Obama, Liberals On Climate Change Jihad

0 Shares
climate0614_image

The Administration of Barack Obama and its allies in the so-called green movement have seemingly been on the offensive this week. And the vehemence and sarcasm accompanying their message make one thing remarkably clear: Environmental progressives will not tolerate debate on the topic of climate change.

In recent Washington Post article, a handful of Obama Administration officials attested that the current President wishes to stake a large part of his second term legacy on pushing stricter government environmental regulations.

From the piece:

Under Secretary Ernest Moniz, the Energy Department is emerging as a more powerful policy driver. Moniz has launched a Quadrennial Energy Review, aimed at analyzing the nation’s energy infrastructure. Moniz also is collaborating with [EPA administrator Gina] McCarthy and Interior Secretary Sally Jewell to craft a national strategy to address methane, a potent greenhouse gas that leaks from natural gas operations, and he will continue to draft new efficiency standards for buildings and commercial products.

At Interior, Jewell is gearing up to make expanding offshore wind energy a hallmark of her tenure in the same way her predecessor, Ken Salazar, made federal leasing of solar projects a top priority. On July 31, Deepwater Wind won the first-ever auction to pursue offshore wind development in federal waters, paying $3.8 million for two areas off Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Interior will offer additional leases in Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey and Massachusetts over the next nine months.

In an agency-wide address to employees Aug. 1, Jewell took the unusual step of suggesting that no one working for her should challenge the idea that human activity is driving recent warming. “I hope there are no climate-change deniers in the Department of Interior,” she said.

Did you get that? Jewell, addressing her agency employees, threatened, “I hope there are no climate-change deniers in the Department of Interior.”

Of course, Jewell was not acting in a manner inconsistent with Administration policy in making what appears to be a veiled threat to anyone who resists the dogma of global warming. On Tuesday, Obama issued a sarcastic dismissal of anyone who prefers evidence to emotional outrage as well as a sort of informal directive for progressives:

twit

twit2

And the folks over at Organizing For America, Obama’s campaign-machine-turned-lobbying-behemoth, got in on the fun as well. OFA announced via Twitter that it would be handing out “climate denier award” trophies with unicorns on top to members of Congress who do not toe the green movement line:

unicorn

Also underway is a $2 million ad buy from the League of Conservation Voters which will be used for ad buys to push green propaganda in the States of four Republicans who have opposed Obama’s moves on climate change. The ads will appear in the districts of Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) and Representatives Rodney Davis ( R-Ill.), Dan Benishek (R-Mich.) and Mike Coffman (R-Colo.).

“The American people are tired of Washington politicians ignoring basic scientific facts and standing in the way of action on climate change,” Gene Karpinski, the president of the League of Conservation Voters, said in a statement. “This ad campaign shows that members of Congress won’t be able to sweep their extreme, anti-science voting records under the rug.”

The President unveiled an aggressive climate change strategy last month, complete with provisions that would throttle existing coal-fired power plants and require the EPA to establish carbon pollution standards for other active plants.

Sam Rolley

Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After covering community news and politics, Rolley took a position at Personal Liberty Media Group where could better hone his focus on his true passions: national politics and liberty issues. In his daily columns and reports, Rolley works to help readers understand which lies are perpetuated by the mainstream media and to stay on top of issues ignored by more conventional media outlets.

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.

  • Robert Zraick

    The people will believe anything as long as it is repeated over and over again. Man made global warming is a myth. Climate always changes. There are many scientists who will show you evidence to prove that it is a lie. And most of the scientists who support the lie are paid by the government.

    This is a scheme to control. We do need to develop better sources for energy. We need to do so because energy is important and carbon based sources are finite. But that has nothing to do with climate change or global warming or the tooth fairy.

    • chocopot

      Summed up very nicely. Climate change is real; global warming is a fraud since the earth has actually been cooling since 1998 – and mankind has nothing to do with it.

      • Robert Zraick

        Thanks. I am glad you agree. Sometimes when you hold ideas which are out of the popular narrative, it can seem a little lonely.
        I think when one person say something, it is subject to dismissal, but once two or more come to the same position, people will start to listen.

        The global warming myth is popular, and people feel noble supporting the planet, and the environment. But this movement has been planned from the top and is entirely manufactured. People would do much better to support things based on truth rather than on propaganda.

        We should be concerned about pollution and garbaging up the planet. But the man-made carbon based disaster myth is simply not true. The myth is so fragile that now the government says we can’t even talk about it. It shows how afraid they are of people learning the truth.

        • chocopot

          “It shows how afraid they are of people learning the truth.”
          And that is the proof that there is an agenda behind all the lies. That is why we need to be alert.

  • terryk

    Climate change is happening as it has through out earth’s history. Is man solely responsible for the climate change the answer is no/ There is no scientific proof that man has caused any significant impact on the climate. Anyone searching the internet can find scientific data supporting global warming and scientific data refuting global warming. The data for global warming is not repeatable which disputes the scientific principal of repeatability when proving a scientific hypothesis. The issue really isn’t if there is global warming or not. The issue is the strategy of global warming – the establishment of government control over every aspect of our lives. The more people opting in or “buying” global warming theories leads to more people willing to give up freedoms and liberty for future security even if it is a false one.

  • amenandall

    Long after humans and their misdeeds have been forgotten, when no such creatures inhabit the planet any longer, no longer misuse it and abuse it, the planet will still be doing what it has been doing for millions of years! Humans have just been an irritant and are totally irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. One has to wonder why such imbecilic and useless creatures can even begin to take themselves so seriously. Their self adoration and narcissism is inexplicable in that they firmly believe that they are the true masters of the universe. Who is the master and who is the servant? The same question can be asked of the governments who forget who the boss really is, the only difference being that in the latter case we are all fools and that is why the world has never been at peace and never will be. Amen to that.

    • Bill

      Good analogy, Amen

  • WTS/JAY

    Global Warming as Religion and not Science

    Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -Blaise Pascal

    It was Michael Crichton who first prominently identified environmentalism as a religion. That was in a speech in 2003, but the world has moved on apace since then and adherents of the creed now have a firm grip on the world at large.

    Global Warming has become the core belief in a new eco-theology. The term is used as shorthand for anthropogenic (or man made) global warming. It is closely related to other modern belief systems, such as political correctness, chemophobia and various other forms of scaremongering, but it represents the vanguard in the assault on scientific man.

    The activists now prefer to call it “climate change”. This gives them two advantages:

    It allows them to seize as “evidence” the inevitable occurrences of unusually cold weather as well as warm ones.

    The climate is always changing, so they must be right.

    Only the relatively elderly can remember the cynical haste with which the scaremongers dropped the “coming ice age” and embraced exactly the opposite prediction, but aimed at the same culprit – industry. This was in Britain, which was the cradle of the new belief and was a response to the derision resulting from the searing summer of 1976. The father of the new religion was Sir Crispin Tickell, and because he had the ear of Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who was engaged in a battle with the coal miners and the oil sheiks, it was introduced into international politics with the authority of the only major political leader holding a qualification in science. The introduction was timely yet ironic since, in the wake of the world’s political upheavals, a powerful new grouping of left-wing interests was coalescing around environmental issues. The result was a new form of godless religion. The global warming cult has the characteristics of religion and not science for the following reasons.

    Faith and scepticism

    Faith is a belief held without evidence. The scientific method, a loose collection of procedures of great variety, is based on precisely the opposite concept, as famously declared by Thomas Henry Huxley:

    The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.

    Huxley was one of a long tradition of British sceptical philosophers. From the Bacons, through the likes of Locke, Hume and Russell, to the magnificent climax of Popper’s statement of the principle of falsifiability, the scientific method was painfully established, only to be abandoned in a few short decades. It is one of the great ironies of modern history that the nation that was the cradle of the scientific method came to lead the process of its abandonment. The great difference, then, is that religion demands belief, while science requires disbelief. There is a great variety of faiths. Atheism is just as much a faith as theism. There is no evidence either way. There is no fundamental clash between faith and science – they do not intersect. The difficulties arise, however, when one pretends to be the other.

    The Royal Society, as a major part of the flowering of the tradition, was founded on the basis of scepticism. Its motto “On the word of no one” was a stout affirmation. Now suddenly, following their successful coup, the Greens have changed this motto of centuries to one that manages to be both banal and sinister – “Respect the facts.” When people start talking about “the facts” it is time to start looking for the fictions. Real science does not talk about facts; it talks about observations, which might turn out to be inaccurate or even irrelevant.

    The global warmers like to use the name of science, but they do not like its methods. They promote slogans such a “The science is settled” when real scientists know that science is never settled. They were not, however, always so wise. In 1900, for example, the great Lord Kelvin famously stated, “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” Within a few years classical physics was shattered by Einstein and his contemporaries. Since then, in science, the debate is never closed.

    The world might (or might not) have warmed by a fraction of a degree. This might (or might not) be all (or in part) due to the activities of mankind. It all depends on the quality of observations and the validity of various hypotheses. Science is at ease with this situation. It accepts various theories, such as gravitation or evolution, as the least bad available and of the most practical use, but it does not believe. Religion is different.

    Sin and absolution

    It is in the nature of religion to be authoritarian and proscriptive. Essential to this is the concept of sin – a transgression in thought or deed of theological principles.

    Original sin in the older religions derived from one of the founts of life on earth – sex. The new religion goes even further back to the very basis of all life – carbon. Perhaps the fundamental human fear is fear of life itself. The amazing propensity of carbon to form compounds of unlimited complexity made the existence of life possible, while its dioxide is the primary foodstuff, the very start of the food chain. Every item of nutriment you consume started out as atmospheric carbon dioxide. It is therefore the ideal candidate for original sin, since no one can escape dependence on it. This manna that gave us life is now regularly branded in media headlines as “pollution” and “toxic”: surely one of the most perverse dysphemisms in the history of language.

