Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Political Climate Change

February 12, 2013 by  

Political Climate Change
PHOTOS.COM

Later on this evening, President Barack Obama will take to the floor of the United States House of Representatives and deliver the annual legislative, social and ideological grocery list known as the State of the Union (SOTU) address. In tonight’s speech, Obama will address myriad items which he thinks need immediate and definitive action. Among the entries on his wish list: something he refers to as “climate change.”

So, the leader of the free world will take to the most august stage on the planet; and lay out a Christmas – sorry, Kwanzaa – list of demands for the first full year of his 2nd term in the Oval Office. As per usual, none of Obama’s demands will carry a small price tag. But before we hear Obama’s plan to eliminate “climate change,” we probably ought to determine what climate change actually entails.

“Climate Change” Isn’t Its Real Name

Before they called it climate change, its proponents called it “global warming.” Before that, they called it “global cooling.” Before that, I’m guessing they called it the same thing you still call it: “weather.”

It’s Your Fault

The most appalling aspect of the whole climate change racket is the accusatory nature of the theory. While prominent liberals blame your sport-utility vehicle, your hairspray and/or your livestock for a future apocalypse, they have yet to actually prove they’re related. The supposed “science” on which they make their wild accusations is entirely anecdotal. You drive a sport-ute, use hairspray and own a cow. It’s hot outside. Therefore, you + suv + walking porterhouse = impending doom. Centuries past, Mesoamerican cultures thought solar eclipses were harbingers of destruction; anecdotally accurate to a point. Then, the Spaniards showed up and proved them really, really wrong.

It’s Hotter Out

The planet – heck, the UNIVERSE – is a constantly changing place. The planet has been dramatically warmer than it is now. Indeed, according to most historical climatological data, the Earth is currently mired in one of the coolest cycles in half a billion years. 65 million years ago, the animal kingdom was ruled by Godzilla’s cousins. But they didn’t take the dangers of unregulated dinosaur consumption seriously; and they paid for their wanton consumption by losing their global domination to proto-guinea pigs. The lesson: Paleo-climatology is an inexact science. Also: guinea pigs are bad news.

If We Don’t Do Something, We’re ALL GOING TO DIE!

Actually, it doesn’t matter what we do. The earth, and everything on it, is doomed. Billions of years from now, the Sun is going to run out of hydrogen to use as fuel. It will begin fusing helium before progressing to heavier elements. As this process intensifies, the sun will grow bigger than the sum of Al Gore and his new Al Jazeera oil barons’ bank accounts; eventually swelling large enough to consume Mercury, Venus and most of Congress. THOSE will be bad days indeed, kids. The atmosphere will burn away, the oceans will boil off, the surface of the planet will melt and Obama’s descendants will have to deliver the SOTU underground. We ARE all going to die. Not even a fully-funded Federal agency can stop it.

Forget about the heat; Google “Snowball Earth” for a look at pictures of the planet during its unruly teenage years. While liberals press their climatological phrenology on the rest of us; those aforementioned cycles continue; unaffected by our geologically unimpressive presence. Your soccer mommy-mobile didn’t cause “Snowball Earth;” nor did it cause the temperature spike which gave the dinosaurs planetary hegemony; nor will it be responsible for the Sun’s eventual self-destruction. For that matter, all of the minivans, all of the hairspray, all of the refrigerant, all of the fossil fuel usage, all of the bovine flatulence and all of the superheated air expelled from all of the lungs of all of the global warmists in history doesn’t amount to a bucket of magma.

And yet tonight, in front of a worldwide audience, Obama will demand we act to stop something he calls “climate change.” Nothing the Federal government – especially one headed by a recklessly arrogant liberal like Obama – does ever ends up costing less or being more effective than expected. Our National debt is closing in on $20 trillion. We can’t afford to pay for our proverbial groceries; much less a proverbial grocery list which includes changing the basic nature of the universe.

Join Ben tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern time as he liveblogs the State of the Union address. You can comment along with Ben or take your best verbal shots at him as he employs his unique brand of humor to make sense of the festivities. To join the fun, click here.

Ben Crystal

is a 1993 graduate of Davidson College and has burned the better part of the last two decades getting over the damage done by modern-day higher education. He now lives in Savannah, Ga., where he has hosted an award-winning radio talk show and been featured as a political analyst for television. Currently a principal at Saltymoss Productions—a media company specializing in concept television and campaign production, speechwriting and media strategy—Ben has written numerous articles on the subjects of municipal authoritarianism, the economic fallacy of sin taxes and analyses of congressional abuses of power.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Political Climate Change”

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

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Jeremy Leochner

    1: The reason the name has changed is a response to the changing data obtained from additional experiments. Before they believed that the planet was simply going to get hotter. Later they came to understand that an increase in green house gases can throw the whole climate into flux and cause everything from intensified rain storms to snow storms. So instead of calling it global warming they call it climate change which is what it actually is.

    2: There is precedent to the theory that man made chemicals affect the environment on a global level. The hole in the ozone layer had a direct link to man made CFCS:

    http://www.theozonehole.com/cfc.htm

    And lets not forget China whose pollution has become so bad it can be seen from space:

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/07/opinion/sutter-china-air-can

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-07/deadly-pollution-breathes-new-life-into-solar-debt-china-credit.html

    Do these examples prove man kind is solely or even mostly responsible for climate change. Of course not. However they highlight the fact that mankind can have a serious affect on the environment. For me climate change is a fact. What matters is how much mankind contributes to it. Considering man kind can burn holes in the ozone and create pollution clouds visible from space I believe mankind is capable of contributing to climate change.

    3: No one has ever claimed climate change is happening simply because it is hotter out. And for the record its a good thing the climate of the earth is not like it was at the time of the dinosaurs. Those who support climate change are trying to prevent the planet from potentially shifting back to the climate of that time.

    4: Not to be rude Mr. Crystal but giving up doesn’t sound like the right thing to do. Not to get too philosophical but what is the point of living if we are all going to die. What is the point of cherishing anything since nothing lasts forever. I will tell you. I love my friends and family regardless of how long they will live. I love the beauty of nature regardless of whether it will always be here. Heck that is part of the reason I enjoy it. Just because we may not have control over our planets ultimate fate doesn’t mean we simply throw up our hands and claim we are powerless. If our planet will one day be uninhabitable than lets try and keep it habitable as long as we can. Lets buy time for our children and grand children and so on to develop the necessary technology to evacuate to another planet when our little earth goes the way of the dodo. Our planet may not last forever but I would like mankind to go on as long as we can.

    • rendarsmith

      Or maybe the scientists changed the name to be more broad so they have more reason to continue their “research” and receive grant money. Pay someone enough they will say anything.

      • eddie47d

        Climate deniers are always paying someone to boost their claims such as with the Koch’s who gave the Texas University 23 million to prove it wasn’t happening . When the study was done the university said they couldn’t back up the Koch’s wishes. Sometimes you “can’t pay someone to say anything”.

      • Steve E

        The Koch brothers would not have to give money to disprove global “whatever” if the environmental loonies would not try to convince fools that there is global “whatever”. The Koch brothers are just trying to educate the uneducated.

      • DaveH234

        Stevie E comes off poorly just by calling people names first and then sopouting false info.
        C’mon people that rever the earth and it’s inhabitants are not Loonies. Your the knuckle dragger here.

      • http://omanuel.wordpress.com omanuel

        The unscientific basis of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) are explained below:

        1. http://personalliberty.com/2013/02/11/proof-of-a-u-s-police-state/#comment-834323

        2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3VIFmZpFco

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Its complicated rendar. People need funding to conduct research. And often the funding for the research has to be based on the belief that the theory is correct before the actual experiment has been completed. And with respect the science of the green house effect is well known and accepted as fact.

        • BR549

          Like the pair of scientists from the CDC who set out to verify that gun control saved lives and discovered just the opposite. The media didn’t like their science, though, because the two scientists came up with a conclusion that wasn’t PC.

          • Jeff

            Studies can be done in all sorts of ways and some yield questionable or faulty findings. It’s why nobody makes policy on the basis pf one study. But here are some statistics maybe you can explain. We have 5 states (LA, MS, AK, AL, and NV) where gun ownership averages 50%. We have another 5 states (HI, RI, MA, CT, and NY) where gun ownership averages 14%. In the states with high gun ownership, there were approximately 17 gun deaths per 100,000 population while in the states with low gun ownership, the figure was 4.28. In other words, there’s virtually a 1:1 ratio between gun ownership and gun deaths. And that’s after you control for out of state guns coming into the states with low gun ownership and, presumably, stricter gun laws.

          • BR549

            Well, that’s why I used the pair of CDC researchers, as an example. Working for the CDC, it was supposed that they might have a bias, and if I recall correctly, while admittedly trying to remain professionally objective on the matter, I believe it was stated that they believed the outcome would have supported the point of the study; but it didn’t. In fact, it showed just the opposite, that once they looked at a larger set of parameters instead of they knee-jerk, warm and fuzzy solutions, the results went in a completely different direction.

            I’m paraphrasing what I had read, of course, and I don’t mean to misrepresent their own findings, but this whole issue goes far above taking the “dangerous toys” away from “ALL the children”. Sooner or later, those problematic less than cooperative kids are going to find some way to act out all those years of poor parenting, and until our society has figured out how to address the education issue of empowering more people instead of disenfranchising them, as they are now, those kids will always find a way to revert back to a set of dormant genes and equalize those differences that, in their minds, set them apart from their fellow citizens.

            As I have stated here before on PLD, the liberals all think that they have miraculously reached enough social and civic maturity to deserve a PhD. The fact is that they would all flunk US History and Civics if any such meaningful courses were taught today in lieu of the whitewash that is taught today.

          • Jeff

            I left out that the measured gun deaths were in 2009.

      • Steve E

        DaveH234, you are just another idiot that avoids responding to my statements. That is what fools do.

      • JCfromDC

        AND since the “deniers” are ALWAYS refuted by their better funded doomsayers, thanks to better funded sycophants in the media, the”deniers” are always the bad guys. All the “deniers” claim is that man has had a minimal effect, all his horrible inventions notwithstanding, and that all the necessary funding for stopping “change” is not worth the cost/benefit. I found an interesting study about global warming throughout the entire solar system.. ALL of the planets have had increased “warming” lately mostly because of solar activity. There aren’t any SUVs on Mars last I (or anybody) checked.

        So now, what do we all do, live with less, live “leaner and greener” while Al Gore and ALL his ilk spread doom and gloom from their private jets and THEIR SUV convoys? Oh, yesss, and let’s blame the very industries that have made all of our lives better, and further punish the 3rd world by telling THEM to do with even less? Oh, that’s right, old Al is buying them (or their government elites) off with his Carbon Credits scam, where he has pocketed HOW MANY millions already?

        So lets all go out and buy “green cars” powered by electricity. But where does most of that electricity come from? COAL! The very industry Obama has vowed to destroy. Welcome back to the 19th century. Good-bye West Virginia, Pennsylvania and a few others. How many more will have to enroll for unemployment? That’s right HE is not running again (or IS he?) but get a comfortable salary for eternity either way.

        I just love the stupid naivete of the way people just heap everything bad on “the Industries” and if we only got rid of them everything would be just dandy. Think of how quickly your wonderful, catered, pampered lives would cease if you got your childish dreams realized. Give it three days.

      • eddie47d

        JC: Coal will be with us for a long long time. Nobody is out to destroy it but they are trying to reduce our dependency on it. Coal is one of the biggest pollutants and health hazards in the world. It’s also dangerous work with little respect from those who own the companies. Massey rather proved that two years ago. Coal Barrons made tons of money too just like Al Gore but that’s how our Capitalistic system works. I rather it was different and a more level playing field but they are allowed to gouge us. I doubt if Pennsylvanians are crying much with the Marcellus gas fields working overtime for the state and private businesses.

      • eddie47d

        Steve E; Still being the smart azz with nothing to add that is rational again! As I said the Koch’s plan backfired on them so they are the ones who “got the education” on this issue. They have also been fined in the many millions because of environmental damages and pollution dumpings. They are part of the problem in doing harm to our country no matter how much good they do in the business world. It doesn’t always balance out.

      • eddie47d

        Since you brought it up with name calling Steve E. then I would say you are indeed the “knuckle dragging” “idiot”!

      • http://www.facebook.com/cairochris Chris McCloud

        Wwill they say anything? Perhaps. But in order to get grants and funding for future studies in the same area, you need to publish your results from your initial study, especially if you got a grant for it. This requires a rigorous peer review process, and if anything is found to be doctored/faked/overstated conclusions, etc., the study is rejected and not published. Is the process infallible? No, but it is a heck of a lot harder to publish and get that money than you realize.

      • Terry

        @Jeff…Did you remove the suicides from your gun control ,as firearms are very effective as self killing. Most gun control numbers don’t remove the numbers, as they distort the amount of preventable deaths. If someone wants to commit suicide, they can’t be stopped by a law. In 2008, for which there is readily comparable CDC (PDF) and Department of Justice (PDF) data, more than 18,000 of the more than 31,000 total gun deaths were suicides, and just over 12,000 were homicides.

        • Jeff

          Suicide by gun is far more effective than any other method. Many who attempt suicide and “fail” never try again. Having a gun in your home greatly increases the likelihood a momentary black mood will result in death.

          • BR549

            Jeff wrote: “Suicide by gun is far more effective than any other method. Many who attempt suicide and “fail” never try again. Having a gun in your home greatly increases the likelihood a momentary black mood will result in death.”

            It still comes down to a mental health issue. Not sure where you got your data from, and certainly, if someone fails to do himself in and is around to receive guidance and couceling, they stand a chance at having a life (literally), but our mental health system is a joke.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11131404

      • Terry

        Number of deaths for leading causes of death

        Heart disease: 597,689
        Cancer: 574,743
        Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
        Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
        Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
        Alzheimer’s disease: 83,494
        Diabetes: 69,071
        Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
        Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
        Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

    • Warrior

      Yes to all you have said Jeremy, so let us get on with the “selective breeding” experiments. Funny thing, you never hear much about political family’s abortions. Hmmm, wonder why?

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I don’t believe in selective breeding warrior. I don’t know about political family abortions. Then again as you said we never hear about them.

      • http://comcast.com the fisherman

        You have not seen anything yet Eddie Boy. You call those that you do not face in person knuckle dragging idiots. Tahe a good look at hechle and jeckles comments after the speach. Rubio and Rand

    • Laurabeth

      That’s all fine and dandy but how much of your freedom are you willing to give up for this? How low are you going to let your standard of living get? The climate is going to do what it’s going to do just like it has for the last 4 billion years (what caused and ended the Ice Age?) and instituting Cap and Trade, “smart” grids, and driving stupid inefficient electric cars aren’t going to make one bit of difference. All it will do is give the gov’t more control of your life and lower our standard of living. Which I think is the whole point of all this anyway. Remember what King Obama once told us – you can’t drive your suvs around, keep your thermostats at 72, eat whatever you want and expect the world to say okay.

      • Steve E

        It is arrogant for anyone to think that they can globally change weather, when they can’t even manage their budgets and stay out of, or even recognize that there is an enormous debt that cannot be paid.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I don’t want it to be about giving up freedom Laurabeth. We need to develop alternative fuel sources and make fuel efficient cars more effective and reliable.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Steve it is not arrogant to believe that with cutting tools or even just an axe and plenty of time I can destroy a large forest. Cutting down one tree at a time may seem small and insignificant but it builds up.

    • Jeff

      I have thought this for some time, but this “article” leaves no room for doubt. Ben Crystal is a functional moron. Because the Earth will someday be destroyed by the Sun, we should ignore climate change or global warming that will make many of the planet’s most populated areas uninhabitable in the next 50-100 years? Michael Crichton once made a similarly idiotic argument that was expressed by Moses himself to the effect that the Earth itself will survive man’s folly even if man himself will not.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozO4YB98mCY

      • http://chyleneramsey.wordpress.com chyleneramsey

        There hasn’t been an incident of “global warming” in 16 years. The trend has been for cooling, actually. There is about 200ths of a per cent of C02 in the atmosphere; the ocean gives off more than all human sources combined. Water vapor is the greatest source of greenhouse gases. The atmosphere has a kind of “filtering” process that renders contamenents harmless; that’s why the accumulated farts from milleniums haven’t accumulated and killed us all with methane overdose, just to mention one silly paranoia.

      • http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about omanuel

        Jeff, in my opinion Ben Crystal and Michael Crichton have an excellent grasp of reality.

        In 1977, Nature published an important and fundamental question about Earth’s heat source – the Sun [1].

        If Nature now had the courage to publish the answer [2] to that question, the AGW debate would probably end quietly because the Sun’s pulsar core is also the Creator, Destroyer and Sustainer of all chemical elements, worlds, and lives in the solar system.

        Publication of that information would help leaders of nations and scientific organizations get right-sized [3] so they could better serve the public and protect the environment.

