a logical conclusion.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            leroy, YOU are the one who is “a little predisposed to the politics behind AGW”, because you keep bringing up Al Gore. My opinion of Al Gore? I commend him for being one of the first politicians to address AGW and for raising public awareness about it. Beyond that, he is ancient history and irrelevant to what is going on right now—-the only people who want to talk about him are the mindless parrots of the right wing horsepucky—-you’d rather talk about Gore than the science.

            You say, “mankind may be contributing to GW, but that contribution in very minimal and recent scientific studies are bearing that out”. REALLY? Now that you stated what is 100% OPINION, and not fact, how about giving us the science behind it? What “recent scientific studies” are you talking about? Who said what about what when? Talk is cheap.

            You are the one who is “selective” and “tossing” the great preponderance of evidence for AGW because you want to believe the small bit of horsepucky against it. What is NOT very objective is substituting religious-like WRONG BELIEFS for SCIENTIFIC FACT as you are doing. I “consider” everything I read about AGW, pro or con, and accept what is scientifically sound and reject that which is not. That’s the way thinking people look at the world. Join us.

          • leroy

            You are “reading” a lot more into what I have stated than what I actually did state. As for Gore, I only mentioned him ONCE. I’m thinking you might be a bit prone to exaggeration.
            I am not going to waste my time refuting the comments of a would-be, self-proclaimed expert. You are mudding the subject with mis-interpretations as to what I have said. You had implied that GW was first studied back in the 1800’s when it was actually CLIMATE CHANGE, both warming trends and cooling trends,not just global warming. You have just stated above that you are selective in considering what facts are acceptable and which ones aren’t.
            In other words, you believe what you want to believe if it fits into the predetermined result you want. Do you really believe that the number of internal combustion engines in use towards the latter part of the 19th century actually contributed to a measurable effect on climate change (the term Global Warming hadn’t yet been coined)? And when in all this diatribe did I mention religion?

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Here we go—-leroy is not going to “waste his time” with me. Translation—he is too lazy or self deluded to try to educate himself on AGW so that he might have the slightest hope of “refuting” me. He is floundering and grasping at straws, bringing up irrelevancies—-I predict that he will soon declare victory and abandon the field.

            What do internal combustion engines at the end of the 19th. century have to do with AGW, leroy? I never mentioned them, because I know they’re irrelevant. Why didn’t you ask instead about the burning of coal? Since that was the big fossil fuel back then (oil hadn’t gotten big yet).

            And almost everything you say about AGW is “religion”, leroy—-your comments represent BELIEF, not science, and that’s “religion”.

          • leroy

            http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php
            Recent study…..apparently you missed this one or discounted it completely.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Sorry, Leroy. Did you not notice Dr Taylor and Heartland Institute mentioned as the source? To say nothing of the fact that Forbes is one of the last places you should be looking for reliable info on AGW. No, I didn’t miss it—-it’s nearly two years old and has been thoroughly discredited—-Taylor is a hack and the Heartland Institute is supported by the Koch brothers and Exxon-Mobil. It’s an AGW denier site of the worst kind—-they mostly just outright lie about it. EVERYONE discounts them except the ignorant like you who are loking for something to justify their non-scientific beliefs.

          • leroy
          • Right Brain Thinker

            No, that’s another one that misinterprets data to make a denier point. It has been thoroughly discussed and deemed not significant. It’s a causality-correlation thing and there are many pother factors involved that account for what happened—-this study did NOT factor them in. Go to skepticalscience for details.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            And we go from bad to worse with a citation from co2science.org. The Idso’s are among the worst AGW deniers you can find and are laughed at by reputable climate scientists. If you could understand the science, you would find their book “55 reasons CO2 is good for you” to be a laugh riot, as I and others who have read it have found it to be.

            leroy, you need to stop looking at horsepucky denier sites and look at some real science sites if you ever want to learn anythng. Go to skeptical science, desmogblog, climate denial crock of the week, think progress, UCS, or even wikipedia to see some truth.