    The corrective to sin in religion is absolution, and the power of most religions comes from their claim to have the monopoly on absolution. So it is with the new godless religion. Furthermore, it is in the nature of religion to create false markets. In the time of Chaucer the Pardoner sold papal indulgences, which freed the prosperous from the consequences of sin. Likewise, the new pardoners sell carbon offsets. As in so much of both ancient and modern society these activities divert effort from wealth creation and so act as a drag on the economy. They also grant to the rich a comfort that is not available to the poor – a sure road to success.

    Proselytes and evangelists

    Most religions seek to grow by means of proselytism. Science does not seek or need converts. It teaches those that are willing to learn, but it does not impose itself on those who are indifferent. Religions (at least those that are successful) have a different imperative. A growing cohort of believers reinforces the beliefs of existing adherents and participating in the quest for converts helps assuage the inevitable doubts they might harbour. Successful religions are structured to encompass this expansionary mechanism. Those who can recruit others to the cause are therefore held in high regard.

    Demagogues and hypocrites

    Demagoguery is also, therefore, a feature of religion. Some people have the capacity to hold the masses in their thrall. It is a mysterious art, as their skills of oratory do not often stand up to any sort of critical examination. They are idols of the moment, who often turn out to have feet of clay, as so frequently seems to happen with charismatic TV preachers.

    One of the most notorious demagogues of the godless religion is Al Gore. He is certainly no great orator, but he makes up for it with chutzpah. His disregard for truth is exemplified by his characteristic and ubiquitous pose in front of a satellite photograph of hurricane Katrina. Even some of the most vehement climate “scientists” refrain from connecting that particular isolated and monstrously tragic event with global warming. Likewise his Old Testament style prophecies of further disasters, such as floods due to a rise in sea level, greatly exceed the more modest claims of the “professionals”. As in the overthrow of the cities of the plain and other biblical prophecies, Gore promises a rain of fire and brimstone on us, unless we change our ways.

    Gore also displays all the characteristics of the classical religious hypocrite. He disregards his own proscriptions with abandonment and ostentation. By his own measure (carbon footprint) his sins are great; at least twenty times those of the average American. It is all right though, because he purchases absolution (carbon offsets) through his own company. As he is a private individual it is not known whether he profits directly, but at a minimum he does not pay out of his taxable income and, worst of all, he demonstrates that the rich are immune from any of the actual privations that attachment to the new religion visits upon its poorer adherents. This is also not unknown in traditional religions and has been a source of material for satirists throughout the centuries.

    Infidels and apostates

    Religions vary in their treatment of unbelievers, which ranges from disregard to slaughter. The new religion relies at present on verbal assault and character assassination, though there are those who would go further. They call the infidels “deniers” – a cheap and quite despicable verbal reference to the Holocaust. There is a sustained campaign to deny the deniers any sort of public platform for their views.

    Apostates are universally even more reviled than infidels. They have turned their backs on the true faith, whichever that might happen to be. Partial apostates, or heretics, are even more loathed and through the ages have been subjected to the most appalling punishments and deaths. In the case of the “sceptical environmentalist”, Bjorn Lomborg, he is of the faith. In fact he is a serial believer; accepting, for example, that eating celery causes two percent of all cancers and, of course, that global warming is man made, but he rejects the sacrificing of humanity to the belief. This is unacceptable! What are a few million deaths from dirty water, mosquito bites and other hazards so long as people can be made to conform? So far he has only been assaulted with insults and custard pies. Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, broke with the movement over its growing anti-human, anti-scientific tendencies and drift into extremism. The last straw for him was the campaign against chlorine, not only an essential component of human life but also the basis of one of the most dramatically life-saving hygienic interventions. He has, consequently, been subjected to a prolonged campaign of vilification, described as an eco-Judas, turncoat and traitor. Every minor commentator or blogger who manifests disbelief can expect to be the target of abuse from self-appointed protectors of the creed.

    Sacrifice and ritual…

    continued: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

    • Alex

      Waste of time and space….

      • WTS/JAY

        Religions vary in their treatment of unbelievers, which ranges from disregard to slaughter. The new religion relies at present on verbal assault and character assassination, though there are those who would go further. They call the infidels “deniers” – a cheap and quite despicable verbal reference to the Holocaust. There is a sustained campaign to deny the deniers any sort of public platform for their views.

        Apostates are universally even more reviled than infidels. They have turned their backs on the true faith, whichever that might happen to be. Partial apostates, or heretics, are even more loathed and through the ages have been subjected to the most appalling punishments and deaths. In the case of the “sceptical environmentalist”, Bjorn Lomborg, he is of the faith. In fact he is a serial believer; accepting, for example, that eating celery causes two percent of all cancers and, of course, that global warming is man made, but he rejects the sacrificing of humanity to the belief. This is unacceptable! What are a few million deaths from dirty water, mosquito bites and other hazards so long as people can be made to conform? So far he has only been assaulted with insults and custard pies. Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, broke with the movement over its growing anti-human, anti-scientific tendencies and drift into extremism. The last straw for him was the campaign against chlorine, not only an essential component of human life but also the basis of one of the most dramatically life-saving hygienic interventions. He has, consequently, been subjected to a prolonged campaign of vilification, described as an eco-Judas, turncoat and traitor. Every minor commentator or blogger who manifests disbelief can expect to be the target of abuse from self-appointed protectors of the creed.

    • wavesofgrain

      Some interesting comments. But re Gore: He certainly DOES profit off of this Global Warming Scam. All his companies collect cash and credits. He was one of the first to profit from them. This is one of the ways his net worth ballooned to over 200 million.

      Also…this scheme will not only affect businesses, but there is preparation to tax homes for their energy use. Smart Meters, etc are being forced upon us. Homes will be next for assessing carbon units used. This, in essence will ensure America will no longer be able to enjoy prosperity, as few can afford to heat larger homes anymore (unless you are Gore, Obama, and the band of thieves collecting the carbon credit commissions). Our entire economy will be suppressed as we’ve never known. Beware, and follow the money trail. It is a grave conflict of interest when a president is in charge of enforcing this agenda, when he was involved/linked from the get-go.

    • billybob

      WOW !!!!!! That is all I can say. Brilliant. Well thought out ! Great argument with facts not BS. Never thought of it in those terms. Keep it up.

  • wavesofgrain

    The climate has been cyclic since the beginning of time. There have been tropical eras, ice ages, long before human habitation. This administrations fervor to enslave us with ‘climate change’ taxes is a scheme…follow the money trail, folks. Look who began the fear mongering. Obama funded the first Climate Exchange, Franklin Raines bought the patent to the formula, and Al Gore and the Sachs boys jumped on the bandwagon to brainwash the public on this scam. They started Carbon Exchange companies in the Isle of Man to avoid US taxes, and have been lying in wait for Obama to force this upon us.

    And….BTW…they had to drop the term “Global Warming” because all the money they spent to manipulate data was in vain…they found no evidence of Global Warming. So…they had to change the term to Climate Change!

    • billybob

      Boy you exposed all of the crooks. Good for you! To bad only a few of these people who read this will send it out over the media. I think it should be sent to everyone.

  • Al Chemist

    Off shore wind energy might ‘fly’ off the shore of Virginia, but it will never happen off the Shores of NJ and those New England States. Those liberals/progressives pushing wind energy will not allow all those unsightly windmills to obstruct their own view. It’s been tried before (in the New England States) and stopped for that very reason.

    • billybob

      Well they will solve that problem, they will have it moved to where the poor people live. After all why would you let someone put up a windmill only to spoil their view and lower the value of their property. They don’t pay the politicians all of that money to destroy their views!!

    • Don 2

      Reminds me of that old scumbag Ted Kennedy, “Not in my backyard!” Good riddance to that useless liberal turd.

  • Paul

    I don’t think there is a single reasonable person in this world that will tell you that what we’ve been doing to our environment is good. To use the words of our government “never let a good crisis go to waste”. This entire global warming propaganda is nothing more than another government scam to increase taxes on large business. The problem is crap floats downhill and WE the working people will end up covering the costs. The only way to solve this mess is to start with government and reduce their power and costs by 50%. If not, they will destroy us all as they have done many times in our past history. Yes, we haven’t learned a damn thing from our past experiences.

  • WTS/JAY

    Ian Plimer has outraged the ayatollahs of purist environmentalism, the Torquemadas of the doctrine of global warming, and he seems to relish the damnation they heap on him.

    Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and he may well be Australia’s best-known and most notorious academic.

    Plimer, you see, is an unremitting critic of “anthropogenic global warming” — man-made climate change to you and me — and the current environmental orthodoxy that if we change our polluting ways, global warming can be reversed.

    It is, of course, not new to have a highly qualified scientist saying that global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon with many precedents in history. Many have made the argument, too, that it is rubbish to contend human behaviour is causing the current climate change. And it has often been well argued that it is totally ridiculous to suppose that changes in human behaviour — cleaning up our act through expensive slight-of-hand taxation tricks — can reverse the trend.

    But most of these scientific and academic voices have fallen silent in the face of environmental Jacobinism. Purging humankind of its supposed sins of environmental degradation has become a religion with a fanatical and often intolerant priesthood, especially among the First World urban elites.

    But Plimer shows no sign of giving way to this orthodoxy and has just published the latest of his six books and 60 academic papers on the subject of global warming. This book, Heaven and Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science, draws together much of his previous work. It springs especially from A Short History of Plant Earth, which was based on a decade of radio broadcasts in Australia.

    That book, published in 2001, was a best-seller and won several prizes.

    Plimer presents the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is little more than a con trick on the public perpetrated by fundamentalist environmentalists and callously adopted by politicians and government officials who love nothing more than an issue that causes public anxiety.

    While environmentalists for the most part draw their conclusions based on climate information gathered in the last few hundred years, geologists, Plimer says, have a time frame stretching back many thousands of millions of years.