        Consider the fact, Jeff, that every atom, every structure, every living cell in the solar system is still connected to the Sun’s pulsar core – the Creator, Destroyer and Sustainer of elements, worlds, and lives. That finding is consistent with science and spirituality. http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-2339

        With kind regards,
        - Oliver K. Manuel
        Former NASA Principal
        Investigator for Apollo

        1. Peter Toth, “Is the Sun a pulsar?” Nature 270, 159-160 (1977):
        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v270/n5633/abs/270159a0.html

        2. Oliver K. Manuel and Alberto Boretti, “Yes, the Sun is a pulsar,” submitted to Nature (12 Dec 2012):
        http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Yes_the_Sun_is_a_pulsar.pdf

        3. “Being right-sized in an infinite universe”
        http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Being_Right_Sized_in_an_Infinite_Universe.pdf

        • Jeff

          While there is obviously a big difference between “destroying the Earth” and “making the Earth uninhabitable by humans,” if your’re a human being, the distinction is academic at best. Ridiculing those who want to prevent Man from fouling his own nest by pointing out that the Earth will still be around after Man destroys himself is the ultimate in self-congratulatory pedantry.

      • Wellarmed

        I do agree with some that man can “trigger” climate change, but climate change as a process has happened throughout geologic time. If one truly wishes to understand atmosphere formation, creation and destruction then a few courses in Volcanic studies and geology in general should be viewed as mandatory before we come up with a flawed and otherwise criminal system of cap and trade.

        The vast majority of CO2 is processed by the oceans, and I would say that water vapor is not a contender with methane in its ability to act as an incredibly efficient green house gas. C02 as it is measured in (ppm) parts per million has steadily been increasing in our atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and it can be and indicator that we are reaching a point of saturation. The destruction of the rain forests do have a negative affect not only to CO2 reduction but in the way weather patterns can be disrupted. The true canary in the coal mine in my eyes is not the receding glaciers, but the loss of species diversity. A.K.A. Extinction, or more specifically the rate of.

        One must take and very long term perspective when attempting to determine future climate patterns, therefore using not only tree ring data but ice core samples will provide much needed clues to view past weather patterns and how future weather patterns will affect ocean currents. Most but not all global warming/cooling (they can happen at the same time) are a direct result of massive volcanic activity, and many famines throughout recorded history can be laid directly at the feet of large events.

        I do not support the use of coal as an acceptable means to lead the way into the 21st century. After seeing what this industry has done to West Virginia and it’s beautiful landscape I can view it as no more than one of the greatest failings of man in recorded history. The same can be said of what is happening in Canada with the extraction of tar sands. These forms of energy extraction are not the legacy that we should be leaving behind for our children, but with that being said Cap and Trade is not an answer and is no different than a hit man in the mob donating to the Catholic Church so he can cleans his soul before committing his next murder.

        The thing that President Obama fails to understand is that Corporations do not pay taxes! YOU DO! They are in the business of generating profit and all taxes are simply passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices in goods and services. When they reach the point of no longer being able to pass along the fees to the consumer (saturation), then by and large they either close shop (bankruptcy) or they strike the tent and move to countries that do not impose fees in such an amount that they cannot be passed on.

        Cap and Trade is going to be just one more trading system that holds the American people hostage to speculators and commodity traders once they figure out the best method to rig the system for their benefit. This will be the last spike hammered into the coffin of the American Economy, and there will be no undoing it once all industry has left of country.

        • Jeff

          Changes in climate over geologic time are very different from changes in the next 50 years. We are warming the planet at a rather rapid rate, imperiling much of the world’s population living along the coast. If natural processes dictate this must happen gradually over centuries and milennia, people can adapt and slowly move their civilizations inland and to higher ground. Not so easy to do in the short run – particularly for billions of people with virtually no resources.

          • BR549

            And considering the numerous variations in climate that have taken place over the span of geologic time, would we even be able to discern a 50-100 year anomaly? Probably not. Even if we could, as perhaps with petrified wood rings or whatever, what correlation could we make with volcanic activity where we could be able to rule out solar interferences?

            Intelligent planetary husbandry should be taught in schools, but what we have now are politically driven agendas that accommodate communistic globalist thinking.

            I was trying locate the article I had stashed somewhere about cloud cover being a huge and little recognized deterrent to photosynthetic carbon sequestration. If I can find it again, I’ll post it here.

    • JUKEBOX

      Progressives, liberals or whatever thet call themselves this week are always coming up with innocuous sounding names for things, like calling jails and prisons “rehabilitation centers” or criminal justice centers. PC overides common sense and PLAIN English.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I am a liberal Juke box and I have never called a jail or prison a “rehabilitation center” or a “Criminal Justice Center”. Whoever you heard saying that does not represent liberals.

    • Beefcake

      The sky is falling, the sky is falling, and a piece just hit me on the head! We need to create a government agency immediately to plan and construct sky scaffolding to eliminate this serious threat to our entire world, by holding up the sky!

      I am recommending that my cousin be retained as the primary contractor due to his experience in scaffold construction. I will make myself available to conduct the needed research, and disseminate funds to other Sky Is Falling (SIF) reasearchers. Only by maintaining strict scientific standards will be able to understand this very complicated situation.

      SAVE THE PLANET!

      Chicken Little, PhD

      • Right Brain Thinker

        As
        Sen. McCarthy would have said, “Is your cousin now or has he ever been a UNION member?” If so, he is out of luck on getting this job—-his pay and benefits will be too high, and the greedy rich won’t be able to rake off more than their fair share.

  • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

    two days in a row……..different source…….same IGNORANCE!

    1.) weather is not climate.
    2.) a meteor caused the extinction of dinosaurs.
    3.) natural equilibrium range for CO2 is 180 to 280 ppm
    4.) everything above that is caused by US.currently 390+ ppm
    5.) actual effects at this level will take 50 years to reach a new equilibrium

    All the myths and actual science can be found here.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/

    The average denier might know 10……..there are 170+ there,
    which includes the ignorant ones stated here……..

    These are the top 20:

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

    FULL DETAILS REGARDING THE MYTH, SOURCE OF MYTH AND THE ACTUAL SCIENCE CAN BE UNDERSTOOD BY GOING THERE…….

    HOW MUCH YOU WANNA BET THE “WILLFULLY IGNORANT, FUNCTIONAL ILLITERATES”……WILL NOT DO THAT…….BUT INSIST, LIKE OLE BEN, ON SHARING IT……..

    • Karolyn

      God forbid they should even glance at anything that might be contrary to what their gurus (like unfunny Ben) have to say.

    • Thomas the Doubter

      Galt i stopped reading the crap in the referenced link after the first 5 lines.
      They started out great, “Scientific skepticism is healthy”
      And then they shot themselves in the foot with “yet this isn’t what happens with climate change denial”
      Why is anyone who opposes any of the status quo’s so called statements of fact, labelled “DENIERS” as opposed to “LOYAL OPPONENTS OF THE OPPOSITE FORUM”
      Why is it that if you “get on” the band wagon, those “walking in the mud” are just so much “refuse/trash”, and yet you yourself just “climbed on, not even a minute ago”?.

      Fact is “RADIATIVE FORCING DUE TO DOUBLED CO2″, is an opinion, its not a fact! DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY? DO YOU UNDERSTAND that its a conjecture built upon suppositions wrapped in vast expensive experimentation, expensive study,expensive outcome, expensive political maneuvering, etc etc etc etc etc etc ad infinitum AD NAUSEUM?

      Do you realize it can all be shot down with one question?
      Did the science take into consideration the levels of “RADIATIVE FORCING” due to the amount of energy released into the atmosphere
      a) every time you open you house door in the winter?
      b) how much heat is given off every time a car or truck is turned on
      and my favourite,
      c) how much heat, “BLOW HARDS” like you, let off, from either end, when you start up with another thought that hasn’t been digested properly!

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Thomas the Doubter has an attention span shorter than the average 7-year-old when he stops reading after the first five lines. TtheD must also suffer from an extreme case of confirmation bias and truth denial when he proclaims that what he has read in those first five lines is CRAP.

        The same confirmation bias compels him to shout at us—–“RADIATIVE FORCING DUE TO DOUBLED CO2″, is an opinion, its not a fact!” And beat on that absurd assertion AD NAUSEUM? Of course, if he HAD read more than five lines, and DID really want to seek truth, he might not have said that so strongly and thus proved his ignorance.

        Of course, TtheD may be pulling our legs with the whole comment. He gives himself away with his “question”. Yep, he HAS to be less than serious about it when he mentions all those house doors being opened in places that don’t have “winters” (and maybe not even many doors), and all that energy being released in places where the only vehicles to “turn on” are bicycles, donkeys, and ox carts. LOL

        Did the science take into consideration the levels of “RADIATIVE FORCING” due to the amount of energy released into the atmosphere
        a) every time you open your house door in the winter?
        b) how much heat is given off every time a car or truck is turned on

      • Cliffystones

        Galt and the rest of the “it’s our fault” believers will never get it. The only thing harder to explain to these folks is how you can tape one program on your old VCR while watching another.

    • BR549

      You might try researching the papers on HAARP, ….. but before you roll your eyes back in your head and chuckle about people wearing tin foil, understand that papers are now emerging showing how the metallic compounds of aluminum and barium released during chemtrail spraying are actually retarding infrared radiation from returning to space during the natural nighttime cooling cycle.

      Tesla theorized HAARP technology and if I recall correctly some inventor had made it operational in the late ’50s-early ’60s. The US government then took the project and militarized it, leaving the inventor, as his son would later sat during an interview, in a state of severe depression before his death.

      In the mid ’80s, Bernard Eastlund brought the project to what we now now as HAARP, specifically noting the use of the previously stated metallic compounds to better “attenuate” the atmospheric area being radiated by the antennae. I also located papers stating that increased cloud cover, not surprisingly, diminishes photosynthetic sequestration of carbon.

      Thus, while under the guise of helping to prevent global warming, the US government, along with the Russians and Chinese, have been making significant contributions to the problem of GW since the HAARP supportive chemtrailing began in the late ’80s. Once the cat was out of the bag, however, spraying “might” have been presented to the public as a means to increase the albedo of the atmosphere, but if the program were so beneficial for the planet, why was the US government (at least) continually denying any knowledge of the practice?

      I would posit then that, while we may have been having regular, and possibly elevated, cyclic weather patterns up to the ’80s, the weather has definitely become more erratic since then and especially seeing a rise during the ’90s. It is unconscionable that globalists would allow this practice to continue, while at the same time blaming the peoples around the world for the industrialization levels that have only served to posture globalists to become incredibly wealthy.

      I won’t deny that we are seeing changes in our weather, although compared with Earth’s previous atmosphere, we are a long way from that CO2 level. Man’s industrialization would most certainly have an influence on the weather, but I have not seen sufficient evidence to suggest that any of the periods of increased ancient volcanic activity couldn’t have been far worse than what we are experiencing today. That said, and being cognizant of our own contributions to the problem, it stands to reason that any half-way conscious person should be adopting smarter planetary-husbandry practices. As long as governments continue with this military nonsense, and with the blind eyes of the globalists looking the other way, this “problem” is not likely to go away.

      I would further posit that, once Al (the whore) Gore managed to shackle everyone but his cronies under his pet Carbon Tax scheme, the spraying would mysteriously stop and the mindless minions would be left believing that those wise omniscient globalists were right all along and maybe everyone should be taxed. There’s a turnip truck waiting at the corner for those people.

      • Karolyn

        There is evidence available online to refute everything you have to say. I have posted links before, but have no time now. Try visiting some of the skeptic sites.

        • BR549

          “There is evidence available online to refute everything you have to say.”
          And no doubt all those sites will continue to have you ignore some salient points of the argument, including the nonsense that HAARP was never meant to be a weather manipulator. Heck, the inventor from the ’60s I mentioned went into a state of depression after the government seized and militarized his project. He had hoped to increase the rainfall for drought stricken areas of the globe.

          “I have posted links before, but have no time now.” That’s what they all say.

          Try visiting some of the skeptic sites.” I’ve been there and those are the same stupid idiots that used to follow Stephen Barrett at Quackwatch, who himself turned out to be the quack after several court cases showed he was a fraud.

          I had also agreed with Gore at the time of his movie about Global Warming, and I had later voted for Obama in 2008; ……… but then I saw what was going on behind the scenes and it was all a house of cards. Obviously, you’re still stuck on the old track.

          • Jeff

            My problem with the skeptics is they attempt to deny the undeniable by pointing to the fact that the scientists cannot account for every variable. It is true the climate is quite complex and no model can predict with 100% accuracy what will actually happen. Will Florida be under water in 50 years or 100 years? The second link listed below is a response to a particular line of some of the skeptics – that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is real but it is the temperature that raises CO2 levels and not the other way around. The upshot of this criticism was that some of the finest physicists and climate scientists in the world missed something so obvious an undergraduate should have caught it. Well, they didn’t.

            These are articles I’ve accumulated over the past couple of months. The physics is either real or it isn’t. It has nothing to do with Obama or with what you think of Al Gore’s lifestyle. So much of the criticism on these blogs is essentially “I don’t believe in climate change because Al Gore didn’t invent the internet.” No wonder we have a Paul Broun on the House Science Committee!

            http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/science/earth/extreme-heat-is-covering-more-of-the-earth-a-study-says.html

            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/31/richard-muller-climate-change-good-science

            http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/opinion/kristof-will-climate-get-some-respect-now.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

            http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/rising-seas-vanishing-coastlines.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

            http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/27/science/studying-cities-to-find-global-warmings-benefits.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y&_r=0

            http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/science/earth/un-agency-says-2012-ranks-among-hottest-years.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y&_r=0

            http://front.moveon.org/what-if-everyone-saw-this-message-from-robert-redford-2/?rc=daily.share

            http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/us/climate-change-threatens-ski-industrys-livelihood.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y&_r=0

            http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/09/australia-too-hot-to-pump-gas-needs-new-colors/

            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/science/earth/burning-fuel-particles-do-more-damage-to-climate-than-thought-study-says.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

          • BR549

            Jeff wrote: “My problem with the skeptics is they attempt to deny the undeniable.”

            Well, that brings up several issues, the first of which is “skeptics”, period. Many of these people just don’t trust any subtle signal that nature has to offer. The followers of Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch and James Randi are but a few. These people would question falling snow and sunshine. They’ve gotten in such a habit of questioning everything that they never questioned if that behavior stemmed from distrust. And ultimately, they don’t trust themselves, that’s the basis for it, otherwise, they would feel as if they were a part of the very world they always need to question.

            That said, merely positing questions as to how things work is only natural. Cavemen did it when they sought to find something stronger and more reliable than grape vines and came up with rope. As it turns out in almost any endeavor man seeks like this, it invariably turns out that there is pre-existing natural analog; in this case, while man was scratching his head for some solution, the analog was in his body the entire time as the helically wound proteins in collagen fibers. There are many more.

            Too many skeptics have taking their inclination and turned it into a lifestyle. I often wonder how people can trust their government to take care of them, while completely ignoring blatant indicators around them that the government is NOT what they think it is. I’m old enough to have received a decent dose of US History BEFORE it got corrupted, and we are NOT following the path intended by our forefathers, and what is worse, speaking of denial, is that without a sufficient informational basis, too many people agree that Constitution has become an archaic artifact of the progress of man; not thinking once if we had managed to live within that documents principles.

            The framers would have been truly successful if politicians would have honored the people they claimed to represent and afforded them all the REAL education (not the communist hog slop) and history that Jefferson referred to so many times in his writings. That way they could realize if and when the people they had elected were perverting the course of government for their own selfish needs. And look where we are now?

            No one trusts Congress or the POTUS, and they have been so disenfranchised from their own government that they think changing the Constitution will solve the problem. What needs to change is how everyone has become so ignorant of its true function. If enough people pushed the Congress to alter the Constitution, they would be all too willing to comply, …… and of course, the same cast of corrupt dysfunctional globalist-minded characters will be sitting right over their shoulder, instructing them on the “correct” way to word this new document, even if it blatantly enslaves the people.

            Anyway, we were talking about climate change. The problem here is that so many people just cannot bring themselves to fathom the depth of just how far the globalist elites will go to preserve what they perceive to be their proper station in life. The average person doesn’t think that way, so they would dismiss any suggestion that other people could possibly be that evil. I don’t believe that these Bilderberg, CFR, and TC people conspired to contaminate the atmosphere; what they did do was see the potential to utilize contamination and then further manipulate it to enhance their agenda. The very words at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting, that they had already spent tens of millions of dollars to make sure that the public stayed confused about what they had been doing [relative to geo-engineering], should make anyone livid. Yet, the green-weenies will continue to deny that those words had ever been spoken because it doesn’t fit in their limited world paradigm.

      • Proteus1946

        The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is an ionospheric research program jointly funded by the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Navy, the University of Alaska, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

        Built by BAE Advanced Technologies (BAEAT), its purpose is to analyze the ionosphere and investigate the potential for developing ionospheric enhancement technology for radio communications and surveillance. The HAARP program operates a major sub-arctic facility, named the HAARP Research Station, on an Air Force-owned site near Gakona, Alaska.

        The most prominent instrument at the HAARP Station is the Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI), a high-power radio frequency transmitter facility operating in the high frequency (HF) band. The IRI is used to temporarily excite a limited area of the Ionosphere. Other instruments, such as a VHF and a UHF radar, a fluxgate magnetometer, a digisonde, and an induction magnetometer, are used to study the physical processes that occur in the excited region.
        Work on the HAARP Station began in 1993. The current working IRI was completed in 2007, and its prime contractor was BAE Systems Advanced Technologies. As of 2008, HAARP had incurred around $250 million in tax-funded construction and operating costs.

        HAARP has been blamed by conspiracy theorists for a range of events, including numerous natural disasters. Mainstream commentators dismiss such allegations as “uninformed.”