          • leroy
          • leroy

            You may need to rethink your claim that the term “global Warming” was first coined in the 1800’s. Since you are so knowledgeable and seeminly want to know it all you may be interested in this statement: “To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature
            increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975
            Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University’s
            Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of
            a Pronounced Global Warming?”1

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Leroy is grasping at straws and looking up things to try to “score” on me. Leroy needs to take reading comprehension lessons, or stop reading what he WANTS to see into my words. I said,

            “Scientists discussed GW as far back as the 1800’s and the first mention of CO2 and “greenhouse gases” happened back then. Scientists came upwith the term AGW (anthropogenic), when it began to look like man WAS having an impact above and beyond the normal climate change cycles”.

            Read that as many times as it takes to see that I did NOT claim that the term GW was coined in the 1800’s, leroy, although a small number of scientists were talking about the IDEA, if not using the exact term. Google “History of Climate Change Science” and look at the brief wikipedia entry—-read about Agassiz, Fourier, and Tyndall—-educate yourself so that you don’t sound so D’d ignorant!

            I did not specify when GW came into use AT ALL. It’s irrelevant when the term came into use, but if it makes leroy happy to talk about irrelevancies, who am I to deny him his fun?

      • elda

        How do you know……do you have those facts? NO ONE KNOWS!

        • leroy

          As I stated before, you need to bone up on the Ice Ages.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            As I stated before, ice ages are irrelevant. You need to bone up on the science of AGW, not on excuses to deny that it’s happening.

        • Right Brain Thinker

          Yes elda, EVERYONE has the facts. Some just refuse to accept them—-they are the ones who say “I will believe what I WANT to believe, don’t bother me with the facts”. GALT has coined a term for them—–WIFI.

          • leroy

            I never stated that I did not believe it was happening. What I inferred was that it has been happening over and over for thousands of years. Current global warming was not started by mankind and the CO2 emissions caused by humans has had a negligible effect on climate change.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            leroy, you have got to stop offering your unsupported opinions as statements of fact. You “inferred” nothing because you looked at no facts. If you meant to say “imply”, you didn’t do that either—you flat out stated an untruth. The (A)GW we are talking about has been happening only since the start of the industrial age and the massive use of fossil fuels. The climate change that HAS happened over thousands and millions of years is “normal” and is NOT AGW

            You say, “the CO2 emissions
            caused by humans has had a negligible effect on climate change”. TENS OF THOUSANDS of climate scientists say the exact opposite! How can you stand there and deny that? This is not church, leroy, and we are not quoting from the bible—-we are talking about science, not belief. Your beliefs about AGW are just that, beliefs.

          • leroy

            I can see the only way to pacify you is to partonize you. So, tomorrow I am having my 21 vehicles crushed/scrapped and Monday (after my vacation) I wil be walking to and from my job. I seriously hope that the increase in my exhaling from such exercise won’t seriously adversly affect the environment to the point of causing the rest of the human race to have to wear respirators.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            You have been patronizing all of us all along by insisting that your ignorant opinions have any validity. You can pacify me by educating yourself and carrying on an intelligent discussion rather than posting crap like crushing your cars and walking to work.
            (and you didn’t even get the “science” of the breathing business right)

          • leroy

            Well then, how about oxengenated respirators?

          • Right Brain Thinker

            “oxengenated” respirators? Are we back to talking about methane from “cattle” again?

          • GALT

            How about “plant defibrillators”? I mean if they get too much CO2
            they could hyperventilate and have heart and panic attacks
            and we would have to ban rap music which would lead to race war, increased defense and prison budgets, not to mention
            the damage done by huge trees, keeling over on the spot
            and causing collateral damage?

            Filing patent as we speak, Bob said, if the April surprise and the
            big ponzi collapse didn’t end life as we know it on 12/23/13, he would consider running an mlm scam with root……with patrick cox writing the copy…….even porter stansbury is rumored to be interested…….and warren buffet might be, but they won’t know until someone wakes him up.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            LOL Wild and crazy is fun—ask Steve Martin!