    The dynamic and changing character of the Earth’s climate has always been known by geologists. These changes are cyclical and random, he says. They are not caused or significantly affected by human behaviour.

    Polar ice, for example, has been present on the Earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time, Plimer writes. Plus, animal extinctions are an entirely normal part of the Earth’s evolution.

    (Plimer, by the way, is also a vehement anti-creationist and has been hauled into court for disrupting meetings by religious leaders and evangelists who claim the Bible is literal truth.)

    Plimer gets especially upset about carbon dioxide, its role in Earth’s daily life and the supposed effects on climate of human manufacture of the gas. He says atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at the lowest levels it has been for 500 million years, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide is only 0.001 per cent of the total amount of the chemical held in the oceans, surface rocks, soils and various life forms. Indeed, Plimer says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a plant food. Plants eat carbon dioxide and excrete oxygen. Human activity, he says, contributes only the tiniest fraction to even the atmospheric presence of carbon dioxide.

    There is no problem with global warming, Plimer says repeatedly. He points out that for humans periods of global warming have been times of abundance when civilization made leaps forward. Ice ages, in contrast, have been times when human development slowed or even declined.

    So global warming, says Plimer, is something humans should welcome and embrace as a harbinger of good times to come.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a80_1248836449#gRwzs2l6VT56tpd2.99

    • wavesofgrain

      Good link…

    • chocopot

      The only problem I have with your comments is that the earth, in fact, is not warming. It has been cooling since 1998, and the trend is continuing. It is now known that the people who have been entrusted with keeping worldwide temperature data have been fudging the numbers for at least the last three decades because they want everyone to believe the earth is warming. Every year they announce that the previous year was the warmest ever recorded. What a bunch of horse hockey. While the last two winters were average in North America, they were severe in most of the rest of the world. And for four consecutive winters before that, temperature and snowfall records were set all over the world. In fact, it snowed in some places where snow had never before been reported in recorded history. During the winters of 2009-10 and 2010-11, it snowed in all 48 of the lower 48 states; that had never happened before in recorded history. North America just had one of the coolest, if not THE coolest, spring ever recorded. Did you hear that in the media? The summer thus far has been quite cool on the whole, yet all you hear in the media is how hot it has been; yes, there were about 10 days in July when it was hot (gee whiz, it is summer), but they never mention how cool the rest of the summer has been. A bit of an agenda, you think? They keep telling us that the warmest decade ever recorded was the 2000’s. That is not correct. In point of fact, the warmest decade ever recorded was… the 1930’s. Do some research, people, the internet has the truth to override all the lies the politicians and the media keep telling.

      • WTS/JAY

        The central point of the article, chocopot, is that; wether the planet is cooling or warming, is a natural process. Always has been, always will be. (-:

        • chocopot

          Gotcha. 10-4.

    • billybob

      I read one of his article debunking the warm mongers. I beieve him and his work. You hit it when you talked about the limited time frame the warm mongers refer to. Very limited in their perspective. Several years ago there was a series on TV that talked about the Co2 and how the earth regulated it. It had to do with the plants use of it and the oceans control of the amount released into the atmosphere. It made sense. If they ever see that one they will pull it off of the air.

  • mathis1689

    I believe in global warming. Every time that Obama opens his mouth he puts out enough hot air to raise the temperature at least 10 degrees for 50 miles around him in all directions.

  • WTS/JAY

    Is Carbon Dioxide Guilty and Global Warming Settled Science?

    If you ask the global warming alarmists, scientists with a liberal agenda who hide and delete research data to fit their talking points, corrupt third world countries that run the United Nations, and the globalist proponents of UN Agenda 21, the answer is yes.

    If you ask students brainwashed into the environmental worship of Mother Earth, investors who stand to make a fortune from selling carbon swaps, Hollywood know-it-alls, and bureaucrats who charge carbon taxes, the answer is yes.

    If you ask corporations and countries like Brazil who profit from pushing biofuels (ethanol and DieselMaxx), the EPA, those green on the outside and red on the inside who want to bankrupt the coal industry, those who want energy prices to skyrocket, and those who receive huge government grants and subsidies to profit from expensive wind and solar energy, the answer is yes.

    If you ask real and honest scientists, 100 of whom took a full-page ad in the Washington Post to denounce the global warming hoax, the protesting people around the globe who are starving or paying much higher prices for their daily food staple, corn, that is now being turned into ethanol, and if you carefully read the evidence and recent scientific data that is not doctored or manufactured, the answer is no.

    If the much maligned CO2, a plant nutrient, is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to accelerate the growth and size of their plants? The generators are made in the U.S. and run on propane and natural gas, turning fossil fuels into CO2.

    A recent study showed that a slight rise in CO2 levels of the atmosphere has actually helped re-green deserts, accelerating the growth of trees, shrubs, and grasses which produce oxygen. The American Geophysical Union concluded that it was the “fertilizer” effect of CO2 increasing vegetation cover by 8 percent in the last 28 years (1982-2010). Researchers adjusted for potential changes from rain, air temperature, sunlight, and land use.

    Nobody can make pronouncements with 100 percent accuracy but it does not stop global warming proponents to say that they are 100 percent sure that man-made CO2 production since the industrial age began is the only culprit for global warming. How can they be so sure? It is the accepted “consensus” of like-minded globalists, not incontrovertible facts. The science of man-made global warming is based on “consensus” and biased computer modeling.

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

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

    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world, said Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment. (Stewart, Christine. Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998)

    
Alan Siddons and Joe D’Aleo call carbon dioxide the “Houdini of Gases.” They wrote on September 5, 2007 that studies compiled by geologist Tom Segalstad show “earth’s biological and chemical processes recycle CO2 within a decade,” contradicting United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conclusion that carbon dioxide remains in the air for up to 200 years. “A CO2 molecule you’re exhaling at the moment is bound to be captured by a plant or a rock or the ocean just a few years from now.”

    Global warming alarmists always murky the waters by interchanging “climate” with “weather.” They are two different concepts. It is self-evident that over millions of years, the earth’s climate has changed independent of human activity, due to solar activity, solar flares, cloud cover, ice cap melts, refreezes, and direction of oceanic currents. Catastrophic weather events have occurred prior to the industrial revolution when human activity could not be connected in any way to earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, droughts, and floods.

    Professor of Climate Science and chair at Macquarie University, Australia, Dr. Murry Salby, the author of the book “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate,” said that man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2 or climate change. Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 present over non-industrialized regions, e.g., the Amazon, not over industrialized regions. Ninety-six percent of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4 percent is man-made.

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/56228

    • billybob

      Very impressive. I’ve read the same things. This is all about the money. It is just a rumor that has become fact for those who wish to get rich on the backs of those who have no say in the matter. It is global robbery. To bad those who’s agenda doesn’t incude your information still have the left wing media to help spew out the lies. It really shows us how little we as humans have to say about those who will impose their will on us. Now I understand why there is an over throw of governments every now and then. Russia and China let their people starve to death. The Oligarchy lived like the President of the United States. How many people on this planet would have the arrogants to take a $100 million dollar vacation at the expense of it’s people, who are losing their jobs and homes?

  • Don 2

    What is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American people: Man-made global warming, or Barack Obama?

    • billybob

      Obamacare!

  • JMichaelOHara

    The mention of climate change certainly brings out the fervent cut-and-paste activity (from WTS/JAY and others), who depend on Canadian bloggers, novelists and Australian poseurs for the texts on why we should all be very afraid of the evil scientist cabal (with thousands of members in every country) who only want to enslave us and wreck the world economy for their own fiendish ends. This is not true, but there is little we can do to change their beliefs.

    I mention this not because WTS/JAY will read a real scientific paper anytime soon but in the hope that someone who reads this board has a bit of curiosity about the reasons that the US National Science Foundation and *all* of the national science organizations of the planet are in agreement about the problem of climate change.

    For those people who want to read up on why all of the assertions of the (cut and pasted) bloggers are false and/or misleading, I suggest the following site to start with:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/

    If (after reading the point-by-point debunking of all the “skeptic” claims) you want additional depth, there are plenty of links to suit any level of scientific education.

    Good luck.

    • WTS/JAY

      From the article you provided, JMichael: 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.

      Uh, who is denying global-warming/climate-change, Michael? The sceptics are denying the false-premise that the cause of global-warming/climate-change is industrialization, or man-made, and not that globel-warming/climate-change is occurring. Reading-comprehension problems, Michael? Btw, there have been many periods during the existence of the Earth, and long before industrialization, when the globe was much warmer than it is now, and there were many other periods during which the climate was much colder. Could you provide a scientific explanation as to why that natural-cycle was occurring in the absence of Industrialization, Michael?

      • JMichaelOHara

        I’m not having any reading comprehension problems but you’re having some gross generalization issues. The “skeptics” are not a monolithic group and their statements fall into five different categories (with credit to Gary Kendall):

        1) Climate change isn’t happening

        This point of view has all but completely disappeared in the face of an overwhelming body of scientific evidence to the contrary. These are the “flat Earthers” of the climate change debate, and it can be difficult to know whether to feel
        anger or extreme sympathy towards them.

        2) Climate change is happening, but it’s part of the Earth’s natural cycles

        Harder for the layman to refute when presented with the largely obvious fact that our home planet has cycled through several ice ages over the millennia, but a huge body of scientific evidence points to a human signature in the types of changes we are currently experiencing.

        3) Climate change is happening, it may well be due to human activity, but it’s generally beneficial

        “So what if sub-Saharan Africa fries and Bangladesh goes under? The frozen wastes of Siberia will become the new bread-basket of the world!” It’s incredible to think that otherwise reasonable people are advocating a
        planetary-scale experiment – with human civilization at the center – in which we would knowingly create conditions that have not existed since hundreds of thousands of years before homo sapiens first walked the Earth. (Modern humans
        are understood to have appeared around 150,000-200,000 years ago, while atmospheric GHG concentrations are
        now higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years.)