        Various versions of the chemtrail conspiracy theory have circulated through Internet websites and radio programs. In some of the accounts, the chemicals are described as barium and aluminum salts, polymer fibers, thorium, or silicon carbide. In other accounts it is alleged the skies are being seeded with electrically conductive materials as part of a massive electromagnetic superweapons program based around the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP). Those who believe in the conspiracy say the chemtrails are toxic, but the reasons given by those who believe in the conspiracy vary widely, spanning from military weapons testing, chemical population control, to global warming mitigation measures. Scientists and federal agencies have consistently denied that chemtrails exist, insisting the sky tracks are simply persistent contrails. As the chemtrail conspiracy theory spread, federal officials were flooded with angry calls and letters. A multi-agency response to dispel the rumors was published in a 2000 fact sheet by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a step many chemtrail believers have interpreted as further evidence of the existence of a government cover-up.

        Proponents of the chemtrail conspiracy theory say that chemtrails can be distinguished from contrails by their long duration, asserting that the chemtrails are those trails left by aircraft that persist for as much as a half day or transform into cirrus-like clouds.
        “Chemtrails” were mentioned in one version of a bill sponsored by Dennis Kucinich entitled H.R. 2977 (107th): Space Preservation Act of 2001 under “exotic weapons systems.”

        In 2001, United States Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced legislation that would have permanently prohibited the basing of weapons in space, and he listed chemtrails as one of a number of exotic weapons that would be banned. Proponents have asserted that because explicit reference to chemtrails was entered by Congressman Kucinich into the congressional record, this constitutes official government acknowledgment of their existence. Skeptics note that the bill in question also mentions “extraterrestrial weapons” and “environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.” The bill received an unfavorable evaluation from the United States Department of Defense and died in committee, with no mention of chemtrails appearing in the text of any of the three subsequent failed attempts by Kucinich to enact a Space Preservation Act.

        Patrick Minnis, an atmospheric scientist with NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, is quoted in USA Today as saying that logic is not exactly a real selling point for most chemtrail proponents: “If you try to pin these people down and refute things, it’s, ‘Well, you’re just part of the conspiracy’,” he said.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAARP
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory

        • BR549

          Wow, Proteus1946, it’s amazing what one can do with clicking and dragging; unfortunately much of that is a bunch of government BS.

          Back in 1987, we were already protesting the HAARP station off Montauk.

          You cite: “Various versions of the chemtrail conspiracy theory have circulated through Internet websites and radio programs. In some of the accounts, the chemicals are described as barium and aluminum salts,… “. You cite that in the same breath with conspiracy theories”, yet in one of Eastlund’s patents, he lists barium being used for as follows.

          http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4686605/fulltext.html
          Sec 2, Paragraph 4
          “It has also been proposed to release large clouds of barium in the magnetosphere so that photoionization will increase the cold plasma density, thereby producing electron precipitation through enhanced whistler-mode interactions.”

          Next time, bring something meaningful to the table.

      • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

        Well the chemtrailing scheme has been active since the late ’80s and the government had denied it was even doing it at all for almost 20 years. Why would they need do that if it was indeed “beneficial”?

        Some wags calculate that 27% of Americans are just so “crazy stupid” (a technical term, probably) that it’s impossible to reason with them on any issue; but alas, they frequently vote.

        “Chemtrailing” has NEVER been “active.” Back in the old days, before the Church Committee, when some people still thought George Jetson might represent the future, the CIA experimented with mists in subways, wondering about germ warfare, or gas warfare, or other biologicals.

        But, first: Most of that stuff couldn’t survive a jet engine combustion cycle. What you see in the air is water vapor, and has been so since the Wright brothers.

        Second, if you think there’s a conspiracy to cover it up, all I can say is you don’t know enough airplane mechanics, who are more redneck than you in all the ways that would make you call them “patriots,” and who would not for one moment allow devices to spread “secret sauce” out of jet engines. As a small group of these mechanics once told me, “Don’t even smile if you accuse us of that, partner — you’re going to need that energy to run, and we’ll get you anyway.” (Yeah, airplane mechanics occasionally read Owen Wister.)

        Sure, there are trace elements in jet fuel — but more barium and boron and mercury and other pollutants comes out of coal used in coal-fired power plants, and evades the scrubbers there. You’ve identified a pollution issue, but you’ve misidentified the source and the harms, and your conspiracy nuttiness absolutely damages work to get that stuff out of our air.

        “Chemtrailing” conspiracy ideas wax whenever LSD makes a comeback, or when there is some other reason for an uptick in schizophrenia. They wane when sanity takes over and people pay real attention to science.

        Don’t complain that these pollutants are a problem, and then stand in the way of scientists seriously working to resolve the tough problems of air pollution — even if you think (accurately) they don’t share your particular craziness. Someone has to avoid hallucinogens and drive the bus.

      • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

        I like how you so neatly figured this whole issue out for all of us to understand; especially since the government HAS already admitted to it, and the fact that it was stated in Eastlund’s and other’s patent.

        Neither the U.S. government nor any other has “confessed” to using commercial jets, nor any other jets, to blanket the world in mind-altering drugs, nor anything else you claim.

        The existence of a patent is not evidence that the device or process works as advertised, or is used at all. There are lots of patents for buggy whip improvements, too.

        • BR549

          Ed, I don’t believe I said that it was commercial aircraft that were responsible. If you’d even BOTHERED to view the links I sent, you’d discover that much of the distribution of barium and aluminum has been done through nozzles. Whether this has become a preferred method, I don’t know. There are a few mistaken photos of fuel dumping at altitude, but there are those also showing spraying apparatus trailing from the tail section, although I have not witnesses such devices in action.

          I had researched one of the more frequent spray locations (Mount Shasta, CA) and at the time couldn’t discern the whackos’ input from legitimate data. That’s when I started looking up the county mining assays of the surrounding soils and they confirmed what the whackos had been saying …… and the government was denying, that the sudden increase of aluminum in the topsoils had risen substantially and it was forcing a pH change that prohibited proper hydration of the foliage.

          At the time, I was moderating a website and members were throwing in appearances by Elvis and the Easter Bunny, because they mistakenly equated the spraying that was occurring overhead with an analyzed and confirmed deposition of fine aluminum particulates on car hoods, patio furniture, etc. Those mining reports had demonstrated that the topsoils that had been covered by construction such as foundations laid decades or more earlier, had far less aluminum than the as current topsoils. Secondly, it has been noted that the only planes flying immediately after 9/11 were military planes and they were still disbursing during that timeframe when commercial airliners were not permitted to fly.

          I know you think you to have a good bead on the situation, but this is 2013, not 1953.

          • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

            You’re confusing water vapor condensation trails with something else.

            No, there are no nozzles. You slander the good men and women of our military and civilian aviation when you make such groundless charges. They are patriots, and they would not do that. Shame on you.

          • BR549

            Ed wrote: “You’re confusing water vapor condensation trails with something else. No, there are no nozzles.”

            For crying out loud, Ed, I thought we’d gotten past that. There were pictures of nozzles in the links I sent you. And no, I am not confusing water vapor trails. Years ago, I had shown where people were complaining about “sprayers” getting turned on and off repeatedly were nothing more than a jet transitioning a washboard thermocline. I’ve researched both sides of this for almost 13 years now; apparently, you just fell off the turnip truck; either that or you’re a shill.

            “You slander the good men and women of our military and civilian aviation when you make such groundless charges. They are patriots, and they would not do that. Shame on you.”

            You’re more than naive, Ed, you are an idiot. You have absolutely NO idea about what you are talking and are so convinced you have all the answers. You want to live in your protective little bubble, where the Easter Bunny comes every year and you still remember the Tooth Fairy.

          • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

            BR549, as part of your “proof” you offer an image from a page of a document you don’t identify, which talks about spraying titanium dioxide from a “jet nozzle.”

            http://stopsprayingcalifornia.com/images/pages/Chemtrail_Documents_image030.jpg

            What you fail to note is that the device is for skywriting, for putting a plume of “smoke” behind an aircraft (usually an open cockpit biplane) for use in air shows.

            The stuff the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds use as plumes, including the red, white and blue streaks that wow the crowds.

            Titanium dioxide (TiO2) is also used in face paint, in makeup.

            So, you’re claiming an invention used in stunt flying is really a secret “dosing” device.

            Get a life, will you?

          • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

            Also see here, for a pilots view (they aren’t happy that you question their patriotism, you know): http://www.nmsr.org/pilotsvu.htm

          • BR549

            Ed wrote: “Also see here, for a pilots view (they aren’t happy that you question their patriotism, you know): http://www.nmsr.org/pilotsvu.htm

            No Ed, Mr Wickson’s article (yes, I did read it) made no mention of his patriotism being challenged. Don’t drag your personal stuff into the discussion. I think what you are confusing is me challenging your paradigm of willful ignorance.

            While Mr. Wickson didn’t seem to include a date on his article, he seems to have done a broad cursory investigation on a number of related issues and ends by saying about chemtrail’s existence, and I quote, “It’s entirely possible. In concluding this lengthy dissertation, I have to admit I can’t disprove their existence.”

          • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

            Neither can you offer a convincing argument that chemtrails exist. For those of us who have watched and wondered about contrails for decades, who have studied the physics and chemistry of jet engines and turboprops at high altitudes, who have bothered to track down the meteorology on contrails, and who know what busy jet lanes look like, your rants are clanging bells.

            You offer photos of military air-refueling tankers, and claim they are spraying people down with mystery substances. You cite patents that mention your claim in passing, but you cite the patents as evidence your claims are true, which is not at all what the patents say. You offer pictures of pitot tubes, and claim they are instead “spray nozzles.” Every pilot knows better.

            You insult all airplane mechanics, claiming they are in on the plot. You insult military pilots, claiming they work to harm Americans, contrary to the oaths they take. You offer chemical formulations for sunscreen and skywriting fogs, for chemicals that are inert with regard to human health, and you act as if they are nasty poisons instead of sunscreens.

            To anyone who has ever worked for a pilot’s license, to all pilots, to Air Force navigators, to airplane mechanics, to meteorologists, to chemists, to physicists, to epidemiologists, to serious people who have any curiosity about science and enough common sense to read Scientific American, your claims ring hollow.

            It’s bad enough you waste your own time (isn’t waste a sin?); then you bother the rest of us to waste our time, too.

            Hit a good library, and start reading “Contrails” magazine starting in the 1950s. If you can find the back issues of the Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, read them, too.

            Learn something more about the air and chemistry and flying than just those odd tidbits of misinformation and disinformation that match your ardently wished-for conclusions.

            Please.

          • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

            Titanium dioxide, essentially inert, chemically, could be used as a substitute for atmospheric aerosols, like sulfur oxides, to reflect light and heat from the Earth into space, to fight global warming.

            See a rational discussion here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/05/120529-global-warming-titanium-dioxide-balloons-earth-environment-science/

          • BR549

            Ed wrote: “Titanium dioxide, essentially inert, chemically, could be used as a substitute for atmospheric aerosols, like sulfur oxides, to reflect light and heat from the Earth into space, to fight global warming.”

            Ed, go listen to the CFR meeting on YouTube on geo-engineering, where they admit to spending tens of millions of dollars to intentionally keep the public confused about what they were doing to the atmosphere, because if people found out what they were really doing, they would be livid. Obviously, their program must be working.

            And there are a number of articles also showing that increasing the atmospheric albedo diminishes photosynthetic sequestration of CO2 even though your NatGeo article didn’t cover it. With respect to the aluminum and barium, more so than some of the other materials used, is the issue of creating an IR mirror that more efficiently reflects radiation back to Earth during the natural daily cooling cycle. The researchers must not have been privy to your top secret information because they’ve obviously been on a wild goose chase testing parameters which don’t exist. I should have them call you so you can set them straight.

          • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

            BR549, your source here, http://rense.com/general11/chmmill.htm, quotes the fascist, racist, hate group Liberty Lobby with an article plagiarized completely from Liberty Lobby’s propaganda organ, The Spotlight.

            First, shame on you for spreading that crap.

            Second, if by some chance you didn’t realize you were promoting racism and a group that is borderline terrorist and all-the-way “bring down America, government first,” shame on you for such gullibility.

            Here’s the article at Liberty Lobby’s site, in case you contest its source: http://www.libertylobby.org/articles/2001/20010611chemtrails.html

            Here’s a cooler explanation of the group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Lobby

            You know Willis Carto — he’s the Holocaust denier who lost the suit in California brought by Mel Mermelstein. Carto offered a $50,000 prize for anyone who could prove the Holocaust occurred. Mermelstein offered the proof, including his own family’s tattoos from the death camps. Carto refused to pay. Mermelstein sued for breach of contract, and won.

            The case established once and for all that the Holocaust did occur.

            Frankly, if Liberty Lobby claimed the sky is blue, you’d do well to check. You can’t trust ‘em. I won’t, and you shouldn’t.

          • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell
          • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

            BR549, I especially don’t like it when people try to hoax me.

            You offered this photo, from a U.S. Air Force tanker, as best I can tell: http://viewzone2.com/chemtrailsx.html
            http://viewzone2.com/chemtrails.nozzle.jpg

            “Chemtrails nozzle?” Bullfeathers.

            Read this:

            That sure looks like something that would be used to spray stuff into the atmosphere. Assuming the photo was/is authentic, this does not automatically support the chemtrail conspiracy theory, as it could be used for more innocent purposes. In fact, that appears to be the case. I dug around a bit on internet, and found a website or two devoted to military air-refueling, and another run by retired USAF air-tanker pilots, the guys who flew and operated those aircraft. For example:
            http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/5317/
            http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=134945
            I emailed one of the retired tanker pilots identified at their chat-room, and sent him a copy of the above photo, asked if he knew what that was. He responded quickly. It is a specialized nozzle placed on the refueling boom of the KC-135 Stratotanker aircraft. The KC-135 typically is used to refuel other aircraft, for long-distance air-to-air missions. But there are versions of it configured to use with water only, and with this special spray-nozzle attached. Why water?

            After taking off and climbing to high altitude, the KC-135 sprays the water from its tanks through this nozzle, whereupon it quickly turns into icy material. Aircraft under performance testing are then flown behind the KC-135, close to that water-spray nozzle and into its discharge stream, to see how they perform, if the engines are affected by the wet icy conditions, or if the wings or windshields ice up.

            See the whole post, and more photos here: http://obrlnews.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/popular-chemtrail-spray-plane-photo-a-hoax/

            Shame on you for slamming our military people like that.

            You owe me and all readers here an apology.

      • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell
        http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4686605/fulltext.html
        Sec 2, Paragraph 4
        “It has also been proposed to release large clouds of barium in the magnetosphere so that photoionization will increase the cold plasma density, thereby producing electron precipitation through enhanced whistler-mode interactions.”

        Next time, bring something meaningful to the table.

        BR549, that is a patent for a device (that probably would not work) to use magnetic waves to hold charged ions. In describing the potential value of the thing, the inventor notes that someone had “proposed to release large clouds of barium in the magnetosphere.”

        He did not say anyone had ever done so. He did not say that he proposed doing so. He did not say it was feasible.

        And the device patented would avoid exactly that, the release of “large clouds of barium.”

        So the patent you offer as evidence was a patent for a device that would NOT require “chemtrails,” but instead would obviate the need for releases of barium — which might or might not work to do what this device proposed to do.

        The patent was for a device to increase the electrical charge of gases in the atmosphere.

        In no way does that patent provide evidence for any of your claims.

      • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

        Don’t drag your personal stuff into the discussion.

        That’s rather the zenith of gall, isn’t it?

        Here we’ve got a major portion of this thread devoted to your personal misunderstandings of chemistry, physics, aviation, policy, biology, meteorology and politics. But make a factual assertion, and it’s “drag[ging] your personal stuff into the discussion.”

      • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

        The researchers must not have been privy to your top secret information because they’ve obviously been on a wild goose chase testing parameters which don’t exist. I should have them call you so you can set them straight.

        This is all open information. Part of my frustration is that you have not bothered to check for publicly available information on these issues, on these chemicals, on these devices — though you could figure out the facts from your desk with Google and an open mind.

        “Open mind.” We all wish.

        By all means, have them call me — though if they are so set in their errors as you, as the beleaguered readers here can attest, I haven’t had much success setting you straight.

        • BR549

          Ed wrote: “By all means, have them call me”

          Sure, OK, wait by the phone, they’ll be calling soon ……… [what a rube]

          • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

            You mean you were pretending to influence you don’t really have?

            Funny, with your pretending to knowledge you don’t have, I didn’t think you’d have the gall to expose yourself more.

            My error: I won’t mistakenly give you a chance to be trustworthy again.

    • phideaux

      Galt lost any credibility he might have had with this lie.

      “4.) everything above that is caused by US.currently 390+ ppm”

      For that statement to be true the US would have to be the ONLY emmiter of CO2 in the world.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Dear “willfully ignorant, functional illiterate”, besides being the typical logical fallacy,
        it is a case of complete stupidity, on your part.

        The next time you should restrain yourself and ask a question, to be certain,
        since your intellectual skills are obviously deficient.

        The question should have been, what do you mean “by US”?

        To which I would have responded US as in man, we the people,
        homo homo sapiens, etc.

        Of course, the period after the US. which should have been a comma may
        have confused your logical reasoning skills, and you could have included that
        as the element prompting your question…….