            (and LEEEEEEE-rooooooooy)

          • leroy

            Methane, with a warming potential 72 times that of carbon dioxide over a 20 year time frame, having a half-life of only 7 years. The greatest scource of Methane is livestock

            Black carbon or Soot , an intense heating agent in the air and particularly when on ice and snow. Black carbon emissions are responsible for as much as 40% of the net global warming However, they remain in the atmosphere from only one to four weeks . Greatest scource of Black carbon is antropologiic open fire set to clear forest and land for pasture and crop growth for animal feed.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            leroy has been reading again. Tell us about methyl clathrates, warming oceans and melting permafrost, leroy, a much bigger worry than livestock.

            And leroy has read about black carbon, but doesn’t quite manage to copy anything that makes much sense there. I just donated $50 to the Black Snow Project, leroy—-you should too.

            PS Please tell us why these “copying exercises” of yours are useful to us? You obviously don’t understand what they mean, why should we look at them?

          • GALT

            Dear w.i.f.i……please learn to read….or cut and paste

            Methane in the Earth’s atmosphere is an important greenhouse gas with a global warming potential of 25 over a 100-year period. This means that a methane emission will have 25 times the impact on temperature of a carbon dioxide emission of the same mass over the following 100 years. Methane has a large effect for a brief period (a net lifetime of 8.4 years in the atmosphere), whereas carbon dioxide has a small effect for a long period (over 100 years). Because of this difference in effect and time period, the global warming potential of methane over a 20 year time period is 72. The Earth’s methane concentration has increased by about 150% since 1750, and it accounts for 20% of the total radiative forcing from all of the long-lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases.[3] Usually, excess methane from landfills and other natural producers of methane are burned so CO2 is released into the atmosphere instead of methane because methane is such a more effective greenhouse gas. Recently methane emitted from coal mines has been successfully converted to electricity.

          • Vash the Stampede

            I have not been keeping up with the climate issue like I should. Their are a lot of studies do any of them mention the sun? It seems no body even mentions it. Its activities are important to these studies also.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Yes, the sun IS important. It has an 11 year cycle that has an impact on global warming/cooling. The best site around for AGW info is skeptical science—it has a search function that allows you to explore many topics.

          • leroy

            I must admit to RBT that I intentionally posted inaccurate comments in order to get him to display his religiously dogmatic beliefs regarding GW, more precisely AGW. I would venture to guess that he was NOT present during any of the testing, never sat in on discussions regarding how to publish the test results and never ever personally oversaw the testing being done. Therefore, he, just like the rest of us, has chosen which scientific test results to believe from what has been PUBLISHED based on his knowledge of the subject and the scientists he believes are most credible. Although, he appears to be more informed than the rest of us, since he did not conduct the tests personally, most likely was he not involved in the testing, he has chosen to believe what has been published based on what he chooses to believe. I have no objections as to what he believes, but the dogmatic views he holds and how he chooses to vilify those who don’t share in those same believes is bothersome. He has a religious dogmatic belief regarding AGW. I suspect he has the same passion regarding other subjects as well.
            I have never before directly posted any comments regarding his comments on any subject and actually have not posted more than 5-6 comments totally on any subjects. I have seen his comments many times on several topics. He believes he is intellectually superior to anyone else posting comments and displays an intolerance to those who disagree with him and hold different beliefs and views and for those who do not possess a minutely copious and meticulous knowledge of a subject.
            BSICALLY, HE BELIEVES WHAT HE READS, JUST LIKE THE REST OF US HAVE A TENDENCY TO DO.
            Pulling his dogmatic personality out was fun.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            “Pulling his dogmatic personality was fun”, says leroy? What is fun is watching leroy strut around like one of the self-deluded and demented “roosters”, flapping his wings and crowing about some imaginary “victory”.

            leroy “intentionally posts inaccurate comments”? And then tries to make something of it when I shoot him down and point out that his arguments WERE actually untruthful and inaccurate? Lord love a duck, leroy! Don’t you understand how stupid that sounds (and is)? Actually, I think leroy just did a little more reading and found out how wrong he was in his BELIEFS—-now he is trying to squirm out of it by saying “I did it on purpose”. LOL

            leroy than launches into an idiotic “RBT wasn’t there” rant. I wasn’t in Boston either this week, leroy, but I have confidence in what I saw on TV. I have tried time and again to point out to you that it is not a matter of choice for thinking people when 99% of the evidence and 99% or the most expert scientists say “AGW is occurring”—–there is no credible evidence on the other side, so there is no choice. YOU are the one who chooses—-you choose to seek out and BELIEVE all the horsepucky that comes from the paid deniers in the employ of the fossil fuel interests, as you have shown from the citations you have given us. YOU are the one who is beholden to dogma to the point that your ignorant denialism IS a religion for you—-and to the point that you can’t even see that.