        4) Climate change is happening, it’s probably due to human activity, but it’s not going to be as bad as the computer models
        suggest

        This is a relatively new one, and it’s quite sophisticated because it is really difficult to refute. The basic argument is that computer-based projections of the climate sensitivity to growing GHG concentrations have been over-stated, and that we can continue to dig stuff out of the ground and set it on fire with impunity. This point of view was expressed by Pat Michaels.

        5) Climate change is happening, it is caused by human activity, it’s a really bad thing, but there’s very little we can do
        about it and there are lots of other bad things we should attack first

        Bjoern Lomborg has virtually trade-marked this position. It’s very clever because it casts those who would advocate for monumental efforts to embrace a truly sustainable model of human development as well-meaning but ultimately misguided. However, it falls over because unless we do successfully tackle climate change, the future of human civilization as we know it hangs in the balance, and an unimaginably difficult existence awaits billions.” (end quote)
        ————–

        As for this other issue “why that natural-cycle was occurring in the absence of Industrialization” is because there are natural cycles (changes in the angle of the earth’s poles in relation to the sun, etc) which do explain previous changes in climate. However, those cycles do not explain the amount and pace of the current changes in the earth’s climate. Read all about it (and many other questions) on “skepticalscience.com”.

        • Frank Kahn

          Maybe, you are not having reading comprehension problems, maybe you are just reading the wrong things. I noted that you derided WTS/JAY for doing cut and paste, yet you did the same thing here. You did a massive cut and paste, and then failed to inject your own data to support the pasted items.

          “1) Climate change isn’t happening

          This point of view has all but completely disappeared in the face of an overwhelming body of scientific evidence to the contrary. These are the “flat Earthers” of the climate change debate, and it can be difficult to know whether to feel anger or extreme sympathy towards them.”

          This, might, fall under the definition of bald assertion. Who was claiming that climate change isn’t happening? When was this happening? I have seen the statement that AGW isn’t happening, but that is very different from saying GW isn’t happening. Why is there a personal attack involved in this statement? Why would you, ignorant, AGW people get angry over being questioned?

          “2) Climate change is happening, but it’s part of the Earth’s natural cycles

          Harder for the layman to refute when presented with the largely obvious fact that our home planet has cycled through several ice ages over the millennia, but a huge body of scientific evidence points to a human signature in the types of changes we are currently experiencing.”

          Rather hard to reconcile the first item with this one, don’t you think? How can you totally deny that it is happening and claim it is a natural cycle? Then it goes on to claim that what we are experiencing is a different type of change? And, apparently, the difference is because of humans? And, if you want to be credible, you must cite the HUGE BODY OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

          “3) Climate change is happening, it may well be due to human activity, but it’s generally beneficial

          “So what if sub-Saharan Africa fries and Bangladesh goes under? The frozen wastes of Siberia will become the new bread-basket of the world!” It’s incredible to think that otherwise reasonable people are advocating a planetary-scale experiment – with human civilization at the center – in which we would knowingly create conditions that have not existed since hundreds of thousands of years before homo sapiens first walked the Earth. (Modern humans are understood to have appeared around 150,000-200,000 years ago, while atmospheric GHG concentrations are now higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years.)”

          Never heard the claim that it would be beneficial. Why does this one deride the intellectual acumen of people that deny AGW? Some of the hyperbole in this one is disgusting. Who is it that is advocating an experiment? I understand that you AGW people think that failing eliminate the use of fossil fuel usage, is an experiment. But, what about the EXPERIMENT that you GREEN supporters are advocating? Lets completely eliminate the use of fossil fuels, for energy, and see how many millions of people die of starvation. Lets see what it is like to go back to living in caves, with no technology. Conditions changing in a way unheard of in human history? Did you know that Greenland used to be GREEN? It is now a winter wonderland. Humans have survived mini ice-ages. This indicates a major shift in global climate. Then there is the spurious mention of green house gas concentrations in the atmosphere. While, that may be true, what does it have to do with global climate change? Most, if not all, major changes in the global climate were neither caused or affected by these gasses. Considering the fact that major changes have occurred, previously, it is unrealistic to claim that the current change is caused by this factor.

          “4) Climate change is happening, it’s probably due to human activity, but it’s not going to be as bad as the computer models suggest

          This is a relatively new one, and it’s quite sophisticated because it is really difficult to refute. The basic argument is that computer-based projections of the climate sensitivity to growing GHG concentrations have been over-stated, and that we can continue to dig stuff out of the ground and set it on fire with impunity. This point of view was expressed by Pat Michaels.”

          Who expressed this fact is irrelevant, it is whether it is true or not that is important. The fact that, independent sources, say that there has been no raise in temperature for the last 15 years, and the computer models predicted an increase of at least .1 degree Celsius would indicate the statement is true.

          “5) Climate change is happening, it is caused by human activity, it’s a really bad thing, but there’s very little we can do about it and there are lots of other bad things we should attack first

          Bjoern Lomborg has virtually trade-marked this position. It’s very clever because it casts those who would advocate for monumental efforts to embrace a truly sustainable model of human development as well-meaning but ultimately misguided. However, it falls over because unless we do successfully tackle climate change, the future of human civilization as we know it hangs in the balance, and an unimaginably difficult existence awaits billions.” (end quote)”

          Yes, climate change is happening. No, it is not CAUSED by human activity. No it is not a REALLY bad thing. The problem lies in the assumption that we are the cause, and we can therefore stop it. It is alarmist hyperbole that claims the human race is in imminent threat of extinction that makes this a worthless point.

          ————–

          “As for this other issue “why that natural-cycle was occurring in the absence of Industrialization” is because there are natural cycles (changes in the angle of the earth’s poles in relation to the sun, etc) which do explain previous changes in climate. However, those cycles do not explain the amount and pace of the current changes in the earth’s climate.”

          And, finally, you hit the main point of anti AGW right on the head. Global climate change occurs because of many natural causes, therefore it is not AGW. It may, or may not, be aggravated by GHG’s but it is not the cause.

          I noticed, in all 5 of the items listed, the author failed to acknowledge the fact that most of the scientists who are opposed to AGW are opposed to the idea that GHG is the most important factor. The fact that the author ignored this item does not make it non-existent.

          • JMichaelOHara

            Frank – you make a good point and I apologize
            for cutting and pasting a long article. This response (to your comment on my posting of the “five stages”) is all my own (indented with a dash at the beginning)

            “1) Climate change isn’t happening

            This, might, fall under the definition of bald
            assertion. Who was claiming that climate change isn’t happening? When was this happening? I have seen the statement that AGW isn’t happening, but that is very different from saying GW isn’t happening. Why is there a personal attack involved in this statement? Why would you, ignorant, AGW people get angry over
            being questioned?

            – There are people who say this and I don’t view it as “being questioned” – it is an unsupported assertion
            which is easily refuted as untrue. Those
            persons who then keep putting forward an assertion which has been proven untrue were categorized as “members of the flat earth society” sorts by the author of that piece. I don’t usually talk about people
            like that – it’s uncharitable – but I see his point.


            If you aren’t one of those persons there’s no need to take offense – it’s not about you.

            “2) Climate change is happening, but it’s
            part of the Earth’s natural cycles

            Rather hard to reconcile the first item with
            this one, don’t you think? How can you totally deny that it is happening and claim it is a natural cycle? Then it goes on to claim that what we are experiencing is a different type of change? And, apparently, the difference is because of humans? And, if you want to be credible, you must cite the HUGE BODY
            OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

            – You misunderstand the structure of the “5 stages” observation – of course they are not reconciled. Some
            of the people who claim to be skeptics have initially made a statement of the first type. When they have been shown the problems with “no such thing” they will in some cases move on to the next argument “it’s a natural cycle” and on to the next one when that argument has been shown to be unsupportable. It’s not the same person saying both things at the same sitting.

            – BTW – there is a “huge body” of scientific evidence that the climate is changing, is changing faster than at other times in earth’s history; and that the changes can be largely attributed to human influences.

            “3) Climate change is happening, it may
            well be due to human activity, but it’s generally beneficial

            Never heard the claim that it would be
            beneficial. Why does this one deride the intellectual acumen of people that deny AGW? Some of the hyperbole in this one is disgusting. Who is it that is
            advocating an experiment? I understand that you AGW people think that failing eliminate the use of fossil fuel usage, is an experiment. But, what about the EXPERIMENT that you GREEN supporters are advocating? Lets completely eliminate the use of
            fossil fuels, for energy, and see how many millions of people die of starvation. Lets see what it is like to go back to living in caves, with no technology. Conditions changing in a way unheard of in human history? Did you know that Greenland used to be GREEN? It is now a winter wonderland. Humans have survived mini ice-ages. This indicates a major shift in global climate.
            Then there is the spurious mention of green house gas concentrations in the atmosphere. While, that may be true, what does it have to do with global
            climate change? Most, if not all, major changes in the global climate were neither caused or affected by these gasses. Considering the fact that major changes
            have occurred, previously, it is unrealistic to claim that the current change is caused by this factor.

            – This is the next stage. There are persons who (having accepted the idea of the earth’s climate changing) poo-poo the people they call “alarmists” and write about how beneficial a “slightly warmer” climate would be. The author of this piece is taking
            that assertion and uses hyperbole to illustrate the narrow minded nature of it. The persons claiming that it will “be OK or even beneficial” are ignoring the effect even a slight change in the temperature will have on rainfall, crop production, etc on the poorest people
            in the world. Yes – it is a disgusting vision, but the advocates of taking it easy and enjoying the ride aren’t
            thinking about the broader implications of their proposal to other people. It is appropriate to deride the intellectual capacity of people who think we can move most of our agricultural activity to
            northern Canada or Siberia (as some of them have suggested).