        Had I intended, what you desperately seem to want to believe,

        I would have written it as “by the U.S.”…….which by itself would have simply
        been an error of fact, and easily admitted to or corrected……and essentially has
        no relevance to climate change, or the human caused portion of it, which
        still remains as everything over 280ppm, the upper limit of the natural
        range for CO2 as stated which is 180 to 280ppm.

        U.S. contributions have often been stated as, we having 5% of the worlds
        population and using 25% percent of the worlds energy, thus being 25% of
        the problem……and while other’s are catching up in terms of energy usage,
        their populations are significantly greater in terms of percentage, so there is
        no relevant comparison when approached on a per capita basis.

        As you can see I am more than willing to assist you in improving your
        reasoning skills whenever possible, but a little improvement at some point
        would be ‘encouraging” in terms of ROI………so was it good for YOU?

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        I dare say, Galt, that there are times when your scorn and ridicule are nothing short of lethal…it was an honest mistake on the part of Mr. Phideaux.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Mr. Phideaux, requesting clarification prior to engaging in an all out blind-assault, may prevent dismemberment in the future. Peace!

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Nice of you to be so generous, Jay…….if only phidox was a virgin….

        You really have no understanding of how losing “all credibility” can affect
        a person of such delicate sensibilities as I have clearly demonstrated
        myself to be………….

  • Cramer

    Galt, you are a lying liberal Idiot!

    • eddie47d

      Cramer; What is your sound rational reasoning for your “brilliant” answer? Was it a programmed response or was it the extent of your education.

      • John Woodbury

        No it is the limit of your education. He did not want to overextend you R E A Ding level.

      • eddie47d

        Another amazing answer where John is also bragging about his knowledgeable insight.

      • OneGuess

        So, eddie47d, you agree with John? How humble of you. Rest up; you’ll feel better later…

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Probable meanings of Cramer’s comment when translated into Rationalese:

      I have no idea what GALT is talking about
      I have no knowledge of the science involved
      I have no intelligent response to make
      I am so crippled by confirmation bias that I cannot accept truth
      I am willfully ignorant
      All of the above

      • cawmun cents

        You forgot one….

        I am able to sift through (expletive deleted),and form my own opinion.
        Mark me down for that one….
        Cheers!
        -CC.

      • Frank Kahn

        And your post is exactly what you are.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Frank Kahn says: “And your post is exactly what you are”

        Are you talking to me, Frank? .If so, you’ll have to use a little more of your brain and explain that to me, because I have no idea what you’re talking about.

        • Frank Kahn

          I can understand both your lack of ability to understand and your failure to address the content of my post.

          Everything that you said about me which was intentionally derogatory is a description of yourself. Does that help you to understand what I meant? If not I will be happy to go back and copy and paste your ranting so you can see exactly what you said about yourself.

          Next time, try to have a discussion about the facts which I have given instead of making everything a personal attack.

        • Frank Kahn

          Sorry, was thinking of the wrong post, it was your denegration of someone else that you used these terms.

          you said:

          “I have no idea what GALT is talking about
          I have no knowledge of the science involved
          I have no intelligent response to make
          I am so crippled by confirmation bias that I cannot accept truth
          I am willfully ignorant
          All of the above”

          A perfect description of you sir.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Frank Kahn is again confusing us all with his confusion:

        Frank, I ALWAYS address the “content” of your posts. Just because you fail to understand what I’m saying or don’t like it doesn’t mean I’m not “addressing”. I am only “derogatory” when addressing mindlessness, logic fails, confirmation bias, willful ignorance, misstatement of fact, and all those other things that you are so guilty of continuing to do (in spite of having them pointed out to you so many times).

        Frank says, “If not I will be happy to go back and copy and paste your ranting so you can see exactly what you said about yourself”. Don’t bother, Frank, since your reading comprehension and logic skills are so weak that you are not qualified to tell me what I actually said, and I don’t give a rodent’s rear end what you THINK I said.

        Frank says, “Next time, try to have a discussion about the facts which I have given instead of making everything a personal attack”. That’s where I start every time, Frank. You need to start giving some “facts” that are REALLY facts rather than wing-nut opinions, and then we’ll make some progress..

        In his confusion, Frank becomes unconfused and gets to where he wanted to be at the start. Frank does that clever thing of trying to turn my own words back on me and even “struts” a little when he says, “A perfect description of you sir”. So very clever, Frank.

        I have no idea what GALT is talking about
        I have no knowledge of the science involved
        I have no intelligent response to make
        I am so crippled by confirmation bias that I cannot accept truth
        I am willfully ignorant
        All of the above

        Unfortunately, Frank is so clueless that he doesn’t realize the joke’s on him here. Those words fit the person they were directed at. They DON’T fit me, but they DO fit FRANK in EVERY WAY. Way to go Frank, how many toes have you shot off now?

        • Frank Kahn

          the words fit you also, and you have still not addressed a single fact. Your pretending that they are not facts makes you the ignorant one not me.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Facts are facts, Frank, and they’re the same for everyone—-no “pretending” involved. Even many of YOUR “facts” are correct on their face—-where you go wrong is when you misuse those facts in trying to make arguments that they won’t support. (And you are overusing the word “ignorant” to the point of terminal boredom—-go look up something more appropriate in your Antonyms for Dummies book)

        Keep repeating “the words fit you also” a million times to yourself, Frank—-that won’t make them true to anyone but you. I will be here to “whack” the mole.

        • Frank Kahn

          still keeping with the denial I see. If you think I use them in an unsupportable way then give an example.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Frank fails to see who is “in denial” here when he says, “If you think I use them in an unsupportable way then give an example”. Lord love a duck, Frank, are you that much of a dim-wit and dullard? Go look at all those “ad hominem” attacks you misinterpret and see what brought them on—-there’s your answer (actually dozens of them).

        • Frank Kahn

          No, the Lord loves everything not just a duck.

          The ad hominem attacks by you are only an indication of you not being able to debate in an adult and intelligent manner.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Say goodnight, Frank!

        (and Frank is old enough to have watched Laugh In and know the proper response to that)

        • Frank Kahn

          STILL DONT HAVE ANYTHING INTELLIGENT TO SAY? YOU ARE A PATHETIC JOKE AND A WASTE OF RESOURCES.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Time for morning Whack-a-Mole with Frank. Frank stays up late to make another feeble attack on me and once again exposes us all to his mindlessness. I have pointed out before that Frank has no sense of humor, and he once more proves it by failing to do the Laugh In thing, in which the proper response to “Say goodnight, Frank” is “Goodnight, Frank”. And he is even ANGRY and SHOUTING as he delivers another one of those “ad hominem” thingies that seem to be defined by him in so many different ways, depending on whether he is dishing them out or THINKS he is receiving one. You’ve been “whacked” yet again here, Frank—-actually several times. Tighten up the chin strap on your helmet because I have a feeling that you will be popping up out of your hole and looking for more.

        STILL DONT HAVE ANYTHING INTELLIGENT TO SAY? YOU ARE A PATHETIC JOKE AND A WASTE OF RESOURCES.

        PS And not to nitpick, but I have asked you before to put the apostrophe in don’t, as your Grammar for Dummies book would tell you to do if you checked. Don’t is a contraction of “do not” (Check GFD). The word “dont” refers to things related to “teeth”. Unless of course, you do it just to annoy those of us who have better vocabularies and a better understanding of grammar than you do—-that would not surprise me.

        (Say “Good morning”, Frank)

    • Karolyn

      Wow! That was intelligent! I don’t see YOU posting any info to refute anything GALT posted. Just because you don’t like what he has to say makes it untrue and makes him a liar? I think not! He provided links for your own investigation. What do you have to contribute to the discussion? The answer: A big fat NOTHING!

      • Frank Kahn

        Karolyn, the site was referenced before, a while ago. I did a couple hours reading some of the links. It is extremely biased reporting and does not follow good science. Most was opinion of the writer. It was a huge waste of time, as is GALT’s assertion list. Al Gore is a charlatan, he did not use science, he used plagiarized video footage in his An Inconvenient Truth. His carbon footprint is larger than most 3rd world countries, which makes him a hypocrite also. Does man contribute to warm house gasses, yes, is it significant towards global warming, no.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Frank Kahn is once again displaying his ignorance of things scientific and his general closed-mindedness by what he says here.

        The site Frank so easily dismisses in his ignorance is one that has been referenced many times on many threads. Skeptical Science is one of the best sites around for anyone seeking truth about AGW and climate change science. Frank has ABSOLUTELY NO STANDING to make such assertions as “It is extremely biased reporting and does not follow good science. Most was opinion of the writer. It was a huge waste of time”

        Frank spent TWO hours reading “some” of the links? Frank doesn’t know enough science to even understand what he is reading, never mind make the judgment that it’s “bad science”, “biased” (“extremely”, no less), and “opinion” rather than shat it really is—-supported argument.

        I WILL agree with Frank that is WAS wasted time for him—-Frank could spend two HUNDRED hours reading on this site and learn little, both because of his basic lack of science understanding and his blind and mindless confirmation bias—-Frank doesn’t WANT to see truth—-he only wants to see what he already believes to be the truth. GALT has posted much from this site and I have recommended it also. When you look at it, be sure to read the comments for each entry—they are often the sites of more truth than the base article.

        PS Frank, please tell me exactly what parts of An Inconvenient Truth are “plagiarized”. Take your copy off the shelf , play it, and mark down the time intervals of the plagiarized sections. I will take mine off the shelf and play it and see if you know what you’re talking about. I’d be willing to bet $100 against a dime that Frank has never even viewed it.

        PPS I’m sure Frank contributes to the level of “warm house gasses” at his house, with all the excessive gasbagging he does here. Must hold down his heating bills.

        • Jeff

          “PS Frank, please tell me exactly what parts of An Inconvenient Truth are “plagiarized”.”

          Since when is the issue “plagiarism”? Certainly, Al Gore got his material from others. That’s the whole point. He’s just a messenger. The science stands on its own regardless of Al Gore’s merit or lack thereof.

          • Frank Kahn

            No, Jeff, the fact is that there is no science in his documentary, it is all hyperbole intended to elicit an emotional response and knee jerk reaction to something that he CLAIMS is happening. A presentation of science is not made in this fashion. Hell, Cows farting contribute almost as much greenhouse gasses as burning fossil fuels, should we kill all cows to save the world? No, maybe we all need to become vegetarians so we dont need all those cows (steers) for beef. Mars is in a warming cycle just like the earth, could the sun be the cause?

            The problem with Al Gores ranting is that he took one fact and built some massive human crime out of it. HUMANS EMIT GREENHOUSE GASSES, WE ARE KILLING THE WORLD!.

            NO, WE ARE DESTROYING THE WORLDS RAIN FORESTS AND KILLING THE WORLD.

        • Frank Kahn

          I dont need to provide you with anything, and it is you that is mindless and ignorant of science. The scenes where it shows the polar bear drifting on an ice flow is from a movie. Al Gore was even sued in Europe for this film. Yes I have watched it, the most bizarre and idiotic part is the timeline showing greenhouse gas buildup and the climate change cycle. And yes, I understood the information in those links, it is just non-scientific psycho babble. Find a site that actually gives numbers and true analysis of greenhouse gas concentrations by type. Maybe, in some far off future you might find the ability to learn something. And putting the name skeptical does not make something more analytical. Actually, the skepticism is on the side of people that dont believe the hype about man causing global warming. Follow the science, but first ask questions about the money, who is getting rich off claiming we are at fault for global warming through our greenhouse gas emissions.

          You have never given any personal intellectual discussion to any point on this blog site, so your meaningless ad hominem attacks on my intelligence is ignored.

          Again, make my day, provide me with something intelligent to discuss.

        • Frank Kahn

          P.S. I watched it in college as part of my course work, so it is documented and if you wish you can donate the $100, you lost in that bet, to a charity that plants trees.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Frank Kahn insists upon messing with the bull of truth and feeling its horns. His whole response to Jeff borders on the irrational. There is NO SCIENCE in An Inconvenient Truth? Could have fooled me. And cows farting? Lord love a duck, Frank!

        Frank then starts in on me, and Frank again demonstrates that he does NOT understand the concept of reasoned debate and argument when he proclaims “I don’t need to provide you with anything” and makes one of those “bald assertions” he read about in Logic for Dummies when he then says, “and it is you that is mindless and ignorant of science”. Frank then comments on the documentary.

        Frank–”The scenes where it shows the polar bear drifting on an ice flow is from a movie”.
        And? This is a problem why? Did you expect Al Gore to paddle out in a kayak and take his own footage? Is THAT what you called “plagiarism”?

        Frank–”Al Gore was even sued in Europe for this film”.
        NOT true, Frank, there was a suit in England over how the movie was to be used in classrooms but Al Gore was not involved. Do you ever get your facts right?

        Frank—”Yes I have watched it, the most bizarre and idiotic part is the timeline showing greenhouse gas buildup and the climate change cycle”.
        Just the way you have stated this makes me wonder if you understood what you watched. Bizarre? Idiotic? A timeline showing greenhouse gas buildup and the climate change CYCLE? One has to be qualified to pass judgments like “bizarre” and “idiotic”, Frank. You’re not qualified. I, on the other hand, AM qualified to say exactly that about your comments.

        Frank–”And yes, I understood the information in those links, it is just non-scientific psycho babble”
        Bizarre and idiotic statement, Frank. The site is LOADED with scientific information, gives many numbers about all aspects of AGW, and is one of the best sources around. For someone who seeks truth, that is—-perhaps not so much for someone like you that only sees truth in what he already believes or wants to believe. And “psycho babble” is perhaps not the term you meant to use, because it makes no sense here.

        After some more fragmented “psycho babble”, Frank drops back to his default position—-insults and name-calling, with “You have never given any personal intellectual discussion to any point on this blog site, so your meaningless ad hominem attacks on my intelligence is (sic) ignored”.
        Interesting, whatever it is that I am “doing” to Frank, it certainly seems that he is not ignoring it. If he is, why is he responding to everything I say.

        Frank—”Again, make my day, provide me with something intelligent to discuss”.
        That’s all I ever do, Frank, but you are just too mindless to even see that and take me up on it. If you expect me to agree with your ignorance of things scientific and sit back while you misinform everyone, that will not happen. I have too much respect for the truth.

        And Frank says—”P.S. I watched it in college as part of my course work, so it is documented and if you wish you can donate the $100, you lost in that bet, to a charity that plants trees”.
        You watched it in college? As part of what course and in what context? How did they measure your understanding of what you watched? You may have “watched” it, but you definitely did NOT “see” it. And I’m surprised at how young you must be—since AIT was released in 2006, you must be no older than your late 20′s? How did you develop such an ossified brain at such an early age?

        • Frank Kahn

          More senseless ad hominem attacks, what you want to know little boy. that is the first name I have called you. You dont qualify as sir anymore. That site, at best, has a few in-congruent pieces of information all convoluted and nonsensical in analysis. And for the reading comprehension challenged the word IS was correct.

        • Frank Kahn

          PS, your assumption about my age is way off, I served in the Air Force during Vietnam.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Whack-a-Mole Frank pops up once again. He berates me for “ad hominem” attacks and then hypocritically proceeds to lay a bunch of “ad hominem” on me. Sticks and stones, Frank.

        Frank served in the USAF in Viet Nam? That must make him nearly as old as me, since I’m 72 and I served in the USMC before Viet Nam. That means That Frank was somewhere around 65 when he went to “college” and viewed AIT.

        I will repeat my comment and await answers from Frank. “You watched it in college? As part of what course and in what context? How did they measure your understanding of what you watched? You may have “watched” it, but you definitely did NOT “see” it.

        Frank HAS answered this question. “How did you develop such an ossified brain at such an early age?” Since he didn’t go to college until ~65, he had plenty of time to “ossify” his thinking before then, and that’s why he doesn’t understand AIT.

        Frank again provides a wonderful advertisement for how good the Skeptical Science website really is. If Frank in all his ignorance says “all convoluted and nonsensical in analysis”, we all know that the site is exactly the opposite and worth visiting.

        Frank also says, “And for the reading comprehension challenged the word IS was correct”. Try again, Frank—-go to Grammar for Dummies and look up “subject-verb agreement”.
        You said , “so your meaningless ad hominem attacks on my intelligence is (sic) ignored”.
        What IS correct is either “attack-is” or “attacks-are”—-you got it wrong..

        • Frank Kahn

          “your attacks” is singular. “the attacks” are plural. Your age estimate is wrong again. My returning to college to update my knowledge and upgrade my degree was not an indication of anything you might suggest.

          The course was ethics, we also watched A Time to Kill and Miss Evers Boys. Analysis discussions were performed to determine the validity of the studies and or actions of the participants. Grading was on knowledge of subject matter in the films as well as reasoning and logic development in the ethics question. What the course was, and / or the evaluation and grading of comprehension of the movie is not relevant in the purpose of deciding the fact that you lost the proposed bet on whether or not I had actually seen the movie. The fact that you think Al Gore is right does not affect the true facts about global climate change.

          You use ad hominem attacks constantly with your usage of the “grammar for dummies” and all the other “for dummies” references. I actually bought one of those books, Web Design for Dummies, and agreed with the title after reading it. Only a dummy would think what was in that book would work well on the internet.

          I would ask that you give an example from my post that you are claiming is an ad hominem attack. If you dont like the word ignorant, I can use other terms with somewhat similar meanings but they sound much more derogatory, like dullard, uneducated or dim witted. And, again, I dont need a book called “Synonyms for Dummies” to know what words might be substituted for ignorant.