            I don’t “vilify” anyone who doesn’t vilify me first, leroy, and anyone who wants to call me names and say incorrect things about a topic of interest to me is going to have two things happen to them. First, I will expose their factual lies. Secondly, I will return the “insult” in much more elegant language and with more intelligence than what I got. It is not an “intolerance for those who disagree”, but for those who, like you, insult everyone’s intelligence and speak dishonestly. As far as “intellectual superiority”, I can’t help it if I was born smarter and am better educated than you. And folks like you had better have a “meticulous knowledge of a subject” before they spout horsepucky and argue with those of us who know more (“minutely copious” is kind of an oxymoron and I’m not sure what you mean by it).

            leroy closes with another brilliant remark, and has to SHOUT it to make sure we all see it.
            BASICALLY, HE BELIEVES WHAT HE READS, JUST LIKE THE REST OF US HAVE A TENDENCY TO DO.
            Yeah, I saw it, leroy, and thanks for the laugh—I love the way you used “basically”, “he believes”, and “tendency” so skillfully to make NO real point—-like “oxengenation”

            You say you “don’t post much”? You have certainly posted a lot on this thread. From what you’ve shown us here, you should go back to just listening—-you’re not ready to “run with the big dogs”.

            (Unless you’re really WTS/JAY posing as LEEEEE-roy just to play with me. If so, I’ll say “good one, JAY”—-leroy is loads of laughs)

          • leroy

            First class narciscist. Just can’t help it for being soooo very intelligent can you. (that was not a question) Just can’t accept what I did can you. (that’s not a question either) You got drawn in and can’t accept that you were. RBT, as is usually the case with most narciscists, I would venture a guess you favor left hand dexterity. Am I correct about that suspicion? (That is a question) I had at least given you credit to realize when it was time to stay off the keyboard. But after (minor) due consideration of your last post I should have expected it.
            As to exactly whom I may be, I’ll leave that up to your imagination.
            This battle of words is over.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            First class motivated reasoner. Just can’t help clinging to his wrong beliefs in spite of being shown how wrong they are. Still making the laughable argument that he spouted all kinds of bum scoop in an attempt to expose me as someone who knows the facts. LOL. Still can’t see that he didn’t draw me into anything except helping him make a fool of himself.

            “This battle of words is over”? Leroy still can’t see that it was never a “battle”—-that he brought no “weapons of fact” to the field and got blown away every time he stuck his head up. Kind of like the Iraqis in Gulf War One, except that they managed to inflict a few casualties on us—leroy missed every time..

            Yep, as could be predicted, leroy has followed the path of many other posters on PLD. Leroy has finally realized he has hugely embarrassed himself by displaying his ignorance of the science of AGW, has feebly attacked me personally, gotten his brains beaten in , and is now abandoning the field of “battle”.

            And I don’t know where you got the “handedness” question from, leroy, but I suspect from some “look-it-up” blurb on narcissism (correct spelling). You have again demonstrated for us your skills at “looking up” things, as you focus on perhaps the least important thing in what you may have read about narcissists. Not that it matters, but since you asked, I am right-handed. Too bad you haven’t asked more questions here rather than spend your time spouting horsepucky—-you might have learned something.

            leroy says, “I had at least given you credit to realize when it was time to stay off the keyboard”. I will give leroy NO credit and predict that he WILL be back, in spite of his “battle is over” declaration. Perhaps he will “win” one small point by really not coming back and thereby “proving” me wrong one time?

            PS No, I CAN’T help it for “being soooo very intelligent”, leroy. I am not going to “play dumb” and come down to your level just to make you feel good. You foolishly started this whole thing with your very first comment—-“You people who want to blame modern mankind for everything bad is ridiculous nonsense”—-now you’ve paid the price—-you asked for it—-stop whining..