            – Related to the claim that climate change will be somehow positive it the assertion that we should
            just “wait and see how it goes”. That is the experiment the author is talking about. The problem with that approach is that – once these changes have occurred
            – there’s less and less chance of coping with them and there’s very little chance to revert to previous conditions.

            – As for “green” identified persons advocating an immediate return to stone age living – I haven’t
            read any statements to that effect. It is a piece of hyperbole typically used by the people who want to delegitimize anyone calling for action on climate change. If you can find any records of anyone actually suggesting such a thing, let me know.

            – There are a lot of proposals out there that recognize a need for a transition to a clean energy based, economically vital and environmentally positive condition and make specific suggestion on policy and technologies to make that happen. There is no shortage of debate about which ones will actually work, but they all have common elements. How can we create jobs, raise our standard of living and (in the process) impose less harm on the environment we are all part of. The “experiment” in this case has only “upsides” – if we invest in the new industrial processes, creating jobs and reducing pollution and reduce our
            use of limited resources and the apparent problem with the climate turns out to be some temporary phenomenon then (OMG!) we’ll just be left with a more vital economy, and all the rest of it. That’s a problem I can live with.

            – As for your comments about green house gasses being “spurious” and the myth about Greenland – these both are related to “massive body of evidence” mentioned earlier. Read about them in more depth at “skepticalscience.com”.

            “4) Climate change is happening, it’s probably due to human activity, but it’s not going to be as bad as the computer models suggest

            Who expressed this fact is irrelevant, it is whether it is true or not that is important. The fact that, independent
            sources, say that there has been no raise in temperature for the last 15 years, and the computer models predicted an increase of at least .1 degree Celsius would indicate the statement is true.

            – The author used Patrick Michaels in the context of mentioning who the current (relatively well
            known) advocates of these positions are.
            If you don’t know Mr. Michaels, that won’t mean anything to you.

            – There are no “independent sources” who can show there has been “no rise in temperature for the last 15
            years”. That is an intentionally distorted reference to a statement of a scientist about the statistical relevance of shorter intervals (15 years) when discussing climate.

            “5) Climate change is happening, it is caused by human activity, it’s a really bad thing, but there’s very little we can do about it and there are lots of other bad things we should attack first

            Yes, climate change is happening. No, it is not CAUSED by human activity. No it is not a REALLY bad thing. The problem lies in the assumption that we are the cause, and we can therefore stop it. It is
            alarmist hyperbole that claims the human race is in imminent threat of extinction that makes this a worthless point.

            – I see this is where you fit into the spectrum, then.

            – The science that can showed (1) the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature (in the 19th
            century) and the science that showed (2) that we can identify which specific molecules of carbon came from man-made sources were not “assumptions” made out
            of nothing. The science has accumulated some very strong evidence that none of the national science organizations of the entire world disagree with – it’s happening and we’re largely the cause.

            – The science (biology and botany) that shows the effect of relatively small changes in temperature
            can have on crop yields (negative), weed and pest development (positive) suggest (among many other effects) that humanity will be in for a difficult
            time in the coming years when trying to maintain our food supply. I agree that to say it equals extinction is a bit extreme, but how many people will need to be negatively affected for this change to matter? One million? 100 million?

            – As for us being able to affect the climate in a positive way by reducing our contribution to the problem (GHG production, agricultural practices, etc) – that is the big question. I hope we can have some effect but if our actions don’t result in a turnaround in climate change we can still reap the benefits of the work we do on other levels (as previously mentioned). There really aren’t any downsides to making
            our world a better place to live for everybody.

            – ————-

            “As for this other issue “why that natural-cycle was occurring in the absence of Industrialization” is
            because there are natural cycles (changes in the angle of the earth’s poles in relation to the sun, etc) which do explain previous changes in climate. However, those cycles do not explain the amount and pace of the current changes in the earth’s climate.”

            And, finally, you hit the main point of anti AGW right on the head. Global climate change occurs because of many natural causes, therefore it is not AGW. It may, or may not, be aggravated by GHG’s but it is not the cause. I noticed, in all 5 of the items listed, the author failed to acknowledge the fact that most of the
            scientists who are opposed to AGW are opposed to the idea that GHG is the most important factor. The fact that the author ignored this item does not make it
            non-existent.

            – The very small group of scientists who actually are working in the fields associated with climate research and who have some objection to the consensus reached by their peers have different approaches to their opposition – they don’t all doubt the effect
            of GHGs. The fact that the author didn’t mention all of them by name or scientific discipline was not relevant to the description he wrote of the “stages of denial”, although I think several of those people probably fit into stage 4 or 5.

        • WTS/JAY

          Gary Kendall:

          1) Climate change isn’t happening

          This point of view has all but completely disappeared in the face of an overwhelming body of scientific evidence to the contrary. These are the “flat Earthers” of the climate change debate, and it can be difficult to know whether to feel anger or extreme sympathy towards them.

          This is a non-starter, Michael, as no scientist, skeptical, or otherwise, has ever made such a ridiculous-claim! If you know of any, please share.

          Gary Kendall:

          2) Climate change is happening, but it’s part of the Earth’s natural cycles

          Harder for the layman to refute when presented with the largely obvious fact that our home planet has cycled through several ice ages over the millennia, but a huge body of scientific evidence points to a human signature in the types of changes we are currently experiencing.

          A huge body of scientific evidence? A more factual statement: A relatively unknown but well-funded group of scientists claiming to posses a huge body of scientific evidence. Evidence? What evidence, Michael? Subjective computer models, or evidence provided by a defunct and derelict-politician and scientist wanna-be, Al gore? Evidence? I think you mean blind-faith fuelled by greed, Michael!

          Gary Kendall:
          3) Climate change is happening, it may well be due to human activity, but it’s generally beneficial

          “So what if sub-Saharan Africa fries and Bangladesh goes under? The frozen wastes of Siberia will become the new bread-basket of the world!” It’s incredible to think that otherwise reasonable people are advocating aplanetary-scale experiment – with human civilization at the center – in which we would knowingly create conditions that have not existed since hundreds of thousands of years before homo sapiens first walked the Earth. (Modern humans
          are understood to have appeared around 150,000-200,000 years ago, while atmospheric GHG concentrations are
          now higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years.)

          Proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGM) claim it is “real” because a “consensus” of scientists support belief in it. But under the methdology of science, though, AGM is an example of a theory. Is this theory a scientific theory? You and a few others argue that AGM is a scientific theory because it is favored by “the consensus” of scientists. In making this argument, you people invoke the logical fallacy of argument from authority; the authorities are the scientists that belong to “the consensus”. Many distinguished scientists and scientific organizations belong to “the consensus.” Whether “the consensus” represents the view of most scientists is a topic of debate. This debate is interesting but irrelevant. Under the methodology of science, the mark of a theory is not that it is favored by “the consensus” but rather that it is: a) falsifiable and b) not falsified in repeated trials. Is the theory of AGM falsifiable?

          The theory of AGM is principally manifested in the climate models that are referenced by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 2007 report. According to the noted climatologist Kevin Trenberth, these models do not make predictions. It follows that: a) the IPCC’s models are not falsifiable and b) the IPCC’s models are not scientific models, by the definiition of “scientific.”

          A point of confusion seems to be that the IPCC’s models make what the IPCC describes as “projections.” A “projection” is a mathematical function that maps the time to the computed global average temperature. A “prediction” is a proposition that states the outcome of a statistical event. The descriptions of a “projection” and a “prediction” differ; only a prediction supports falsifiability.

          The following fictional example illustrates the difference between a “projection” and a “prediction.”
          (with credit to: Terry Oldberg)

          Suppose that on December 31, 2020 at 24:00 hours Greenwich Mean Time, the global average temperature is measured as 16.3901. At the same time, a model projects that the temperature is 17.3327. Is this model falsified by the evidence or is it not falsified? This question cannot be answered, for the details of the associated statistical event are not described.

          Climatology is not about the instantaneous values of variables but rather is about about the average values of these variables over time. In the description of the event that is associated with the prediction of temperature, a starting point is to describe the period over which the temperature is averaged.

          Let us suppose this period is specified. Then, the model projection of 17.3327 on December 31, 2020 at 24:00 GMT must be compared with the average over this period.

          Now, let us suppose that, over this period, the measured temperature was 17.3302. Does the computed temperature of 17.3327 falsify the model? This question cannot be answered, for the various outcomes of the associated event have not yet been specified.

          One possibility is for the outcomes to be defined as temperatures. If this is the case, the model is invalidated, for the computed temperature of 17.3327 differs from the measured temperature of 17.3302.

          Another possibility is for the outcomes to be defined as ranges of temperatures in the sequence 17.3-17.4, 17.4-17.5… In this case, the model is not invalidated, for the projected and measured temperatures fall within the same range.

          Hopefully, the foregoing exposition provides a sense of the difference between a “projection” and a “prediction.” A projection references a statistical event but a projection does no such thing. Predictions are necessary for a model to be falsified but the IPCC’s models make “projections.”

          In the reality of scientific investigation, to define an event entails complexities that are additional to the ones I’ve addressed. I defer elaboration of these complexities until someone asks me about them.

          One responder to my posting to the now closed thread takes issue with falsifiability as the criterion by which a theory may be identifed as “scientific” or otherwise. Falsifiability is identified as this criterion by the philosopher of science Karl Popper. As I understand it, Popper’s criterion is accepted by virtually all modern scientists and philosophers. If the responder has a different view, I’d like to hear about it.

          Another responder seems to claim that the thermodynamics of radiative physics prove the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. In science, though, no theory can be proved right. Theories can only be proved wrong. The thermodynamics of radiative physics are a theory and not a fact.