          Saying that you dont provide any intelligent fact based arguments here is not an ad hominem attack on your intelligence, it is a statement of fact based on your continuing to use personal attacks to avoid addressing the facts surrounding the topic being discussed.

          I would also point out that you lied about me in one of your other posts. I have never been challenged on the global warming topic to a degree where I was unable to defend my position and therefore was silenced. I actually have a life, and sometimes the mass of responses in these threads is hard to keep up with. If I somehow missed a response, and thereby failed to respond, it was not due to being defeated in any way. And, I am certain that what ever challenge you were referring to did not come from you, since you have as yet never challenged any facts, nor offered any facts of your own for discussion.

          And, your whack a mole is a childish attempt at humor.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Frank Kahn says, “And, your whack a mole is a childish attempt at humor”. Humorous indeed, for anyone who has ever seen a whack-a-mole game will surely grin at the use of the analogy. Childish not at all, certainly for anyone who is perceptive enough to see that the analogy fits you perfectly. And here Frank is again, asking for more “whacks”.

        First “whack”. Frank says, “your attacks” is singular. “the attacks” are plural. I will say no more than Frank needs to go read his Reading Comprehension for Dummies book so that he can understand what his Grammar for Dummies book is saying to him.
        (hint, hint, and hint again—-attack-is, attacks are—-”your” and “the” are neither subjects nor verbs and are irrelevant)

        Frank throws some more carefully crafted but illogical and obfuscatory “argument” at us with, “Analysis discussions were performed to determine the validity of the studies and or actions of the participants. Grading was on knowledge of subject matter in the films as well as reasoning and logic development in the ethics question”. What?

        And Frank gets back to his perceived victory with, “What the course was, and / or the evaluation and grading of comprehension of the movie is not relevant in the purpose of deciding the fact that you lost the proposed bet on whether or not I had actually seen the movie”. OK, Frank, I WILL concede that you “saw” the movie in the sense that it played in front of your eyeballs, even though your comments about it would indicate that you didn’t “see” it in any way that would indicate you comprehended it. The next time I slip $20 bucks to a homeless vet, I will dedicate it to you.

        I would love to see a course syllabus for this “ethics” course. An Inconvenient Truth, A Time to Kill, and Miss Evers Boys seems like a somewhat strange selection for the three movies to be shown and “analyzed”. What was the “ethics” question involved with AIT? Man’s immorality as shown by the destruction he has done to the environment? I would have loved to hear your “analysis discussion” on that—-can you tell us about it? If you can spend all that time on the “tree-weed” question as you did with GALT, I think it’s only fair that you give equal time to the “ethics” of AIT as perceived by your class and you.

        Frank gets something right for a change when he says, “The fact that you think Al Gore is right does not affect the true facts about global climate change”. That’s right, Frank—-we can all agree on that—-truth is truth, facts are facts—-Yep.

        Frank says, “I can use other terms with somewhat similar meanings but they sound much more derogatory, like dullard, uneducated or dim witted”.
        Derogatory is as derogatory does, Frank. We all understand that name calling is just name calling, and a refuge for those who have no real arguments to present. You can use any words you like—-the rest of us will determine whether they have any validity. In the case of “dullard, uneducated or dim witted”, be warned that they fit you far, FAR better than they do me (as in grammar usage and “uneducated”?)

        I’m sorry that I have to keep repeating this. Maybe Frank will get it one day. Frank says “it is a statement of fact based on your continuing to use personal attacks to avoid addressing the facts surrounding the topic being discussed”. I am more than glad to address any facts that Frank presents. Unfortunately, Frank misuses those facts and uses them to make faulty arguments. Frank is unable to recognize that the attacks on his faulty arguments DO “address the facts”, and are ad hominem attacks only because he makes them so with his insistence on twisting truth. Stop spewing horsepucky and start dealing in truth, Frank, and i will stop “attacking”.

        I’M a liar, Frank? But you’re not? LOL Methinks you doth protest too much.
        I won’t waste the time to go back to the “myth buster” exchanges, but anyone who wants to look at them will reach the same conclusions I did. You stepped up to the line and stuck your chest (and neck) out and crowed, were challenged in a series of comments, and gave it up. I thought you were pretty smart to do so, actually, and can’t for the life if me figure out why you continue to pursue the point. I understand your ego was bruised, but YOU asked for it. I am always ready to whack the “moles of untruth and ignorance” when they pop up, if you haven’t noticed, and will do that with you every time you abuse truth and rationality on this site. Mess with the bull, feel the horns—or have I said that before?

        • Frank Kahn

          You really are the most ignorant and stubborn person I have ever met. You continue to spew your fear and hatred of intelligence with every passage.

          this will take a while since your attempts at personal attacks is so wordy:

          “Frank Kahn says, “And, your whack a mole is a childish attempt at humor”. Humorous indeed, for anyone who has ever seen a whack-a-mole game will surely grin at the use of the analogy. Childish not at all, certainly for anyone who is perceptive enough to see that the analogy fits you perfectly. And here Frank is again, asking for more “whacks”.”

          NO, IT IS CHILDISH BECAUSE IT IS ONLY SUPPORTED BY YOUR AD HOMINEM ATTACKS THAT USE PROOF BY BALD ASSERTION FOR SUPPORT. AS TO YOUR LAST STATEMENT, THAT IS AN OPINION HELD BY YOU AND I DOUBT IS SUPPORTED BY THE MAJORITY OF READERS HERE. THE ANALOGY WOULD ONLY BE PRUDENT IF YOU HAD, AT ANY TIME, ACTUALLY MANAGED TO USE SOME FORM OF FACTS AND LOGIC TO DISPROVE ANY OF MY STATEMENTS. YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF MY FACTS IS OF NO VALUE TO ANYONE BUT YOURSELF. IF YOU CANNOT DISPROVE THE FACTS AND/OR SHOW PROOF THAT THE FACTS ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE THEN YOU HAVE NOT “WHACKED A MOLE” OR ANYTHING ELSE.

          “First “whack”. Frank says, “your attacks” is singular. “the attacks” are plural. I will say no more than Frank needs to go read his Reading Comprehension for Dummies book so that he can understand what his Grammar for Dummies book is saying to him.
          (hint, hint, and hint again—-attack-is, attacks are—-”your” and “the” are neither subjects nor verbs and are irrelevant)”

          YOU SEEM TO BE STUCK ON THE IDEA THAT A SUBJECT IS A SINGLE WORD THAT IS IN A CLASS BY ITSELF. A SUBJECT CAN BE A COMBINATION OF A NOUN AND A VERB, IN THIS CASE “YOUR” IS A PRONOUN AND “ATTACKS” IS A VERB. TOGETHER THEY ARE A SUBJECT. BECAUSE THEY ARE “YOUR” ATTACKS IT IS SINGULAR EVEN THOUGH THE VERB IS PLURAL. “ALL” “YOUR” “ATTACKS” HAS AN ADJECTIVE MODIFYING THE PRONOUN INTO A PLURAL FORM, BUT I DID NOT SAY ALL YOUR ATTACKS.

          “Frank throws some more carefully crafted but illogical and obfuscatory “argument” at us with, “Analysis discussions were performed to determine the validity of the studies and or actions of the participants. Grading was on knowledge of subject matter in the films as well as reasoning and logic development in the ethics question”. What?”

          I AM SORRY, DID MY GRAMMATICAL EXPERTISE CONFUSE YOU AGAIN? DO YOU NEED ME TO BREAK IT DOWN INTO SMALL SIMPLE SENTENCES FOR YOU TO COMPREHEND IT? THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE STUDIES AND ACTIONS OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED. THE PROPOSED FACTS USED IN THE MOVIE WERE ANALYZED FOR VALUE ALSO. GRADING WAS BASED ON OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE GLOBAL WARMING ISSUE. WE WERE ALSO GRADED ON OUR ABILITY TO LOGICALLY ANALYZE THE ETHICS OF THE PRODUCTION OF THE MOVIE. SOME CREDIT WAS GIVEN FOR THE ANALYSIS OF AL GORES PERSONAL ETHICS AS WELL. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE STATEMENTS NOW?

          “And Frank gets back to his perceived victory with, “What the course was, and / or the evaluation and grading of comprehension of the movie is not relevant in the purpose of deciding the fact that you lost the proposed bet on whether or not I had actually seen the movie”. OK, Frank, I WILL concede that you “saw” the movie in the sense that it played in front of your eyeballs, even though your comments about it would indicate that you didn’t “see” it in any way that would indicate you comprehended it. The next time I slip $20 bucks to a homeless vet, I will dedicate it to you.”

          THE FACT THAT YOU ARE HOPELESSLY ENAMORED WITH THE FALSE NOTION THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS MANS FAULT DOES NOT REDUCE MY COMPREHENSION OF THE CONTENT OF THE MOVIE. YOU ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO SPLIT HAIRS ON THE MEANING OF THE WORD SEE, ARE YOU REALLY BILL CLINTON IN DISGUISE? WHAT YOU SEE IS REAL, WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS NOT ALWAYS REAL. I SAW EXACTLY WHAT WAS IN THE MOVIE. I KNOW IT WAS BIASED AND NOT TRUE FACTUAL INFORMATION. YOU SAW WHAT YOU ALREADY BELIEVE SO IT MADE PERFECT SENSE IN YOUR REALITY. I HAVE, AND HAVE GIVEN, FACTS CONCERNING MAN CAUSED GREENHOUSE GASSES IN RELATION TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF GREENHOUSE GASSES IN THE ATMOSPHERE. YOU IGNORE AND RIDICULE THE TRUE FACTS WITHOUT GIVING ANY EVIDENCE TO REFUTE THEM.

          “I would love to see a course syllabus for this “ethics” course. An Inconvenient Truth, A Time to Kill, and Miss Evers Boys seems like a somewhat strange selection for the three movies to be shown and “analyzed”. What was the “ethics” question involved with AIT? Man’s immorality as shown by the destruction he has done to the environment? I would have loved to hear your “analysis discussion” on that—-can you tell us about it? If you can spend all that time on the “tree-weed” question as you did with GALT, I think it’s only fair that you give equal time to the “ethics” of AIT as perceived by your class and you.”

          THERE WERE SEVERAL MORAL ISSUES IN THAT MOVIE, FIRST IT WAS DISCUSSED WHETHER MANS ACTIONS CAUSING DAMAGE TO THE ECOSYSTEM WAS ETHICAL. THEN IT WAS DISCUSSED WHETHER THE THEORY OF GLOBAL WARMING BEING MAN MADE WAS TRUE. NEXT WE DISCUSSED THE ETHICS OF USING A MOVIE CLIP AND IMPLYING THAT IS WAS REAL WORLD EVIDENCE WAS ETHICAL. AND LAST WE DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT AL GORE HAS AN EXTREME CARBON FOOTPRINT, WHICH BROUGHT UP HIS ETHICS IN CONDEMNING MAN KIND FOR DOING WHAT HE DOES MORE THAN ALMOST EVERY OTHER MAN ON EARTH. EVERYTHING ABOUT THE MOVIE WAS ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE, WHY DO YOU HAVE A HARD TIME SEEING THE REASON FOR USE IN AN ETHICS CLASS?

          “Frank gets something right for a change when he says, “The fact that you think Al Gore is right does not affect the true facts about global climate change”. That’s right, Frank—-we can all agree on that—-truth is truth, facts are facts—-Yep.”

          DONT TRY TO DEFLECT THE SUBJECT HERE, AGREEING THAT FACTS ARE FACTS DOES NOT ABSOLVE YOU OF THE CRIME OF BELIEVING LIES AS FACTS. AL GORE IS A LIAR AND A HYPOCRITE. THE SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE “AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH” WAS FULL OF HALF TRUTHS AND INNUENDO. IT WAS BASED ON PSEUDO SCIENCE IN THAT IT USES SMALL INSIGNIFICANT DATA POINTS TO BUILD A MASSIVE CONCLUSION THAT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FULL EVIDENCE.

          “Frank says, “I can use other terms with somewhat similar meanings but they sound much more derogatory, like dullard, uneducated or dim witted”.
          Derogatory is as derogatory does, Frank. We all understand that name calling is just name calling, and a refuge for those who have no real arguments to present. You can use any words you like—-the rest of us will determine whether they have any validity. In the case of “dullard, uneducated or dim witted”, be warned that they fit you far, FAR better than they do me (as in grammar usage and “uneducated”?)”

          STATING THAT YOU ARE IGNORANT (WHEN YOU DEMONSTRATE THE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE) IS NOT NAME CALLING, IT IS SIMPLY STATING THE OBVIOUS. YOUR USE OF THE WORD “WE” NEEDS TO BE DEFINED SINCE I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY “WE” SUPPORTING YOUR MISGUIDED THOUGHTS. AND, WHO ARE US, IS THAT YOUR PERSONAL GROUP OF IGNORANT DUPES? YOU FAIL AGAIN IN YOUR ATTEMPT AT DIMINISHING MY KNOWLEDGE WHEN YOU CLAIM TO KNOW MORE THAN ME WITHOUT EVER GIVING ANYTHING TO REPRESENT YOUR KNOWLEDGE.

          “I’m sorry that I have to keep repeating this. Maybe Frank will get it one day. Frank says “it is a statement of fact based on your continuing to use personal attacks to avoid addressing the facts surrounding the topic being discussed”. I am more than glad to address any facts that Frank presents. Unfortunately, Frank misuses those facts and uses them to make faulty arguments. Frank is unable to recognize that the attacks on his faulty arguments DO “address the facts”, and are ad hominem attacks only because he makes them so with his insistence on twisting truth. Stop spewing horsepucky and start dealing in truth, Frank, and i will stop “attacking”.”

          HERE YOU INSTITUTE SEVERAL UNSUPPORTABLE AD HOMINEM ATTACKS MIXED WITH LIES AND INNUENDO. YOU REFUSE TO ADDRESS ANY FACTS, YOUR IGNORANCE IN CLAIMING I MISUSE THEM TO MAKE FAULTY ARGUMENTS IS YOUR OPINION ONLY AND YOU REFUSE TO EVEN ATTEMPT TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU MEAN OR GIVE EXAMPLES. AD HOMINEM ATTACKS BY DEFINITION FAIL TO ADDRESS FACTS SO YOU ARE IGNORANT ON THAT COUNT ALSO. SPEWING HORSEPUCKY AS YOU CALL IT IS ALSO A SIMPLEMINDED OPINION ON YOUR PART. YOU WILL NEVER STOP ATTACKING BECAUSE YOU FEAR THE TRUTH. YOU WOULD BE INCAPABLE OF CARRYING THE LOAD IN A TRUE BATTLE OF FACTS.

          I’M a liar, Frank? But you’re not? LOL Methinks you doth protest too much.
          I won’t waste the time to go back to the “myth buster” exchanges, but anyone who wants to look at them will reach the same conclusions I did. You stepped up to the line and stuck your chest (and neck) out and crowed, were challenged in a series of comments, and gave it up. I thought you were pretty smart to do so, actually, and can’t for the life if me figure out why you continue to pursue the point. I understand your ego was bruised, but YOU asked for it. I am always ready to whack the “moles of untruth and ignorance” when they pop up, if you haven’t noticed, and will do that with you every time you abuse truth and rationality on this site. Mess with the bull, feel the horns—or have I said that before?”

          YES, YOU ARE A LIAR, I DID NOT QUIT THAT DISCUSSION, YOUR CLAIM THAT I DID IS A LIE. THIS IS NOT ABOUT EGO, AT LEAST NOT ON MY PART IT IS ABOUT THE FACTS. YOU DONT HAVE ANY SO THERE IS NO DISCUSSION.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Frank calls ME stubborn? I’m not the one getting my brains beaten in here, Frank, YOU are. That makes FRANK stubborn. I embrace intelligence and rational discourse and that just makes me persistent in dealing with the stubborn ignorance Frank displays every time he posts a comment. GALT has sent Frank an eloquent message elsewhere on the thread—-I hope he (as well as the others to whom it is directed) is/are able to grasp it and take it to heart.

        As for “wordiness”, I am appalled at the sleep Frank has lost and the energy he has expended in compiling this response to me, particularly since he has so badly used so many words. Words are “symbols” that allow us to communicate an “idea”. An assemblage of words communicates a larger and more complex idea, and, if well done, leads to greater understanding. Not in “The World of Frank”, however. Frank merely assembles words into circular, illogical, and mindless piles of horsepucky—–he then stands back and pats himself on the back in the mistaken belief that he has ARGUED or PROVEN something.

        I keep telling him to check his Grammar for Dummies book. Does he do that? No, he keeps making increasingly insane arguments that must have even the functionally illiterate on PLD saying to themselves “That don’t sound right, what Frank said—-Frank should listen to RBT”

        Frank says, “I SAW EXACTLY WHAT WAS IN THE MOVIE. I KNOW IT WAS BIASED AND NOT TRUE FACTUAL INFORMATION. YOU IGNORE AND RIDICULE THE TRUE FACTS WITHOUT GIVING ANY EVIDENCE TO REFUTE THEM”. I am at a loss to respond to that in a way that Frank might comprehend. I COULD say “You’re right, Frank”, but since he is dead wrong, Frank would be highly insulted if I told him he was right when he was wrong—-we have all seen how concerned Frank is with “truth” (HIS truth, that is).