          • GALT

            Want to keep up…….go here.

            http://www.skepticalscience.co

            See claims on left…….guess what the first one is?

      • leroy

        There were five “Ice Ages”, which one do you want to get technical about? As a matter fo fact, we are currently living in an ice age. This one started with the earth’s surface covered about 30% in ice.

        • Right Brain Thinker

          leroy has been reading again, and has correctly (almost) pointed out that we are “currently living in an ice age”. Actually, we are in what is called an “interglacial”, and have been for ~12,000 years. Scientists think we were about to enter the next ice age, but now believe AGW may have postponed that. The only “ice age” we need get technical about is RIGHT NOW, leroy.

          (And congratulations on going from “totally covered with ice” back to the more accurate “30%”. You have shown that you CAN learn—-keep at it until you know enough to comment intelligently on the topic of AGW)

          • leroy

            Obviously, you are not aware of the University of Utah study regarding Ice Ages. Until all the ice is totally gone we will be living in an ice age. Yes, we are in a “lull” so to speak between serious ice coverage, but we are living in an age of partial ice coverage.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            That’s just nonsensical—-sounds like the Duchess from Alice in Wonderland

      • rendarsmith

        When have YOU ever shown any intelligence or backed up any of your facts? You pull all of your information out of thin air then when someone challenges it you blindly dismiss it as “horsepucky” then boast about your degrees in “Science Fields”. You’re the type of guy that walks outside and notices that it’s hot and thinks “It warmed up….oh no! Our CO2 is causing global warming!” As if there is NO OTHER possible cause for it getting warmer outside!
        You have no credibility and shouldn’t even be talking.

        • Right Brain Thinker

          I show intelligence every time I post, rendar. I’m sorry that you are so unintelligent or biased that you can’t recognize that. I have given facts and citations, mentioned websites, and countered foolish comments like we see here from leroy and elda every time AGW appears on a thread. NONE of what I say is pulled out of thin air, unlike your OPINION here—-which has NO facts, NO arguments, NO anything. If it makes you feel good to mindlessly rant and call me names, rendar, go ahead, but please don’t insult everyone’s intelligence by thinking you have said anything of value.

          And you have nicely twisted my use of “horsepucky”. I use it mainly to point out that much of what the ignorant and biased blindly post on PLD about AGW is just plain WRONG and not scientifically correct. It is only used against my “challengers” when someone challenges me by providing yet more horsepucky in their challenge. Is that too subtle a distinction for you to understand?

          I have never “boasted” of my education and knowledge beyond responding to those who have said to me “How do you know that?” I can’t help it that I may be better educated and have more knowledge in “science fields” than many who post on PLD. I’m sorry that they are so jealous and biased that they can’t take advantage of my knowledge.

          As for “credibility”, if you want to have any in a discussion of AGW, you need to start talking about AGW and demonstrating knowledge. So far, the only thing that is “credible” about you is that you like to call people names. There is no filter on PLD for “worthless comments”, so this one of yours got posted—how about trying to up your game and start talking sense?

          • fire115

            “The earth was NEVER “totally covered with ice”. Get serious.” The snowball Earth hypothesis posits that the Earth’s surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen at least once, some time earlier than 650 Ma (million years ago). Proponents of the hypothesis argue that it best explains sedimentary deposits generally regarded as of glacial origin at tropical paleolatitudes, and other otherwise enigmatic features in the geological record. Opponents of the hypothesis contest the implications of the geological evidence for global glaciation, the geophysical feasibility of an ice- or slush-covered ocean,[2][3]and the difficulty of escaping an all-frozen condition. There are a number of unanswered questions, including whether the Earth was a full snowball, or a “slushball” with a thin equatorial band of open (or seasonally open) water.