          More importantly, thermodynamics is of limited utility in modeling the climate, for thermodynamics describes nature only at thermodynamic equilibrium but the climate system is far from equilibrium. Among the many phenomena at disequilibrium are the albedos (reflectivities of solar radiation) of clouds and the viscosities of fluids. -Terry Oldberg

          Michael: So what if sub-Saharan Africa fries and Bangladesh goes under?

          Nature will behave as nature always has, Michael. Humans have very little impact! Ever pondered the contradiction as to why nature would make readily available resources that you and others of similar ilk consider to be detrimental to it’s survival? Because the resources provided by nature are not detrimental to it’s survival, but rather, are vital to it’s survival!

          Michael: in which we would knowingly create conditions that have not existed since hundreds of thousands of years before homo sapiens first walked the Earth. (Modern humans are understood to have appeared around 150,000-200,000 years ago, while atmospheric GHG concentrations are now higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years.)

          The opposite is true, Michael. But i seriously doubt i have any chance of convincing a skeptic/denier such as yourself! Bye bye for now…(-:

        • Frank Kahn

          The initial problem here is one of stereotyping. The author has taken 5 different stands on Climate change, and posited them as stages. This would imply that we go through the stages, which is not true. Without some factual link to a person or people who actually stated that it was not happening is not considered proof. Also, it needs to be stated that this started out as AGW not Global Climate change. So, for someone to deny global warming is not the same as denying global climate change. The term Global Climate change can refer to many different aspects of climate, including Global Cooling.

          I appreciate the fact that you stepped in with your own opinions on these items, it gives me an opportunity to discredit your personal opinion, instead of talking about someone who is not here to defend their position.

          “- There are people who say this and I don’t view it as “being questioned” – it is an unsupported assertion
          which is easily refuted as untrue. Those persons who then keep putting forward an assertion which has been proven untrue were categorized as “members of the flat earth society” sorts by the author of that piece. I don’t usually talk about people like that – it’s uncharitable – but I see his point.”

          Seeing his point, if it is wrong, is not acceptable as support for the statement.

          “-If you aren’t one of those persons there’s no need to take offense – it’s not about you.”

          I deny the existence of AGW, so if this was actual stages, it would be implying it means me.

          “2) Climate change is happening, but it’s part of the Earth’s natural cycles

          – You misunderstand the structure of the “5 stages” observation – of course they are not reconciled. Some of the people who claim to be skeptics have initially made a statement of the first type. When they have been shown the problems with “no such thing” they will in some cases move on to the next argument “it’s a natural cycle” and on to the next one when that argument has been shown to be unsupportable. It’s not the same person saying both things at the same sitting.”

          Actually this statement is wrong on two counts. It is not a matter of stages, and they don’t have to move on from this one because it is true.

          “- BTW – there is a “huge body” of scientific evidence that the climate is changing, is changing faster than at other times in earth’s history; and that the changes can be largely attributed to human influences.”

          True, and false, and a lie. Yes it might be changing faster than other times, but it is also changing much slower than other times. The changes, CANNOT BE LARGELY ATTRIBUTED TO HUMAN INFLUENCES. There is a small body of evidence, and a large body of opinions on the effects of human influence. There is evidence that GHG does contribute, but not a major cause.

          “3) Climate change is happening, it may well be due to human activity, but it’s generally beneficial

          Never heard the claim that it would be beneficial. Why does this one deride the intellectual acumen of people that deny AGW? Some of the hyperbole in this one is disgusting. Who is it that is advocating an experiment? I understand that you AGW people think that failing eliminate the use of fossil fuel usage, is an experiment. But, what about the EXPERIMENT that you GREEN supporters are advocating? Lets completely eliminate the use of fossil fuels, for energy, and see how many millions of people die of starvation. Lets see what it is like to go back to living in caves, with no technology. Conditions changing in a way unheard of in human history? Did you know that Greenland used to be GREEN? It is now a winter wonderland. Humans have survived mini ice-ages. This indicates a major shift in global climate.

          Then there is the spurious mention of green house gas concentrations in the atmosphere. While, that may be true, what does it have to do with global climate change? Most, if not all, major changes in the global climate were neither caused or affected by these gasses. Considering the fact that major changes have occurred, previously, it is unrealistic to claim that the current change is caused by this factor.

          – This is the next stage. There are persons who (having accepted the idea of the earth’s climate changing) poo-poo the people they call “alarmists” and write about how beneficial a “slightly warmer” climate would be. The author of this piece is taking that assertion and uses hyperbole to illustrate the narrow minded nature of it. The persons claiming that it will “be OK or even beneficial” are ignoring the effect even a slight change in the temperature will have on rainfall, crop production, etc on the poorest people in the world. Yes – it is a disgusting vision, but the advocates of taking it easy and enjoying the ride aren’t thinking about the broader implications of their proposal to other people. It is appropriate to deride the intellectual capacity of people who think we can move most of our agricultural activity to northern Canada or Siberia (as some of them have suggested).

          – Related to the claim that climate change will be somehow positive it the assertion that we should just “wait and see how it goes”. That is the experiment the author is talking about. The problem with that approach is that – once these changes have occurred

          – there’s less and less chance of coping with them and there’s very little chance to revert to previous conditions.

          – As for “green” identified persons advocating an immediate return to stone age living – I haven’t read any statements to that effect. It is a piece of hyperbole typically used by the people who want to delegitimize anyone calling for action on climate change. If you can find any records of anyone actually suggesting such a thing, let me know.”

          What you are calling hyperbole is actually a considered expectation of radical transformation from fossil fuels to green energy. Expecting to migrate from one to the other in a rapid time frame, considering the state of current technology, would result in massive problems. Obama has suggested this type of action, when he said he was going to advocate policies and regulations that would make it to costly for current coal fired power plants to operate and impossibly expensive to build new ones. While, it might be desirable to move to less polluting energy sources, in the future, the technology does not exist today to accomplish this. Considering the time frame, that the alarmists are giving, of just a couple decades, it would be impossible to reasonably change our energy dependency in time to make a difference. And if you did try to do it, that is when people will die. Take any large city, like Los Angeles or New York city, then disconnect them from the grid. They cannot use any power that is not generated by wind or solar power. They cannot use any form of fossil fuels to receive anything from outside the city. No planes, trains, boats or trucks can bring in produce or any other type of food. The experiment is to see how long they can survive without fossil fuel usage.

          “- There are a lot of proposals out there that recognize a need for a transition to a clean energy based, economically vital and environmentally positive condition and make specific suggestion on policy and technologies to make that happen. ”

          Yes, there is no shortage on suggestions and proposals but the technology does not exist.

          “There is no shortage of debate about which ones will actually work, but they all have common elements. How can we create jobs, raise our standard of living and (in the process) impose less harm on the environment we are all part of. ”

          Here, you move into environmentalism la la land. There is no credible research that indicates that green energy will result in a net gain of jobs. You must account for the millions of jobs that will be lost in the current infrastructure when talking about job creation. Raising the standard of living is not a reasonable expectation from green energy, if you are considering the net loss of jobs. And living closer to nature is only an increased standard of living to you eco-nuts.

          “The “experiment” in this case has only “upsides” – if we invest in the new industrial processes, creating jobs and reducing pollution and reduce our use of limited resources and the apparent problem with the climate turns out to be some temporary phenomenon then (OMG!) we’ll just be left with a more vital economy, and all the rest of it. That’s a problem I can live with.”

          Upsides – down? You keep stating that it creates jobs, but you fail to consider all the people that lose their jobs. Reducing pollution, what pollution are you talking about? There is massive toxic waste associated with wind and solar power, are those not pollutants? Limited resources, please get real, and say what you mean. Everything, on Earth, is limited. Everything is consuming some type of limited resource. Your definition of “more vital economy” seems to be suspect. What is more vital about creating some jobs at the expense of others?

          “- As for your comments about green house gasses being “spurious” and the myth about Greenland ”

          Greenland is not a myth, it really does exist, I have seen it on maps and even flown over it in a plane.

          “–these both are related to “massive body of evidence” mentioned earlier. Read about them in more depth at “skepticalscience.com”.”

          Skepticalopinions.com is a massive body of opinions.

          “4) Climate change is happening, it’s probably due to human activity, but it’s not going to be as bad as the computer models suggest

          Who expressed this fact is irrelevant, it is whether it is true or not that is important. The fact that, independent sources, say that there has been no raise in temperature for the last 15 years, and the computer models predicted an increase of at least .1 degree Celsius would indicate the statement is true.

          – The author used Patrick Michaels in the context of mentioning who the current (relatively well known) advocates of these positions are.
          If you don’t know Mr. Michaels, that won’t mean anything to you.”

          I know who he is, and it still does not have any bearing on the discussion.

          “- There are no “independent sources” who can show there has been “no rise in temperature for the last 15 years”. ”

          And, there are no “independent sources” who can show there has been a rise in the last 15 years.

          “That is an intentionally distorted reference to a statement of a scientist about the statistical relevance of shorter intervals (15 years) when discussing climate.”

          And, the pretense of the AGW people that says that the last 50 years has been abnormally fast in climate change is using false data and an incredibly short time frame for discussing climate change. And you are either missing the point or refusing to acknowledge the fact that the computer models are wrong. They show a steady increase of temperature because of the level of GHG in the atmosphere, and this has not occurred.

          “5) Climate change is happening, it is caused by human activity, it’s a really bad thing, but there’s very little we can do about it and there are lots of other bad things we should attack first

          Yes, climate change is happening. No, it is not CAUSED by human activity. No it is not a REALLY bad thing. The problem lies in the assumption that we are the cause, and we can therefore stop it. It is alarmist hyperbole that claims the human race is in imminent threat of extinction that makes this a worthless point.

          – I see this is where you fit into the spectrum, then.