        Frank states, “EVERYTHING ABOUT THE MOVIE WAS ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE, WHY DO YOU HAVE A HARD TIME SEEING THE REASON FOR USE IN AN ETHICS
        CLASS?” Perhaps because one could question the “ethics” of passing judgment on the science of AGW in a group that has little scientific expertise, if you are typical of the group? Perhaps because it sounds like someone had an axe to grind? Or is just that your personal ignorance and bias has caused you to misrepresent things? As I said, I would love to see a syllabus because I lack faith in your ability to really tell us the “truth” of the course.

        And here’s the “Laugh of the Day”, folks. “AGREEING THAT FACTS ARE FACTS DOES NOT ABSOLVE YOU OF THE CRIME OF BELIEVING LIES AS FACTS. AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH” WAS BASED ON PSEUDO SCIENCE IN THAT IT USES SMALL INSIGNIFICANT DATA POINTS TO BUILD A MASSIVE CONCLUSION THAT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FULL EVIDENCE”.
        Hmmmmmm—–let’s see, collecting small data points and connecting them in such a way as to make a supportable argument and reach a tentative conclusion that can then be further examined is “pseudo science”? Your “argument” is PSEUDO LOGIC AND PSEUDO THINKING, FRANK! Lord love a DOZEN ducks!!!!!!

        “I’m sorry that I have to keep repeating this. Maybe Frank will get it one day. I am more than glad to address any facts that Frank presents. Unfortunately, Frank misuses those facts and uses them to make faulty arguments. Frank is unable to recognize that the attacks on his faulty arguments DO “address the facts”, and are ad hominem attacks only because he makes them so with his insistence on twisting truth. Stop spewing horsepucky and start dealing in truth, Frank, and i will stop “attacking”.”

        “THIS IS NOT ABOUT EGO, AT LEAST NOT ON MY PART”, says Frank. To which I say, “Sure, Frank—-everyone who reads our exchange can see that—-you WIN again”.

  • Warrior

    Galt, ding, ding, ding! And the winner is…………………………..NOT HUMAN. Let the “great purge” begin.

    Did you PAY your “fair share” today? It is not DIVIDE and CONQUER. It is ADAPT or DIE!

    • eddie47d

      Take a look at Galt’s number 10 Warrior. Sure Antarctica is still plenty cold yet the ice is calving at an accelerated rate. The waters around Antarctica are slightly warming. The Alaskan King Crab is native to the Being Straits off of our coast and didn’t exist in the southern end of the earth. Today because of climate change there are hundreds of thousands of them off the Antarctica coast. Nobody is sure how they got there since it not a part of their natural environment and the food chain is not what they are use to. Red Lobster may love this news because they predict there will be close to a million King Crab down there soon. The big problem is that they are eating native plants down there ( sea cucumbers, sea lilies,basket stars and such) that other species depend on to survive. The balance of nature is taking another hit so which species will lose out this time? King Crabs are called Crushing Predators because they literally crush anything live that they come upon. Down in Antarctica they are considered an invasive species.

      • John Woodbury

        I like No. 19 a lot better. Let us see, hmm, the glaciers are melting and millions who depend upon them for water are in danger, hmm could man be melting the ice to sell? ding, ding, ding Google South American man arrested for selling bottled glacier water.

      • Mr Diesel

        Sea Cucumbers are not plants.

      • Cliffystones

        “yet the ice is calving”

        Since when did frozen water start giving birth to baby cows? :)

      • Cliffystones

        before you say it, I do realize the word has a dual meaning. But sometimes the one-liners just have to be tossed out there.

      • eddie47d

        Diesel: Okay they are also eating sea creatures that didn’t normally have them as an enemy.

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      Never fear Warrior, as explained many times, I have no intention of paying
      my fair share to be oppressed or exterminated, especially when such actions
      are enabled by “willfully ignorant, functional illiterates” like YOU.

      http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman4.htm

      You see I am quite content to allow you to pay your share and mine, for as
      long as you choose to remain as you are…….even while showing you the
      means to STOP at every opportunity……..no firearm or force required……
      only your willfull ignorance.

  • eddie47d

    Ben is once again mixing fact with fantasy and trying to see which fish will bite. The usual fear and smear is what he does best and you must give him your absolute allegiance. Some climate change deniers will accept it all as 100% proof that this is the biggest scam in world history just because Ben said so. 15,000 years ago the earth had a warming period which lasted about 7,000 years. The seas rose 300 ft which is still close to what they are today. Yet today our temperatures are now warmer than that entire period. There was also the Medieval Period 1000-1500 which was a warming period yet we are also warmer today than back then,(at least so far). For Ben to say “the oceans will boil over” is proof of his incessant insanity. If that would happen mankind would cease to exist so his extremism’s are the real folly.

  • Flashy

    Criminey….after all the evidence, the vast majority of scientists, the evidence right before his eyes, ol’ Ben Crystal will tell you it’s not real…making one wonder if perhaps his pockets are being lined by baksheesh from major industrialist concerns.

    Let’s see, when the effects of pollution were being uncovered, and the evidence mounted, the scientific and media world struggled to find the proper name for easy public reference. Of course, the extremists and those supporting the wealthy interests will use this as ‘evidence’. And as the smoking lobby would find “scientists’ willing to push out “findings” smoking carried little health risk, so do the anti climate interests.

    The model predcitions of the past decade have been improved as science and evidence became more available. Hard evidence. Weather is increasingly pushing the extremes. Hotter summers, wilder storms, short intense cold periods. Animals showing up in places they never were seen before. Ocean levels rising.

    We have the Mississippi River so low the Corps of Engineers have to dredge and move rocks just to allow barge traffic at a snail pace. Huge intense storms ripping across the NE. Dought hitting the Central and Middle states. Tornado Alley being wiped clean as super storm follows super storm. The Pacific Northwest having record rainfalls and warmer winters. Ski areas with no or little snowpack (not to mention the oisture content of said snow). The Arctic Circle ice free for the first time in thousands of years. Huge ice sheets breaking off from Antarctica.

    Yes…it is too late to halt the progressive climate changing. What is available is to keep it to a minimum or slow the pace allowing us to adjust.

    Typical extremist wacko’s….refuse to accept the evidence and reality if it goes against the monied interests and ideological purity.

    Here’s a question. If the Climate change side is wrong, the result will be a cleaner environment, more efficient industry, a harboring of natural resources, and jobs in manufacturing the anti pollution tech. Even if wrong, we win.

    If the extremists and deniers are wrong, the results have been forecast and we are entering the beginning of massive weather shifts if we do nothing. And when we do realize the anti climate changers are wrong…how much will we suffer because of it?

    What we should be asking is not who is right…but what will be the result if one is wrong.

    • rendarsmith

      So Flashy, what do you suggest the government should do? How is the guv’ment going to save us?

      • Flashy

        typical craziy response. Perhaps the government is acting as it should. Creating the ceilings which those who have no desire to be responsible must adhere to. Enforce the Commons, and those who use the Commons pay their share and not have a free ride.

        Example…an island of 100 people (you are one of the 100). has a field which will carry indefinitely 100 cattle and everyone is fed. Someone comes and states they’re putting 150 head in the field, overgraze it, take a quick buck and move on. The field, now permanently damaged, will then carry only 60 head and folks cannot live on the 60.

        you believe, being one of the 100, the guy should be able to graze his 150 head? What would you call it when the 99 folks say ‘no” ? I’d say it was ‘government” … what would you call it?

      • cawmun cents

        Perhaps there is one sextillionth of a gram of sense to anything you post,
        then again…..
        -CC.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        cawmun cents says: “one sextillionth of a gram” Lord love a duck, CC—where did you ever come up with that unit of measurement? It sounds awfully, awfully small—-are you trying to say that what Flash said makes little sense? DUH

        As usual, CC is the one being nonsensical as he makes a comment that contributes nothing. Why doesn’t CC say something of value that we can discuss beyond pointing out how he makes no contribution?

        Perhaps if CC were to think about and explore the word “Commons” (a rather uncommon word nowadays), he might be led to a reading of Garret Hardin’s essay titled “The Tragedy of the Commons” that came out of the literature surrounding Earth Day over 40 years ago. It is perhaps more relevant today than when it was written—-back then it was mainly conjecture—-as time goes on, it is becoming solid truth, and Flash is reminding us of that. If CC ever did read something like that, he’d then have something of substance to discuss.

        Of course, using more than one decaoctillionth of his brain for such a purpose would prove too taxing for CC, so I guess we should just steel ourselves for more inanities from him.

  • Right Brain Thinker

    It’s sad to see that Bob Livingston doesn’t always assign articles to writers who have some minimal knowledge of their topic. Ben’s understanding of this topic is just a bit weak, as one can see in a number of places in the article. It is also discouraging to see his attempts to politicize and confuse the issue rather than discuss the scientific truths that are there for all to see.

    Perhaps the most glaring example of Ben’s “sloppiness” is what he says under “Climate Change” Isn’t Its Real Name. And Jeremy, unfortunately, contributes to the confusion.

    Ben says, “Before they called it climate change, its proponents called it “global warming.” Before that, they called it “global cooling.” Before that, I’m guessing they called it the same thing you still call it: “weather.”

    We need to agree on some terms here if we are going to continue this discussion (which we surely will as Mother Nature takes bigger bites out of our behinds).

    “Climate Change” is something that has been a constant on Earth since earth first developed an atmosphere and oceans.

    “Global Warming” and “Global Cooling” have both occurred many times in the Earth’s past, and were doing so long before man ever arrived on the scene. The warming and cooling is cyclic and occurs for a number of reasons, all of which are still present. This cyclic warming and cooling would continue to take place even if all humans were removed from the planet tomorrow.

    What is under serious discussion is “ANTHROPOGENIC Global Warming” (AGW) or man-caused global warming, which piles on top of the cyclic global warming and intensifies it, or counters the cyclic global cooling and mitigates it. (There is evidence that we would be on the verge of entering another ice age right now if AGW was not occurring).

    “Weather” is the local manifestation of climate, and is a term that should only be applied to what is occurring in a relatively small portion of the atmosphere at a given time. “Weather” is influenced in the long term by the cyclic global warming and global cooling that occur as a part of the ongoing process of climate change, but weather is fleeting. A case CAN be made, however, that AGW has forced certain global warming effects, which have in turn forced certain extreme “weather” occurrences—–Sandy, Nemo, drought, floods, wildfires, tornadoes in midwinter, etc.

    In summary, we should try to keep our terminology straight if we are going to ever deal with the problem of AGW. There is enough deliberate ignorance afoot without adding more.

    Jeremy says, “Lets buy time for our children and grand children and so on to develop the necessary technology to evacuate to another planet when our little earth goes the way of the dodo. Our planet may not last forever but I would like mankind to go on as long as we can”.

    Jeremy has told us he is 23 years old, and he surely does display the “optimism of youth” with this statement. I hate to burst his bubble, but “evacuating to another planet” is the stuff of movies and TV. The Earth will be here for billions of years in one form or another until our Sun dies, but there is nowhere else for the human race to go and the “necessary technology” will never become reality for more that a single small “life raft” full of humans. If mankind is so foolish as to make the Earth uninhabitable for our descendants, we and all our works will become fossils like all that came before us.

    • deerinwater

      RBT say’ “Jeremy has told us he is 23 years old, and he surely does display the “optimism of youth” with this statement.”

      I say, ~ You keep dreaming Jeremy, ~ It is from dreams that all things come. ~ Mankind’s job is to explore . ~ If we can get one or three mating pair of human kind anywhere among the stars that can thrive ~ we have served a purpose.

      The bulk of mankind will never make such a trip, ~ but our seeds can.

      There will come a day that man will uncover the forces trapped in gravity and time. It will open these doors of the impossible.

      For now, ~ man still toys with combustion for heavy lifting.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        deerinwater has a pretty “romantic” and “youthfully optimistic outlook” himself for an old guy, and encourages Jeremy to “keep dreaming”, holding out the possibility that we will one day “open the doors of the impossible”.. I hate to be an old curmudgeon, but I will say again that we had better start paying attention to here and now if we want the human race to have any future—period.

        That future lies here on Earth, because the laws of physics and biology make it impossible for humans to go anywhere far from this planet—-not as entities or as “seeds”. Star Trek “beam me up” transmission of living things and “warp speed” faster than light travel will never happen—-there is NO “new” science waiting to be discovered there—-science fiction is just that—-fiction!.

        Mankind’s job is to SURVIVE as a species, and not destroy our only home and the home of so many other living things. We need to get serious and focus on that, and abandon romanticism.

    • Frank Kahn

      As always you are half right and all wrong. The total effect of AGW due to fossil fuels is .002% that is 2 thousandths of 1%. There is an additional .008% from things in the CFC grouping which brings us up to .01% or 1 hundredth of 1%. While you can assert that this shows that man is helping global warming, you cannot say it is causing it, nor can you claim that reduction of fossil fuels usage will significantly reduce it. There is a man caused problem that is more devastating however, that is the destruction of the worlds rain forests. Trees are excellent at removing carbon from the atmosphere, so by destroying millions of trees, we have eliminated natures ability to balance the earths temperature. So if you want to save the earth, dont tax people for their carbon foot print, have everyone plant a tree. If every person on earth planted a tree, in 10 years the carbon in the atmosphere would be controlled again.

      “Jeremy has told us he is 23 years old, and he surely does display the “optimism of youth” with this statement. I hate to burst his bubble, but “evacuating to another planet” is the stuff of movies and TV. The Earth will be here for billions of years in one form or another until our Sun dies, but there is nowhere else for the human race to go and the “necessary technology” will never become reality for more that a single small “life raft” full of humans. If mankind is so foolish as to make the Earth uninhabitable for our descendants, we and all our works will become fossils like all that came before us.”

      Here you did some proof by bald assertion. There are other planets in the galaxy that can, theoretically, support life, so there is somewhere else we could go. And, with the current speed of technological advances, to say the necessary technology will NEVER become a reality is either ignorant or just plain stupid.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Frank Kahn now appears on the thread to regale us with his ongoing lack of science knowledge and understanding, as well as his general closed-mindedness. Some of you may recall Frank from his postings on other threads? Frank set himself up as a global warming “myth buster” on one but was unable to answer the simplest question about it and became silent. Frank was also the one who told us all on another thread that he would never read a particular book because he “could tell from its title that it was biased”.

        He begins here with more of his failed logic by saying that I am “half right and all wrong”, whatever that is supposed to mean, and spouts some unattributed nonsense about TOTAL EFFECTS due to fossil fuels. 2 thousandths of 1% of WHAT, Frank?
        1 hundredth of 1% of WHAT, Frank? Just made up numbers, as far as I can see.

        Frank must have been doing SOME reading however (in a book that he could tell was NOT biased by its title, perhaps?), because he has managed to stumble on some small truth, just like the squirrels that mindlessly and endlessly dig in my yard occasionally come up with an acorn.

        Frank is correct when he talks about the “destruction of the worlds rain forests” being a serious issue. Of course he has to show us that he really doesn’t know what he has read by saying “by destroying millions of trees, we have ELIMINATED nature’s ability to balance the earths temperature”. Frank is apparently ignorant of the fact that trees are only one mechanism by which CO2 is sequestered and the Earth’s temperature “balanced”—-perhaps Frank should read some more?—-maybe about CO2 uptake by the oceans? Frank then goes off the deep end with “if you want to save the earth, have everyone plant a tree. If every person on earth planted a tree, in 10 years the carbon in the atmosphere would be controlled again”.

        Eureka!! Frank has the answer we have all been searching for!!!! And his level of science knowledge is abysmal but he somehow figured it out!!!!! And it will happen in 10 (TEN) years, EXACTLY!!!! All of it will just go away!!!!! (Lord love a duck, Frank)

        And as the crowning touch to this display of failed logic and scientific ignorance, Frank tells us that
        “There are other planets in the galaxy that can, theoretically, support life, so there is somewhere else we could go. And, with the current speed of technological advances, to say the necessary technology will NEVER become a reality is either ignorant or just plain stupid.”.

        Does Frank realize how big the galaxy is and how far away those planets are? Does Frank realize how difficult it would be to send even an unmanned probe there, never mind a ship full of “colonists”.. Does Frank understand enough science to know that the speed of light is a barrier that can’t be exceeded? Can Frank explain the mathematics behind E=M x C squared? Does Frank understand that even a manned Mars mission is NOT likely to take place anytime soon for many reasons, and we can SEE Mars from Earth on a clear night. The “necessary technology” exists only in the movies and in sci-fi novels, Frank. Save belief for church and leave science to the facts and laws of nature.

        I’ll tell you what IS “ignorant and stupid”, Frank. That’s a perfect descriptor for people who have little knowledge but INSIST on acting as if they do and are foolish enough to challenge those who know far more than they do. Sound like anyone you know?.

        • Frank Kahn

          I am still waiting for you to make an intelligent response, ad hominem is not it.

          Which question do you want answered first? The closest star (after our sun) is over 4 light years distant. Do you want the exact distance in miles or Kilometers? The closest star with a planet in the new Goldilocks zone is a little over 12.4 light years from here. That is almost 3 times the distance to Proxima Centauri. Now the planet I am referencing is massive compared to earth so living there would have some major gravitational problems. Nor are we able to determine if it has an atmosphere that would be good for us.