            The geological time frames under consideration come before the sudden multiplication of life forms on Earth known as the Cambrian explosion, and the most recent snowball episode may have triggered the evolution of multi-cellular life on Earth. Another, much earlier and longer, snowball episode, the Huronian glaciation, which occurred 2400 to 2100 Ma may have been triggered by the oxygen catastrophe.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Yes, fire, a nice job of copying. A bit irrelevant, however, since leroy mentioned cave man fires, and I assumed he was talking about the most recent ice ages, none of which approached “slushball” proportions. That’s what I was responding to. “Ice ages” do go back millions and billions of years, and some were much more extensive than the recent ones, but I seriously doubt leroy has any knowledge of them.

          • fire115

            ” nice job of copying.” ok, should i write my own dissertation… you gotta chill a bit or your gonna pop a blood vessel over an online convo one day lol But i hear ya man some comments here are just out there.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Thanks for your concern about my blood vessels, but I’m a 73 year old “retired” Marine, former high school administrator, and linebacker that has been in one sort of “combat” or other since I was 15 years old. I may get “intense” over some of the ignorance and mindlessness on this site (especially about AGW), but I’m grinning when I write my stuff—-it’s actually better fun than reading the comic pages in the newspaper.

          • leroy

            Once more, you took what I said out of context. I did NOT mention which Ice Age had almost entirely covered the earth. You assumed I meant the most current. The cave man thing was brought up later. I even asked which of the five Ice Ages you wanted to discuss. The latest was estimated, by scientists, to be covered about 30% in ice. The earth is currently covered about 10% in ice. As for the internal combustion engine, it has become one of the claimed predominate bad players in co2 emissions and is why I mentioned them. AS YOU ARE aware, there are a multitude of things that contribute to gases that negatively affect the atmosphere. That is why I posted the methane and burning quotes. Landfills are also a big contributor of methane. However, most of them use “burn stacks” in order to keep the methane from getting into the atmosphere, but by doing that they contribute co2. co2 actually is a good thing because it causes more foilage to develop.
            I have not disputed the claims that mankind is causing additional co2 to be put into the atmosphere from whatever is burned or consumed. What I have stated is that mankind induced gases are not a major contributor to GW. I am aware of all the studies that lean both ways, but I just happen to not be an alarmist such as yourself. Why should I provide references to alarmist study results when those would only serve to damage my point of view. You see, I pick and choose what to believe just as you do.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            “co2 actually is a good thing because it causes more foliage to develop”?.

            “mankind induced gases are not a major contributor to GW”?.

            You need to read some real science, leroy. You’re an embarrassment.

  • Warrior

    Now, who’s going to tell the “chillens” they will have to walk to scrool? I just knew that “bussing” had a downside.

  • elda

    We do need to take better care of our resources like water air and soil without a doubt. But we all know this climate change is made up by people like Al Gore in order to control vast amounts of money because the one that controls the money, controls the world. We as Americans should see this as just one more example of how those in government positions are taking away more than our money, they are taking away our freedom. Global warming is just a distraction now. Obama is about to use his mighty pen to take away our rights to own guns and grow our own food on our own land. We have so much more to worry about than the over population of Polar bears.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      elsa, I will say to you what I said to leroy. Get yourself educated before you make comments on something you obviously know little about (beyond the misinformation you have gathered from drinking the Kool Aid). Climate change is NOT made up and anyone who talks about the “OVER population of Polar bears” is woefully ignorant—-many folks are actually pushing to have polar bears put on the endangered species list.

      • http://royharbin.tripod.com/ Roy L. Harbin

        Make up your half mind there,Thunker..
        .
        Are we talking climate change (weather) or climate change caused by man,as in AGW?
        IOW,,,context man,context.)
        That’s the mark of an intellectual bully and a dishonest debater.Changing definitions of the elements being discussed in midstream.
        But,,I’m sure you being so smart and all have to know that,don’t you?
        .

    • GALT

      You can get all the FACTS you want ( if any ) right here.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com

      If you actually want FACTS and you can comprehend what you READ,
      you will learn that it is quite easy to determine the source of the
      carbon in CO2……..carbon based fuels sources are easy to spot.

      Have fun.

    • Michael Shreve

      We MUST try to avoid Damaging our house, but that does not mean not LIVING in it. Our goal should be to maintain it in a way that ensure we get the most benefit from it.