          – The science that can showed (1) the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature (in the 19th century) and the science that showed (2) that we can identify which specific molecules of carbon came from man-made sources were not “assumptions” made out of nothing. ”

          And, you can try to twist anything you want, but that is not what I said. I said that GHG are not a major contributor, not that they dont exist or have no effect. And, from a scientific stand point, over 95% of all carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere, is not man made.

          “The science has accumulated some very strong evidence that none of the national science organizations of the entire world disagree with – it’s happening and we’re largely the cause.”

          Pure unadulterated BS. We are a very minor player in the global climate change scenario. It is just ecoreligious nutcases that think they are better than everyone else that think this.

          “- The science (biology and botany) that shows the effect of relatively small changes in temperature can have on crop yields (negative), weed and pest development (positive) suggest (among many other effects) that humanity will be in for a difficult time in the coming years when trying to maintain our food supply. I agree that to say it equals extinction is a bit extreme, but how many people will need to be negatively affected for this change to matter? One million? 100 million?”

          And how many will be affected negatively when you shut down all the agricultural endeavors because they cant use hydrocarbons?

          “- As for us being able to affect the climate in a positive way by reducing our contribution to the problem (GHG production, agricultural practices, etc) – that is the big question. I hope we can have some effect but if our actions don’t result in a turnaround in climate change we can still reap the benefits of the work we do on other levels (as previously mentioned). There really aren’t any downsides to making our world a better place to live for everybody.”

          For everybody that survives the starvation and killing heat and cold.
          – ————-

          “As for this other issue “why that natural-cycle was occurring in the absence of Industrialization” is because there are natural cycles (changes in the angle of the earth’s poles in relation to the sun, etc) which do explain previous changes in climate. However, those cycles do not explain the amount and pace of the current changes in the earth’s climate.”

          And, finally, you hit the main point of anti AGW right on the head. Global climate change occurs because of many natural causes, therefore it is not AGW. It may, or may not, be aggravated by GHG’s but it is not the cause. I noticed, in all 5 of the items listed, the author failed to acknowledge the fact that most of the scientists who are opposed to AGW are opposed to the idea that GHG is the most important factor. The fact that the author ignored this item does not make it non-existent.

          – The very small group of scientists who actually are working in the fields associated with climate research and who have some objection to the consensus reached by their peers have different approaches to their opposition – they don’t all doubt the effect of GHGs. The fact that the author didn’t mention all of them by name or scientific discipline was not relevant to the description he wrote of the “stages of denial”, although I think several of those people probably fit into stage 4 or 5.”

          Wrong again, he did not mention any that have shown scientific proof that GHG’s are a minor player.

    • WTS/JAY

      JMichaelOHara: I mention this not because WTS/JAY will read a real scientific paper anytime soon but in the hope that someone who reads this board has a bit of curiosity about the reasons that the (US National Science Foundation and *all* of the national science organizations of the planet) are in agreement about the problem of climate change.

      Another words, the science is settled, right Michael? Then why are the voices of hundreds of sceptical-scientists suppressed, Michael? Why the censorship? What are you and the scientifically-ignorant afraid of? Loosing profits?

      100 scientists have sent a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking them to stop wasting resources on fighting nature and to start helping people adjust:

      “It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

      “it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions.

      “because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

      “are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great – majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. These scientists go on to counter many points of the IPCC report:

      “Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.”

      “The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years”

      “Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.”

      “In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is “settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on thehypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.”

      “The current UN focus on “fighting climate change,” as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme’s Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems. ”

      http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.44

      • JMichaelOHara

        The “hundred scientists” letter is just that – a letter written by someone and (possibly) endorsed by a bunch of people, some of whom have “PhD” after their names. Several of the points made in this opinion piece are outright incorrect, others are just opinions.
        If these letter writers have any serious disagreement with the actual science of climate change, there are scientific journals in which to publish their own research and have it reviewed by their peers, as is the normal procedure for scientific progress.

        The “19,000 scientists” letter was an outright hoax.

        • Don 2

          And it’s been shown that scientific journals have intentionally disallowed scientific research that disagrees with their liberal man-made global warming agenda.

          • JMichaelOHara

            Name one incidence.

          • Don 2

            I see that Jay took care of that. Read it and weep JMichaelOhara. Nice job Jay!

          • WTS/JAY

            In 2009, the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) was exposed as having edited the results of a study to hide the fact that they had been unable to prove a rise in temperatures, as a result of “man-made” global warming. A hacker dumped a huge cache of their confidential emails onto the internet. British newspaper The Daily Telegraph – in which the term “Climategate” was coined – reported extensively on the widely distributed emails. As reported in that newspaper, some of the excerpts from the emails passed between the institutions so-called “scientists” reveal a deliberate attempt to conceal the results of the research, which did not prove the conclusions they had been hoping for. Just a few examples – as reproduced in journalist James Delingpole’s Telegraph blog – include:

            “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

            “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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

            “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”

            http://guardianlv.com/2013/06/global-warming-zealots-and-three-good-reasons-not-to-trust-them/

          • JMichaelOHara

            The “scandal” was fully investigated by four different authorities and no wrong-doing was found. The CRU and their correspondents made snide comments about their critics (which were apparently deserved) but none of what was written has any effect on the underlying results of work they had done and which was duplicated by several other independent sets of scientists.
            No authors of papers were denied a chance to publish their own work.

        • WTS/JAY

          JMichaelOHara: The “hundred scientists” letter is just that – a letter written by someone and (possibly) endorsed by a bunch of people, some of whom have “PhD” after their names. Several of the points made in this opinion piece are outright incorrect, others are just opinions.

          GLOBAL WARMING PETITION PROJECT

          Qualifications of Signers:

          Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

          The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

          All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

          The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

          Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

          1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

          2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

          3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

          4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

          5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

          6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

          7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

          The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers’ educations.
          http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

          JMichaelOHara: The “19,000 scientists” letter was an outright hoax.

          Prove it!

          • JMichaelOHara

            Yes – the authors of this thing claim to have all of these educated persons’ “signatures”.

            One fairly comprehensive collection of debunking information on this thing can be found on Wikipedia:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

            Another pretty good write up on it can be found here:

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

            As I said before – even if all of these people were truly qualified in the fields they have some opinion about, the channels for making your disagreements public are well known – the scientific journals.

          • WTS/JAY

            Wikipedia? Huff-post? Scientific-journals? Lol! You’re funny, Michael!

    • Bill

      JM
      A large majority of our scientific community is funded by the people that are pushing global warming. So it is natural that they dance with the one that brought them.

      • JMichaelOHara

        Any proof to that assertion? Any names? Any copies of grant applications?
        No? I didn’t think so.
        Any proof that the PR firm that tried (successfully) to get congress to lay off the tobacco industry is the same one funded by the fossil fuel companies to insert “doubt” in the minds of the public about climate change?
        (Yes)

        • Bill

          You don’t need a weather vane to know which way the wind is blowing

        • Don 2

          These man-made global warming clowns need to keep the fraud going in order to continue to receive taxpayer money in the form of government grants so that they can keep a job. After all, who is going to give them government grants to research something that is not a problem? Yeah, real hard to figure out that liberal scam.

    • Frank Kahn

      And, I would suggest that you find a link to a site that is not totally corrupted by government funding. “Debunking”, is not the same as “Proving” something wrong. Much of the science-conjecture on that site is pure malarkey. They down play, and ridicule, true scientific evidence of other probable contributors to global warming. In fact, if you take the time to read the articles, you will find a major logic error. It is called circular logic. Most of the articles refer to other articles that refer back to them for proof. It is a back slapping, buddy party, where each member pats the other members for agreeing with their claims. True science, never has worked in this fashion. True science is an almost adversarial endeavor. If one scientist says A is true, then the other scientists set out to prove it false and/or reproduce the results independently of the original scientists methodology. In other words, skepticism, is the ground floor of science. It is essential, because it keeps them honest. For that site to use the word skepticalscience in its name is misleading. They are only skeptical of people that disagree with their agenda, so it should be “skepticalagenda”.

      • JMichaelOHara

        Frank, I’m sure we would love to take your assertions seriously, but you would first have to back them up.

        – please show how that site is “corrupted by government funding”.
        – point out one instance of “malarkey” from the site.
        – point out one instance of true scientific evidence that has been downplayed or ridiculed

      • JMichaelOHara

        Frank, I’m sure we would love to take your assertions seriously, but you would first have to back them up.

        – please show how that site is “corrupted by government funding”.
        – point out one instance of “malarkey” from the site.
        – point out one instance of true scientific evidence that has been downplayed or ridiculed

        • Frank Kahn

          Since, I did not claim that the site is corrupted by government funding, I see no reason to comply with your insane request.

          I would simply state that any article that supports AGW is based on malarkey and not true science.

          Every article, I read there, downplays true scientific evidence. The pretenders fail every tenet of scientific procedure. True science has shown that carbon dioxide is less than .002% of the contributing factors of global warming. Humans are responsible for less than 5% of all carbon dioxide emissions in the world. The solar cycle is a major contributing factor in global warming. Mars is currently going through global warming. Mars does not have humans producing carbon dioxide. When the skeptical agenda people start acting like scientists, by acknowledging all the factors involved, they can be called scientific papers.

          T

  • ridge runner

    Since records point out 2012 was the coolist year in some time. Even though China, Russia, India were putting more of the evil CO and any other dreamed up crap from the liberial progressive freaks. Time to remove these idoits from the planet for all the bildge they exhale.

    • billybob

      Just rememebr that Liberal don’t like to talk about the facts, they prefer to talk about the issues!!!

  • JimH

    During the Ice age, lower Wisconsin had a 2 mile thick layer of ice, covering fossils of tropical plants. This was all before coal power plants. Just what is the climate in Wi. supposed to really be and what do we tax to lock it in?