          Technology to get there is not so far out of our reach either. The speed of light is the equivalent of 1G acceleration for 1 earth year duration. Assuming that there is nothing to collide with in interstellar space, and also refuting the contention of mass increasing as speed increases, a trip to that star would take a little over 11.2 years. If Einstein is correct (I dont agree) then the mass of the ship would reach infinity at the speed of light which would preclude achieving that particular speed. I could go into his reasoning about mass increasing with speed due to the increased kinetic energy but why bother.

          What part of E = MC squared do you want me to explain? E (energy) = M (mass) times C (speed of light) squared. Do you want the units of measure defined?

        • Frank Kahn

          You wrote:

          “I’ll tell you what IS “ignorant and stupid”, Frank. That’s a perfect descriptor for people who have little knowledge but INSIST on acting as if they do and are foolish enough to challenge those who know far more than they do. Sound like anyone you know”

          Yes, it sounds like you, all bluster and not substance.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        10 year’s….that is so cool, straight from Helen Lawson and the Valley of the Dolls,
        if only we knew, what she knew then…..oh wait it’s only ten years, never mind.

        Mighty Oaks spring from itty bitty acorns, but it might take a bit longer
        than ten years……..unfortunately trees can’t run fast……hell they don’t,
        even walk too good………could Frank be angling to start a government
        subsidized wheel chairs for trees business…..

        Weeds grow much faster, love CO2 more and since you can ferment
        anything…..this might be a better bet……..

        Can’t guarantee what it would taste like, but I’m sure it’s nothing a little
        high fructose corn syrup couldn’t cure…….

        10 year’s you say…….I’ll drink to that.

        • Frank Kahn

          Actually, trees are a better carbon sink than small weeds because of their mass. Young trees grow fast so they are more efficient in the short term for absorbing carbon dioxide. While longer lived and larger trees are better in the long run. Planting almost 7 billion trees would, over 10 years absorb a large amount of CO2. While the mighty oak may sound impressive, the best tree for any given location differs. Maybe I should have said every person plants a tree every 2 years to increase the effect.

          As to weeds and fermentation, I have helped to make dandelion wine, it tastes quite good.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Just playing Frank…….and weeds grow faster with higher CO2 levels…..

        Eliminating carbon based fuel is the only viable solution, as quickly as possible.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Dealing with Frank is like playing a Whack-a-Mole game. No matter how many times one whacks his fat little head with logic and truth, he just pops back up with more stupidity and begs for more whacks.

        Frank has gone and looked some things up—-he doesn’t understand what he has looked up, but that won’t stop Frank from acting as if he does and again making himself a laughing stock among all of us who DO understand what he is talking about and recognize how badly confused Frank is about things scientific.

        Frank asks me if I want the units of measure defined or if I need to have E = MC squared explained? No, Frank, I am not a “rocket scientist”, but having taught high school physics, I think I know enough about the subject. Certainly enough to point out your ignorance to you.

        What source are you quoting from here, Frank? Astronomy for Dummies?
        “Which question do you want answered first? The closest star (after our sun) is over 4 light years distant. Do you want the exact distance in miles or Kilometers? The closest star with a planet in the new Goldilocks zone is a little over 12.4 light years from here. That is almost 3 times the distance to Proxima Centauri. Now the planet I am referencing is massive compared to earth so living there would have some major gravitational problems. Nor are we able to determine if it has an atmosphere that would be good for us”.

        Frank is oblivious to the outright “nuttiness” of what he says here—-”massive gravitational problems?”—-”we can’t tell if it would have an atmosphere that would be good for us”? Lord love a duck, Frank!! You are deluded!

        Frank has also consulted Space Travel for Dummies, from which he has mindlessly extracted some tidbits to regale us with.
        “Technology to get there is not so far out of our reach either. The speed of light is the equivalent of 1G acceleration for 1 earth year duration. Assuming that there is nothing to collide with in interstellar space, and also refuting the contention of mass increasing as speed increases, a trip to that star would take a little over 11.2 years. If Einstein is correct (I dont agree) then the mass of the ship would reach infinity at the speed of light which would preclude achieving that particular speed. I could go into his reasoning about mass increasing with speed due to the increased kinetic energy but why bother”.

        Frank fails to consider the logistics of carrying along enough “stuff”—-fuel, food, oxygen, water—-to sustain an 11.2 year flight to a “star” that may not have a hospitable planet orbiting it. To say nothing of the fact that the radiation in space will likely prove fatal to anyone going to Mars, never mind to a place 11.2 light years away. But that’s mere quibbling—-since Frank regularly takes 11.2 month long jaunts around the country in his Winnebago, and manages to carry EVERYTHING he needs with him so he never has to open the door, I’m sure a mere 11.2 light year journey is within his capabilities. I would rather focus on Frank’s new delusion—-that he is qualified to pass judgment on Einstein and even DISAGREE with Einstein. When you next visit your dictionary, Frank, look up “hubris”. Frank says, “I could go into his reasoning about mass increasing with speed due to the increased kinetic energy but why bother”. Smart move, Frank—-the “not bothering” part—-why look even more foolish when you’ve got us rolling in the aisles already. (and about that “mass” thing?—it’s all “relative” anyway).

        Frank needs to somehow go through the looking glass and see that HE is “all bluster and not substance” here, with his insistence on looking up things he does NOT understand and trying to make arguments with them Frank says, “I am still waiting for you to make an intelligent response, ad hominem is not it”, once again failing to see that when someone sets themselves up as an all-seeing oracle and clings so strongly to their delusions, attacking their delusions often seems to be an attack on them. Sorry, Frank, but you are the one who wants to play Whack-a-Mole here.

        And this response to one of Frank’s ad hominems bears repeating.
        “I’ll tell you what IS “ignorant and stupid”, Frank. That’s a perfect descriptor for people who have little knowledge but INSIST on acting as if they do and are foolish enough to challenge those who know far more than they do”.
        When “ignorant and stupid” is used to describe Frank’s attempts to talk about things scientific, it is no more an ad hominem than saying the sky is blue.

        • BR549

          Re: Your response to Frank

          I am still laughing my ass off and trying not to piss in my pants.

          • Frank Kahn

            Could you be more specific as to the cause of your mirth?

          • BR549

            Frank wrote: “Could you be more specific as to the cause of your mirth?”

            The quick answer? No.

            You should try taking a back seat at this amusement park and take a third person look at the two of you duking it out over what? NOTHING. The PTB know all too well that the evisceration of our economy was going to lead to people sniping each other, particularly since, over the last 50-100 years, the sense of family and community involvement has been “allowed” to erode. That way, since people have fewer people to turn to and fewer churches to find solace within, they take cheap pot-shots at each other like the Perdue chickens pecking each other because they haven’t figured out how to collectively mount a frontal assault on ole Frank, himself, for authorizing them to be housing in such unnatural and cramped conditions.

            Everyone here should take another look at the name of this website and remind themselves what brought them here instead of listening to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, or G-d forbid, the major networks. We all have something in common with one another, just by BEING HERE. And when I lean a little heavy on someone, I would hope someone else here has a clearer head to remind me of that bond.

            The PTB are hoping that, like the chickens, we never figure out who is really to blame for all this, at least before we’re all expected to be put in our cages and carried away. Meanwhile, you guys will still be wrestling with the wrong enemy.

            From a historical perspective: the 14th Amendment (the downside of it), the Act of 1871, the Militia Act of 1903, and the 17th Amendment and Federal Reserve Act of 1913; there’s a definite pattern here. And if you want to accomplish something meaningful, take it out on the legislature or that jug-eared, cyanotic-lipped interloper in the White House.

            However this banter was created between you and RBT, you guys can deal with that. I will say that I agree 100% with your assessment of “An Inconvenient Truth” and Al Gore. You are spot in with that. For the same reason, the government ignores its massive contribution to the GW problem from chemtrails, no doubt because of …….. [drum roll, please] ….. National Security. Obama said in his excuse for a speech the other night that the climate changes have been drastic over the last 15 years. Well the chemtrailing scheme has been active since the late ’80s and the government had denied it was even doing it at all for almost 20 years. Why would they need do that if it was indeed “beneficial”?

            My two cents.

        • Frank Kahn

          You are partially right, I have to retract the distance statement, I was talking about the Gliese star system, it is over 20 light years from earth.

          “Dealing with Frank is like playing a Whack-a-Mole game. No matter how many times one whacks his fat little head with logic and truth, he just pops back up with more stupidity and begs for more whacks.”

          THE ACTUAL STUPIDITY, AS YOU PUT IT, IS IN YOUR AD HOMINEM ATTACKS. MY HEAD IS WITHIN NORMAL HUMAN PARAMETERS 7 1/4 HAT SIZE. ALSO, HOW CAN YOU HAVE A “FAT LITTLE” HEAD? IF IT IS FAT IT IS BIG NOT LITTLE.

          “Frank has gone and looked some things up—-he doesn’t understand what he has looked up, but that won’t stop Frank from acting as if he does and again making himself a laughing stock among all of us who DO understand what he is talking about and recognize how badly confused Frank is about things scientific.”

          MORE IGNORANT AD HOMINEM ATTACKS? WHAT I KNOW, AND WHERE I LEARNED IT IS NOT A SUBJECT THAT YOU CAN INTELLIGENTLY DISCUSS, YOU ARE NOT HERE TO SEE IT. FOR YOU TO SAY “US WHO UNDERSTAND” IS LAUGHABLE, YOU HAVE SHOWN NO UNDERSTANDING OF ANYTHING YET.

          “Frank asks me if I want the units of measure defined or if I need to have E = MC squared explained? No, Frank, I am not a “rocket scientist”, but having taught high school physics, I think I know enough about the subject. Certainly enough to point out your ignorance to you.”

          ACTUALLY IT WAS YOU WHO ASKED IF I UNDERSTOOD WHAT E = MC SQUARED MEANT. WOW, YOU TAUGHT HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS? I AM IMPRESSED, AND HERE I ONLY STUDIED PHYSICS IN COLLEGE. SO MR. WONDERFUL, PLEASE TRY AND SHOW ANYTHING IGNORANT I HAVE SAID ABOUT PHYSICS. AND, SINCE YOUR QUESTION TO ME ABOUT E = MC SQUARED WAS IGNORANT, WHY DONT YOU TRY TO EXPLAIN THE REAL EQUATION WHICH COVERS SEVERAL PAGES. E = MC SQUARED IS JUST THE CONCLUSION STATING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MATTER AND ENERGY.

          “What source are you quoting from here, Frank? Astronomy for Dummies?
          “Which question do you want answered first? The closest star (after our sun) is over 4 light years distant. Do you want the exact distance in miles or Kilometers? The closest star with a planet in the new Goldilocks zone is a little over 12.4 light years from here. That is almost 3 times the distance to Proxima Centauri. Now the planet I am referencing is massive compared to earth so living there would have some major gravitational problems. Nor are we able to determine if it has an atmosphere that would be good for us”.”

          “Frank is oblivious to the outright “nuttiness” of what he says here—-”massive gravitational problems?”—-”we can’t tell if it would have an atmosphere that would be good for us”? Lord love a duck, Frank!! You are deluded!”

          MORE AD HOMINEM ATTACKS? THERE IS NOTHING “NUTTY” ABOUT MY STATEMENTS HERE. SINCE THE PLANET MOST LIKELY TO HAVE LIQUID WATER HAS A MASS THAT IS MORE THAN 7 TIMES EARTH, THE GRAVITY WOULD ALSO BE MORE THAN 7G’s. I WOULD CALL THAT A MAJOR GRAVITATIONAL PROBLEM FOR HUMAN EXISTENCE.

          “Frank has also consulted Space Travel for Dummies, from which he has mindlessly extracted some tidbits to regale us with.
          “Technology to get there is not so far out of our reach either. The speed of light is the equivalent of 1G acceleration for 1 earth year duration. Assuming that there is nothing to collide with in interstellar space, and also refuting the contention of mass increasing as speed increases, a trip to that star would take a little over 11.2 years. If Einstein is correct (I dont agree) then the mass of the ship would reach infinity at the speed of light which would preclude achieving that particular speed. I could go into his reasoning about mass increasing with speed due to the increased kinetic energy but why bother”.

          “Frank fails to consider the logistics of carrying along enough “stuff”—-fuel, food, oxygen, water—-to sustain an 11.2 year flight to a “star” that may not have a hospitable planet orbiting it. To say nothing of the fact that the radiation in space will likely prove fatal to anyone going to Mars, never mind to a place 11.2 light years away. But that’s mere quibbling—-since Frank regularly takes 11.2 month long jaunts around the country in his Winnebago, and manages to carry EVERYTHING he needs with him so he never has to open the door, I’m sure a mere 11.2 light year journey is within his capabilities. I would rather focus on Frank’s new delusion—-that he is qualified to pass judgment on Einstein and even DISAGREE with Einstein. When you next visit your dictionary, Frank, look up “hubris”. Frank says, “I could go into his reasoning about mass increasing with speed due to the increased kinetic energy but why bother”. Smart move, Frank—-the “not bothering” part—-why look even more foolish when you’ve got us rolling in the aisles already. (and about that “mass” thing?—it’s all “relative” anyway).”

          ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT BY ABSURDITY. WHERE TO START WITH THE DISPUTE HERE? FIRST OF ALL I DOUBT THERE IS SUCH A BOOK AND IF THERE WAS IT WOULD NOT BE MY FIRST CHOICE FOR DATA. MY FACTS ABOUT THE ACCELERATION TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS ACCURATE, IF YOU WANT ME TO SHOW THE MATH I WILL. FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO, SOME CONSIDERATIONS ARE MOOT. WHETHER THERE IS A HABITABLE PLANET IS NOT THE POINT OF THE DISCUSSION, IT IS ABOUT THE ABILITY TO GET THERE. HARMFUL RADIATION IN INTERSTELLAR SPACE MAY OR MAY NOT BE AS DANGEROUS AS THAT EXPERIENCED THIS CLOSE TO A STAR. RADIATION PROTECTION CAN BE EFFECTED IN MANY WAYS, INCLUDING ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND MASS DENSITY ABSORPTION. THE LATTER COULD HAVE A DUAL PURPOSE, IF THE LIVING QUARTERS OF THE CRAFT ARE SURROUNDED BY THOUSANDS OF GALLONS OF WATER, IT CAN BOTH SHIELD THE OCCUPANTS AND PROVIDE WATER FOR SURVIVAL. FOOD AND OTHER NECESSITIES WOULD HAVE TO BE ALLOTTED AND SPACE PROVIDED. THE CAPACITY FOR REACTION MASS FOR THE PROPULSION WOULD ALSO NEED TO BE SUFFICIENT TO ACCELERATE AND DECELERATE THE CRAFT. THIS, OF COURSE WOULD DEPEND ON THE TYPE OF PROPULSION USED. EVEN LIGHT SAILS USING SOLAR WINDS COULD BE USED TO INITIALLY ACCELERATE THE CRAFT OUT OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM.

          “Frank needs to somehow go through the looking glass and see that HE is “all bluster and not substance” here, with his insistence on looking up things he does NOT understand and trying to make arguments with them Frank says, “I am still waiting for you to make an intelligent response, ad hominem is not it”, once again failing to see that when someone sets themselves up as an all-seeing oracle and clings so strongly to their delusions, attacking their delusions often seems to be an attack on them. Sorry, Frank, but you are the one who wants to play Whack-a-Mole here.”

          NO, YOU FAIL TO PUT FORTH ANY EFFORT IN ACTUAL DEBATE, YOUR AD HOMINEM IS CHILDISH AND NOT PRODUCTIVE.

          “And this response to one of Frank’s ad hominems bears repeating.
          “I’ll tell you what IS “ignorant and stupid”, Frank. That’s a perfect descriptor for people who have little knowledge but INSIST on acting as if they do and are foolish enough to challenge those who know far more than they do”.
          When “ignorant and stupid” is used to describe Frank’s attempts to talk about things scientific, it is no more an ad hominem than saying the sky is blue.”

          STILL ACTING THE SIMPLETON AND STUPID FOOL ARE YOU. YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE THAT SURPASSES MINE OR YOU WOULD SHOW IT. PROVE THAT YOU KNOW ONE SINGLE SCIENTIFIC FACT. GO AHEAD, WE (EVERYONE THAT KNOWS WHAT YOU REALLY ARE) WANT TO SEE YOU DO IT ONE TIME BEFORE WE DIE OF OLD AGE.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        It also has occurred to me that there is a serious question that needs to be answered

        Which weighs more, a pound of tree or a pound of weed?

        Which takes longer to grow?

        Which requires more care?

        • Frank Kahn

          I am not sure where you are going with this post:

          “It also has occurred to me that there is a serious question that needs to be answered

          Which weighs more, a pound of tree or a pound of weed?

          Which takes longer to grow?

          Which requires more care?”

          That is more than A question, however not to nit pick, the answers are:

          1. a pound of anything is equal in weight to a pound of anything else.

          2. this question needs qualifiers, are we talking individual items I.E. a single weed and a single tree? What type of weed or tree? In what environment? Do we look long term at accumulated bio-mass? In the case of evergreen trees do we take into consideration the year round absorption of carbon dioxide? And, on a purely hypothetical note, what is the definition of a weed?

          3. in this regards, it is difficult to answer about the REQUIRED care for indigenous species of plant life. While the planting of an indigenous tree might require more care in the first year or two, until it establishes a good root system, it should not require continued care throughout its life span. For co-existence with humans there might be some pruning and trash removal aspects but these are not generally required by the tree for survival.