  • Right Brain Thinker

    To GALT

    THANK YOU for saying everything that need ed to be said about this article and saving me much time. I think the most important thing you said bears repeating:

    “The project seems to be headed by H. Leighton Steward, a 77-year-old
    former oil and gas executive. The press release also links the NASA
    group to his website, “co2isgreen”, which also has an extensive history
    of receiving fossil fuel industry funding”.

    “This story can be summed up very simply: a group of retired NASA
    scientists with no climate science research experience listened to a few
    climate scientists and a few fossil fuel-funded contrarian scientists,
    read a few climate blogs, asked a few relatively simple questions,
    decided that those questions cannot be answered (though we will answer
    them in this post), put together a very rudimentary report, and now
    expect people to listen to them because they used to work at NASA. It’s
    purely an appeal to authority, except that the participants have no
    authority or expertise in climate science”

    That’s the crux of it. A bunch of unqualified shills for the fossil fuels interests try to put one over on everyone and PLD “aids and abets”. (It ought to be a crime to do so). Fortunately, the deniers are losing ground every day as their lies are exposed and the effects of AGW become more apparent even to the ignorant.

    PS Have been looking at Two websites this AM—Climate Denial Crock of the Week and desmogblog, boith good sources fro truth along with skepticalscience. desmogblog has an interesting pie chart—-of 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles released between 1991 and 2012, only 24 (TWENTY-FOUR) rejected AGW. Although the NASA know nothings may think they’re on to something, the REAL climate scientists apparently know what’s happening, and by a margin of 99.8% to .2%, not the 98% we hear so much about

  • KG

    Global Warming is a real as you want it to be. It seems to be a real phenomena considering the history of our planet. From a scientific point of view, there is no question concerning the validity of types of climate change – either on a mico or a maco scale. However, i think the real driving force behind the GW people is a concern for the planet’s health. Considering things like Pollution and waste.

    However, Capitalist cannot be concerned with things like pollution. That just gets in the way of maximizing profits. Besides, they have enough money to run the AC all the time. So, why even go outside? Who needs fresh air? I have all I need in my air conditioned house. Besides, the coal burning plant is in another state. To hell with their kids who suffer from pneumatic diseases.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Yes, some folks don’t want AGW to be ‘real” because dealing with it will impact on the “bottom line”. The one thing wrong with untrammeled capitalism and runaway free markets is that they allow the greedy rich to destroy anything and everything on their way to accumulating even more useless wealth. The planet’s (and their grandchildren’s) health is of no concern to them.

      • http://royharbin.tripod.com/ Roy L. Harbin

        There it is,,the true reason for your vile attitude to non acadaemic folks.
        Funny thing tho,,the greedy rich pro AGW people AND CORPORATIONS are raking in HUGE profits over the matter.
        Why not get on their cases for NOT doing all that stuff they want to do w/out making even one thin dime from it instead of battling w/the uneducated,uninvolved victims of greed over it?
        mmmm?

  • Right Brain Thinker

    I have just read the facebook comments, and have to say that except for Jay McKenzie, this group of FB-ers is pretty ignorant of science and full of nothing but unsubstantiated and misinformed political opinions. It’s often that way on the FB sections of other threads also (not to say that the regular “comment” section is perfect, but it IS better).

    What is the purpose of the facebook comments?. It appears to be more a “cheerleading” section where the ignorant can spew short horsepucky statements and then stand around going YES and congratulating each other on being know nothings. Not a single fact here, and not a single citation. What a waste.

    • http://royharbin.tripod.com/ Roy L. Harbin

      hey Thunker,,
      Where’s your facts?When did you personally compile data?where’s your citations?Why not simply do that,,post citations and not go into all the spleen venting?
      IOW,,what’s the purpose of your comments?Are you simply a cheerleader for those you wish you could rub shoulders with?
      Since you act like you want people to see you as such an acaedemic giant why not go write a piece and have it peer reviewed and maybe get it published?Oh,,yeah,,because you aren’t a ‘climate scientist’ are you”
      And,,it goes w/out saying,,but I will anyway,,you’re afraid to associate your identity with your statements, claims,assertions and outright vile attitude toward those you deem intellectually inferior to you.That’s indicative of either pure cowardice or willing deception and an overly elevated self assessment.