  • Motov

    So tell us how taxing carbon will help curb “Climate change”.
    We know how it will make us all poor and you b@st@rds rich.
    We also know it is just a scheme to defraud us out more of our fruits of labor,
    so you can spend it on stupid things that have nothing to do with whatever you claim. “Climate change” has been happening long before you numbskulls “discovered” it and will continue to happen because our sun fluctuates in amount of energy release, and our orbit variations continue, NOT because of man. One volcano can easily dwarf the amount of material put into the atmosphere by man, Volcanoes like Krakatoa, and Tambora**, reduce the global temperatures. Check it out for yourselves. We are being lied to by Government just so they can tax us. That is all what this is.

    • Motov

      **Sure there are variations to the amount of material these volcanoes spewed forth (from site to site), but they all say global temperatures dropped because of their explosions.

      Personally I have a hard time imagining how much material is in one cubic mile, and both of these volcanoes ejected several!

  • mark

    As the northern polar ice cap continues to melt, the Northwest Passage through northern Canadian waters will make for a quicker and cheaper transoceanic passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific and vice-versa. This will put the recently expanded Panama Canal locks scheduled to open next year and the newly proposed Chinese-financed Nicaraguan Canal in economic danger. Both will prove to be obsolete by 2050 as the polar cap keeps melting more and more every year. See:

    http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/science/environment/new-arctic-shipping-routes-by-2050-study-1.1480732#.UguqPtoo7mQ

    http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/new-unexpected-shipping-route-243485.aspx

    But no, this is all just liberal propaganda. Yeah, sure. Like that landing we were supposed to have on the moon. It was all filmed on a Hollywood sound stage. Just ask Alex Jones.

    • billybob

      Well Mark all you have to do is go back about 15,000 years and guess what? We had a gobal warming then that makes this look like a fly next to a 747. It was when that happened that the so called Native Americans migrated across the northen part of what is now Alaska and Canada. What caused that to many fire in the caves?? It is a natural phenomon that has been doing its thing for millions of years. It is arrogant to think that we people could have any influence on this process. It is all about the money. Wake up!

    • Don 2

      Really Mark, I think it is all because liberals fart!

    • Frank Kahn

      Both of those articles refer to predictions and computer models. I noticed the use of the words, possibly or could. These two words are used in guess work. I might have read too fast, and missed the part where it said this would make those canals obsolete. I did notice it said this northern, arctic route would remain seasonal, still closing during the winter.

      The problem, that many of us have, with the alarmist claims of global warming extremists is that they use hyperbole. As a rule, they generally try to blame all of the problem on mans use of fossil fuels. They ignore the scientific facts that many things contribute to their, perceived, global warming. There is an agenda, that is obviously fueling this AGW rhetoric. It is only possible to make a profit, on this issue, if it is shown to be man made. You can’t tax nature. Assuming that the, global average, temperature is going up, what is the cause? For many years, it was simply stated that it was the carbon dioxide emissions that result from burning fossil fuels for energy. Great, they can now put a carbon tax on all these things that run on that type of energy. But wait, now we have another form of energy that is abundant and cheap to use. How can we make a profit off of this? Well, there is a problem with methane gas emissions. So, now, I read where they say that methane is a POSSIBLE green house gas. Maybe they missed the scientific report on this gas, that has been around for decades. Yes methane gas IS A GREEN HOUSE GAS. In fact it is many orders of magnitude worse than carbon dioxide. So, once again they can tax anything that man does that contributes to the release of methane gas (like farting?). Bovines (cows) are a major contributor to global methane emissions. So they can put a methane tax on Beef, and this is in addition to the carbon dioxide tax they are proposing because of the carbon footprint of cattle ranching. Here, they have a bit of a conundrum. Some scientists have asserted that there is massive amounts of methane gas that is trapped beneath the arctic ice. If this ice melts, as predicted, there will be a MASSIVE RELEASE of this gas, causing not only faster global warming, but large areas of fire on the water. If this massive, methane gas, release is inevitable, because of global warming, what is the significance of human caused release?

      Then, there is the current temperature rise (global warming) versus the predicted (computer model) temperature rise. Here, we must rely on the integrity of the reporting agencies. To ascertain the veracity of their reports, we must vet their motives. If we assume that, the government has an agenda, which requires the models to be correct, then we must determine if the reporting of temperatures is linked to government studies in any way. We must question any reports that are based on studies that use government funding.

      In essence, if there is just one item, that can be found to be misleading, then the source of the inaccuracy must be doubted. So, as long as the government uses hyperbole and questionable science, to advance their agenda, there will be reason to doubt, or even deny, the truth of their claims.

  • Bill

    Global warming is one of the best scams perpetuated on the public. They have done such a great job of selling it to the public that it has become like a religion. Try and argue with someone about their god, the same goes for global warming.
    Our local newspaper has a column entitled “This day in history”. I read one a while back that said on this day in history in 1934, a 40 year drought was broken. If that would have happened today, it would have been blamed on global warming.
    The salesmanship of the global warming scam is genius. Because the weather changes all the time, we are always going in and out of a different cycle, it is real easy to say ” Look, the weathers changing. It must be global warming.” So, give me some money and I’ll fix it.
    Carbon credits are a scam and will make a lot of people rich. And this is a dream come true for the communists because they have found a way to have the publics approval as they strangle capitalism

    • Dumpthekoolaid

      That is why they changed their buzz word from “global warming” to “climate change”. It’s not getting warmer, but it’s changing…and we need seize control of industry, kill jobs and our economy to stop that darn change! Dems are nothing, if not brilliant marketers.

      • Motov

        And their “mascot” suits them well. Remember,… most Democrats were former LAWYERS,…Does that suggest anything to anyone?

    • americalandofthefree

      almost as bad as chicken little saying the sky is falling what a bunch of idiots. they can not show proof that the earth is warming. all of the studies show a normal high and low of temps

  • John King

    “This ad campaign shows that members of Congress won’t be able to sweep
    their extreme, anti-science voting records under the rug.”

    Just because someone questions the liberals position on climate change doe not mean one is anti-science! What it means is one questions the liberals methods of interpreting scientific evidence! Nothing is beyond twisting, including scientific facts, in order to make their point appear as truth. Most liberals are arrogant, egotistical, malignant growths on the face of mankind…which need to be removed before death sets in!!!

  • scott miller

    We have 2 super volcanoes that are overdue for eruption, how much can we tax yellowstone and iceland?

    How much will cutting down on coal and adding more windmills solve global extinction when these volcanoes explode.

    Misdirection with lots of money involved is all global warming is about, is climate change real? duh. the climate has been changing for millions of years getting warmer and colder without any humans around to burn fossil fuels.

    The debate is how much, if any, impact human devices has in the mix vs what would happen naturally. And even at that does that amount to anything more than a blip in the face of what nature can and will do no matter what we enact.

    Al gore and his buddies made a mint off climate change. whole science departments get funding to study and restudy and study some more but that funding will get cut if you disagree with the government dogs handing out the checks.

    Wake up we have real threats to our world and it is not burning coal or cow farting it is mother nature doing its thing , we need more government regulation about as bad as we need to do dynamiting at our resident super volcanoes to expedite their eruptions.

  • Paul Anthony

    Global Warming – a historical perspective

    Earth has never had a stable climate. This is a fact that climatologists will tell you, if you ask the right questions – of the right climatologists.

    If we want to know the history of the planet’s climate, one would think we should consult someone who specializes in “Historical Climatology”, but the method known by that label is the study of climate as related to human history and thus focuses only on the last few thousand years.

    Another approach, known as Paleoclimatology, reconstructs past climates by examining records such as ice cores and tree rings. This method gives us a much longer historical span, and allows us to see patterns that indicate cycles in the Earth’s weather. From these folks, we learn that the planet has survived
    several Ice Ages and several periods during which temperatures warmed.

    There has always been a cycle of warming and cooling. We do not know why that has been the case, but the record indicates that this is natural.

    Today’s climate specialists are quick to assure us that the current warming trend they are tracking is not in line with patterns established before. Since it does not fit the natural cyclical course of Earth’s history, they conclude that human activity is the cause. They may be correct. Were it not for the increase of greenhouse gases, we would be experiencing the onset of another Ice Age! In fact, those same specialists were warning us of that likelihood a mere thirty
    years ago. Based upon the long historical record, it seemed the logical next
    step.

    But the Historical Climatology people, – the ones who study the relatively short range of history that is limited to the brief time humans have called Earth home – noticed a pattern that has gone by several names. The most common being: Global Warming (a misnomer, since only some parts of the planet are warming while other parts are predicted to get cooler) and Climate Change (a truer statement, but one that does not evoke the emotional effect of the former).

    What has been lacking in this debate is the question of what would have happened if we humans had not tampered with nature. The answer is evident by history and by the climate models used as recently as thirty years ago. The next question that must be asked is, if we are able to reverse the warming trend, what will prevent Global Cooling?

    The planet has been hospitable to human life for a very short portion of its existence. Naturally, we would like to stop the warming/cooling cycle that is the natural course preferred by Earth, and stabilize the climate so that we can continue to call Earth our home forever. We are chastised by the likes of Al Gore for having the audacity to tamper with the climate of our revered planet, while being told that we have an obligation to “save the planet” by tampering even more.

    Let us be clear. The planet does not need “saving”. It has survived all these millennium without our meddling. For all we know, the climate cycles that it has
    experienced may be necessary for the survival of the planet. But we, so very
    smart and self-assured as we are, will save ourselves, even if it is the
    wrong thing to do for the planet’s sake.

  • http://www.accentrisllc.com/ Dan

    Simply it is the Marxist take over of industry. There is no man made climate change it is impossible. These people don’t believe it either just alarmist power grabbing scare mongers to the week in the mind, uninformed, misinformed low information voters. GO TO CUBA OBAMA!! don’t come back.