  • duane

    Between Galt, Right Brain Thinker and Leroy, Your discussion has certainly provided more methane gas and the like with your personal attacks on each other and against others. What gives you the right to think or say that you are 100% right about anything. RBT just because you are a former teacher and administrator, does not make you the all knowing superior intellect here. Galt always twist everything that has be on this site to disguise his libtard leanings. Leroy is to new to this site and is trying to show off his so called intellect. The so called 61 comments listed at the start of the comment section failed to state that nearly 95% of the comments are coming from three people. BORING. Get a life boys.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Another motivated reasoner appears to show us that he “thinks” with his emotions rather than his brain. Duane fails to see that I NEVER said I was 100% right about anything—-he is too busy making one of those “personal attacks” on me that he accuses me of making on others. I never said I was an “all knowing superior intellect” either, but that won’t stop Duane from making another personal attack on me by saying that. I certainly know a heckuva lot more than leroy. Do you know more about AGW than I do, Duane? Talk to me about it—google and view the “Youtube Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral” video and tell me what it means.

      Duane proves his confirmation bias by making a personal attack on GALT, saying that GALT is a “libtard” (a truly childish and unimaginative epithet that Duane has copied from other children). GALT doesn’t “twist”, Duane—-he, like me, speaks truths that the mindless like you don’t want to hear, so you attack rather than refute—a sign of intellectual poverty on your part—-you’re a WIFI.

      As Dirty Harry said, “A man should know his limitations”, and I have been trying to educate leroy about both his limitations and AGW. There has been little going on with the other threads, so I have concentrated on leroy—-I hope I have helped him. Coming on PLD is like doing a crossword puzzle or playing scrabble—-a diversion—-if leroy wants to play for a day, i will oblige him.

      What’s boring is comments from guys like you who offer nothing but half-baked opinions and attacks on people who speak the truth you don’t want to hear. Go talk to leroy about prolonging this discussion—-GALT will always be ready to take on the WIFI’s at length on any topic, and I will do so on the topics that concern me the most, like AGW. Get a life? Why don’t you? At least we tried to educate folks.

  • USAFVET

    Hey Galt, it’s common sense that tells us not to believe anything that you or Albert Gore Jr, or Henry Waxman, or Shotgun Joe, or any of the other “Global Warming” alarmists say. The simple fact is there is more salt in the ocean right now around the polar ice cap, along with soot, (carbon, if you will) on the surface ice. It is a well known fact that black attracts heat, and that soot is coming from active valcanos in the northern hemisphere. It has nothing to do with the “man made” crap you are trying to spread. Most of what comprises the greenhouse gasses is water vapor, and one of the least amounts, less than one tenth of one percent, is carbondioxide, or CO2. If anyhthing it’s Carbonmonoxide, CO1, that is more dangerous. What are we and all other animals on this earth supposed to do quit breathing? You are just another political shill for the left that wants to come up with anything just so they can levy another tax. There is nothing you would be able to do even if it were man made, but since it isn’t man made it’s obvious there is nothing to be done. Plants thrive on CO2, they retain the carbon and release the oxygen back into the atmosphere. CO2 causes global warming? In the words of your mentor Gore Jr, BS, BS, BS, BS….

    • Right Brain Thinker

      This is comment is ignorant and misinformed way beyond anything leroy has said, to the point that it’s not worth responding to beyond that. Salt, soot, and volcanoes? Lord love a duck, that’s dumb!

  • USAFVET

    Our LeftBrainStinker seems to have a problem with the increase in saline content in the oceans around the polar ice caps, but the fact of the matter is it’s very true, and (gasp) some scientists have actually proven it. Both pro and con “Global Warming/Climate Change” scientists have agreed on this point along with the fact that “soot” is covering areas of ice also. So laugh and giggle all you want Stinker, but there are some things you just can’t get around. Of course anything that goes against a leftbrainstinkers left brain thoughts has just got to be wrong. Yeah, RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!. Stinker, sometimes you really prove how wrong the left it, and on Global Warming you really do it up big.