          And there is another question that might be important, which is more conducive to animal and insect species survival? Or, in the case of rain forests, even botanical species survival.

          I have read where some scientists believe that trees are the best (most efficient) means of reducing (absorbing) the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I am also aware of the fact that water can absorb carbon dioxide depending on surface area, however too much carbon dioxide absorption into the water can have detrimental effects on the sea life. I will do a web search for scientific articles about CO2 absorption by weeds but it would help if you already have a link or suggested reading material on the subject.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Frank Kahn says, “I am not sure where you are going with this post”?

        LORD LOVE A DUCK, FRANK !!!! If you are at all serious here, you have missed the forest for the weeds! AGAIN!

        “a pound of anything is equal in weight to a pound of anything else”?.

        “on a purely hypothetical note, what is the definition of a weed”?

        “I will do a web search for scientific articles about CO2 absorption by weeds”

        PLEASE tell us you’re kidding, Frank.

        • Frank Kahn

          unless you find a brain and have something intelligent to say, close your pie hole

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Frank……just to save you time, pound for pound, nobody tries to grow
        weeds………so that’s kind of a clue regarding the “care” portion of the question.

        By all means, feel free to verify the C02 absorbtion rates already stated, although
        the precise nature of the relationship is: the higher the level of CO2 the better
        weeds do……..at the expense of other plants…….you see it’s a matter of life and
        death….a war……..a slow one…..but none the less serious for the participants.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        I know you aren’t going to listen to me, but you need to calm down…..

        You set yourself up for this, which is mostly sarcasm……because you come here
        and express “thoughts and opinions”….as if this were an “on the job training site”,
        and if you have anything serious regarding either the source of the “problem”
        or a “solution” to a problem………..you pretty much need to have it down cold,
        before you offer it………or if you are going to engage in “off the cuff” stream of
        consciousness speculation…….if you state this is what you are doing, you
        can distance yourself from whatever “response” you receive……..as
        speculation, you don’t own the idea……..so you won’t be compelled to defend
        it………if you have made some “factual” error……..

        Is the world of rhetoric ( the art of persuasion ) logos, ethos and pathos, most
        engage in the latter two……..but have little grasp of the rules of logos, nor a
        very strong fact based knowledge pool upon which they can rely, and since
        logos and knowledge always trump ethos and pathos……..the end result
        is always the same………..

        People do not like to be proved wrong or challenged regarding their “beliefs”
        and they are rarely capable of admitting they are wrong, no matter how stupid
        they look doing so…………

        Of course, these people are in the majority, but collective stupidity is not
        to be confused with “organised” or “unified” stupidity……..so the end result,
        is always the same……….silence and avoidance.

        There are no simple solutions to the “problem” of “global warming”……there are
        those that benefit from the denial of the problem, because things will stay
        as they are……….and all will suffer ultimately, but for those who are benefiting
        from what exists…….this potential suffering is far removed and distant….

        For most of the rest of us, the suffering has already begun, yet because the
        “externalities” of the problem are not being borne by those that caused the
        problem…..but by “everyone”…………( although not equally, because they can
        be avoided, for a price )……the future victims ( actually present victims,
        ignorant that they are indeed victims )……the threat which is presented to
        them………is that to deal with these “externalities”……will mean an increase
        in energy costs………which is the only illusionary benefit……they have
        ever received from carbon based fuels……..

        This is further compounded by the myth of economic growth and present
        unemployment stagnation……..but again “externalities” assert themselves,
        because much of what the economy is, is dedicated to harming the general
        population or exploiting it, or encouraging it into debt servitude, which
        is now inescapable………and yet the victims want MORE…..they want to
        GROW the DEATH MACHINE……so they can have jobs……and things,
        which they incur debt to “own”?

        and there is no escape Frank, there is nowhere to run…..we can’t even take
        a reasonable stab at a moon colony unless there is a water source there,
        because payload costs are roughly $10, 000 a pound……and a cubic foot of
        water weighs in excess of 60 pounds……..

        so the conversation you are having is pretty foolish and if there is “no problem”
        which seems to be your position………no point, since it would be inconsistent
        with what you claim to “believe”?

        For this argument, you needs facts and the ability to reason and argue logically,
        and you have neither……for the actual topic here, and neither do the
        other “ignorant victims”………who are hanging on to what little they have
        left………as “inescapable usury”, wrecks another “economy” which happens
        to be “global”.

        There is no escape…….

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Frank Kahn says to BR549 “Could you be more specific as to the cause of your mirth?”

        Perhaps I shouldn’t presume to answer for RB549, but since he is probably content to let me tire myself out “whack-a-moling” Frank while he enjoys the show, I will venture this.

        BR549 gives a BIG clue when he says “RE: Your response to Frank” And he then seems to say that he found what i said to be humorous (as I intended much of it to be, because dealing with Frank without humor is so very tedious). It may be hard to accept, Frank, but I am not the only one here who is finding humor in what you say and the responses you provoke.

        Stubborn Frank again asks for more “whacks”. I will deliver a few just so that he doesn’t feel neglected.

        MY HEAD IS WITHIN NORMAL HUMAN PARAMETERS 7 1/4 HAT SIZE. ALSO, HOW CAN YOU HAVE A “FAT LITTLE” HEAD? IF IT IS FAT IT IS BIG NOT LITTLE.
        Right you are , Frank—-”fat” and “little” ARE relative terms. I visualize you as being about 4’2″ in height, so a 7-1/4 IS really “big” in proportion, and the “fat” is a metaphorical usage meaning “dumb”—-have you never heard the term”fathead”? It fits you nicely.

        WHAT I KNOW, AND WHERE I LEARNED IT IS NOT A SUBJECT THAT YOU CAN INTELLIGENTLY DISCUSS
        Not with you, certainly. You have rejected Skeptical Science as a source, and it’s perhaps the best one out there. And YOU have never given us a source for the horsepucky you spout, now that I think about it—-why is that? Of course, we must remember that you reject books because you can tell that they are biased from their titles—-it would be too much to expect you to think rationally about “sources” and “learning”.

        YOU TAUGHT HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS? I AM IMPRESSED, AND HERE I ONLY STUDIED PHYSICS IN COLLEGE.
        Ah, yes. Frank again fails to see the forest for the weeds. Frank’s demonstrated level of science knowledge on PLD would indicate that any science courses he took were in the nature of “Science (topic) for Dummies”. Unless Frank wants to tell us what degrees he possesses and in what science fields, and dissuade me from that belief. Frank fails to recognize that, although I haven’t studied as much “physics” as a rocket scientist, I DID have to study enough in the ten or so sub-fields of physics to become a generalist, i.e, be able to go out and teach the subject in its entirety, and I likely DO have a far better background than he does. (And that is likely true in Biology, Chemistry, Geology, and Earth Science as well)

        Frank asserts that “THERE IS NOTHING “NUTTY” ABOUT MY STATEMENTS HERE”, and tries to “prove” that “bald assertion” by doubling down on the exact nuttiness I was referring to.with, “SINCE THE PLANET MOST LIKELY TO HAVE LIQUID WATER HAS A MASS THAT IS MORE THAN 7 TIMES EARTH, THE GRAVITY WOULD ALSO BE MORE THAN 7G’s. I WOULD CALL THAT A MAJOR GRAVITATIONAL PROBLEM FOR HUMAN EXISTENCE”. Yes, Frank, exactly what I was trying to point out to you. I would weigh 1610 pounds on that planet, and although I DO work out, my 72-year-old body would not be able to stand upright there (never mind raise a hand to my mouth to feed myself). Why would we go there? I will repeat—–NUTTINESS!

        Absurdity discredits itself, Frank, and all I do is point that absurdity out to those who may not have the science background to see it for themselves. Here’s some “absurdity” for all to examine: “THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO, SOME CONSIDERATIONS ARE MOOT. WHETHER THERE IS A HABITABLE PLANET IS NOT THE POINT OF THE DISCUSSION., IT IS ABOUT THE ABILITY TO GET THERE”.
        Frank says “hypothetical” today, when yesterday he was arguing that we can and should find refuge somewhere else in the universe. Can’t have it both ways, Frank. And whether there is a habitable planet out there is NOT the point? Why go all that way to just die at the end of the trip? Why not just stay here and commit suicide far more cheaply? Yep, nuttiness doubled down.

        Frank HAS continued his studies in Space Travel for Dummies, and has stated some “facts” here. He doesn’t quite “get it”, so let me point out a few scientific facts—-perhaps Frank will then not die of old age waiting for me to do so.

        HARMFUL RADIATION IN INTERSTELLAR SPACE MAY OR MAY NOT BE AS DANGEROUS AS THAT EXPERIENCED THIS CLOSE TO A STAR.
        True, as the inverse square law shows, the farther one gets from a radiation source, the less “intense” that radiation becomes. That’s the “not be”. The problem is that 11 or 16 or 22 years is a LONG time, radiation doses are cumulative, and the radiation often comes in intense bursts. A crew could be “cooked” before they got beyond Jupiter if the timing was unfortunate. That’s the “may be”.

        RADIATION PROTECTION CAN BE EFFECTED IN MANY WAYS, INCLUDING ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND MASS DENSITY ABSORPTION. THE LATTER COULD HAVE A DUAL PURPOSE, IF THE LIVING QUARTERS OF THE CRAFT ARE SURROUNDED BY THOUSANDS OF GALLONS OF WATER, IT CAN BOTH SHIELD THE OCCUPANTS AND PROVIDE WATER FOR SURVIVAL.
        All true, and I have read quite a bit about this, particularly about potential manned Mars missions. Electromagnetic shielding would require some rather heavy materials, much copper wire at the simplest, and would need to have electricity to operate. Heavy and complicated. Superconductors might help a bit there. Some have suggested using lead, but the quantity needed would be prohibitively expensive to lift into orbit. The water idea has been examined also—don’t quote me on the exact figures, but the water would have to surround the crew quarters to a thickness of somewhere around 150+ feet, making the diameter of the occupied area of the “ship” over 300 feet. Also heavy in total and hard to get into orbit. And that was based on a Mars trip of just months, not the years needed to reach another star. Don’t forget that using the water along the way would decrease the shielding. When the Mars planners factored everything in, they found that the amount of shielding that was practical was likely not enough to prevent serious radiation damage to the Mars explorers, and would likely lead to a 50+% chance of death within 1 year of return to Earth. A number of potential “Marsonauts” said “who cares?” to that revelation. Some said “Just leave me there, if that’s the case—-going there and seeing it is what counts, not coming back””

        FOOD AND OTHER NECESSITIES WOULD HAVE TO BE ALLOTTED AND SPACE PROVIDED.
        Yep. And that is way more complicated than that one sentence implies.

        THE CAPACITY FOR REACTION MASS FOR THE PROPULSION WOULD ALSO NEED TO BE SUFFICIENT TO ACCELERATE AND DECELERATE THE CRAFT. THIS, OF COURSE WOULD DEPEND ON THE TYPE OF PROPULSION USED. EVEN LIGHT SAILS USING SOLAR WINDS COULD BE USED TO INITIALLY ACCELERATE THE CRAFT OUT OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM.
        And the more “reaction mass” you can carry, the longer you can accelerate and the faster you get there. Of course, you then need more “reaction mass” to decelerate, but at least you have saved time, and maybe won’t need as much food and water and
        “necessities”. And “light sails”?—-a somewhat “romantic” idea but minimally plausible—they would have to be miles across to be of much help. At least Frank’s source recognizes that there isn’t much “push” out there once it gets “dark”—pesky old inverse square law again. Again, it’s all a rather complicated equation and a “balancing act” so difficult that it is not worth even pursuing. (Except in The Mind of Frank, who would rather be contrary and argue endlessly rather than just look at the science in an unbiased way. All because I have stepped on his toes and bruised his ego). (Have you looked up “hubris” yet, Frank?)

        STILL ACTING THE SIMPLETON AND STUPID FOOL ARE YOU. YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE THAT SURPASSES MINE OR YOU WOULD SHOW IT. PROVE THAT YOU KNOW ONE SINGLE SCIENTIFIC FACT.

        To paraphrase something I’ve said before, I’ll tell you what IS demonstrative of being a ‘simpleton and stupid fool”, Frank. That’s a perfect descriptor for people who have a little knowledge but INSIST on acting as if they know much and are foolish enough to challenge those who know far more than they do. And you are the perfect example of that. You are so lacking in awareness that you fail to see all the scientific facts I “know” that are contained in my comments. Of course, when I use my “facts” to dispute your “facts”, I will always lose, won’t I? That’s always the way it must turn out in The Mind of Frank. LOL

        • Frank Kahn

          Now your rebuttal has degenerated into lies again.

          You claim that I said we could and should do this, that is a lie. I responded to your stupid statement that being able to travel to another habitable planet was only true in science fiction. That statement is patently false, the inherent difficulty in the voyage does not make it impossible, it simply makes it harder to do.

          The size and design of the ship in question is not an issue that needs addressing when speaking in hypothetical terms. The size of the light sail is definitely enormous however it can be done. The pressure available for acceleration can be enhanced with high energy microwave transmitters which could conceivably increase the acceleration to 1.6G’s. All of this technology is currently available, the cost associated is currently prohibitive but that does not eliminate the possibility.

          Your big detractor for shielding from radiation appears to be entirely based on the ability to lift the material out of the earths gravity well. This is an incorrect assumption on your part. Space mining could be developed to attain the required materials outside the gravity well of earth. Harvesting of cometary ice could result in water mass needed for the trip. Many asteroids are composed of heavy metals which could also contribute to the construction materials. Also the, science fiction, rail gun is a possible alternative to use in boosting things to orbit.

          I remember your use of the word ossified in an earlier post, this has a definition which would support the term thinking inside the box. You fit that category with your bull headed dogmatic approach to denying the possibilities available.

          Superluminal (faster than light) travel is debated by the finest minds in physics, for you to say it is definitely impossible or for me to say it is possible is simply opinion and not worth getting into.

          Your imagination giving you my height as 4’2″ is funny, you think I am a little person because? And fat head would apply to you considering your self bluster about your supposed knowledge in so many subjects.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        you kinda get squashed on the speed of light thing too……

        Mass increases with accelleration……

        at 99% to get to 99.1 it takes as much energy to do that one tenth, as it did
        for the 99.

        And this happens with every increase…….that is why photons and neutrino’s
        are limited at 186, 282 MPS, and they are virtually massless….

        Serious Debate????? Michael Kaku is known for speculation, and we are still waiting on a sustained fusion reaction…….but there are reasons why these things have not happened.

        • Frank Kahn

          You wrote:

          “you kinda get squashed on the speed of light thing too……

          Mass increases with accelleration……

          at 99% to get to 99.1 it takes as much energy to do that one tenth, as it did
          for the 99.”

          Even if I agree with the theory that mass increases due to the fact that the kinetic energy accumulated exceeds the energy used to accelerate the craft, that does not negate the math. Accelerating at 1G for 1 earth year will take you to 1C velocity, the fact that the amount of energy required to maintain the 1G acceleration increases exponentially does not change the fact.

          “And this happens with every increase…….that is why photons and neutrino’s
          are limited at 186, 282 MPS, and they are virtually massless….”

          Here, I am a little confused, a photon is a unit of light, therefore it must be traveling at the speed of itself. Also, I read that neutrino’s exhibit a tachyon effect that makes them appear to exceed the speed of light.

          “Serious Debate????? Michael Kaku is known for speculation, and we are still waiting on a sustained fusion reaction…….but there are reasons why these things have not happened.”

          Not sure why you bring up Michael Kaku, I did not find his name in the research I was referencing.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Frank is wearing me out—-I can barely lift my arm high enough with the Mole-Whacker, and the Mole Whacker is losing its stuffing. It’s dinner time, Frank, and I have a Netflix movie to watch after that. Watched a great 2-hour show on PBS NOVA last night—-about satellites and how they are helping us understand the Earth? Did you watch it? NO? Too bad—it was good. YES?—-too bad also, because you reject science and undoubtedly refused to believe what the show was telling you.

        “That statement is patently false, the inherent difficulty in the voyage does not make it impossible, it simply makes it harder to do”, says Frank. And at what point does a probability of 99.99999999% become certainty, Frank? Yes, it IS impossible now and will be into the very far future, and the few humans still alive will likely be back to using stone axes, rather than building Space Arks. Why do you insist on arguing a pointless point?

        “The size and design of the ship in question is not an issue that needs addressing when speaking in hypothetical terms”, says Frank. Really? Do you realize how dumb that sounds, Frank?. Do you know the difference between “hypothetical” and “reality”? I for one, would rather not waste anyone’s time designing “hypothetical” Space Arks. (Other than the sci-fi writers, movie writers, video game designers, and the kids who pile up cardboard boxes to make “spaceships”, of course).

        Frank says “appears to be entirely based on the gravity well”. No, Frank, not “appears”—-it IS a BIG gravity well issue—–as well as an inertia issue, and a time issue, and many other “science issues”—you know, that body of knowledge that you INSIST on showing us you grasp only weakly?

        Space mining? Where? Do the moon, Mars, and the asteroids not have gravity wells? Will it not take fuel to get there, extract materials, and bring them back? Will not the crews be exposed to that radiation that makes even a Mars mission unlikely? I love the comet thing—-yep, just cruise right up in your “space F-150″, fill the bed with cometary “snow”, and bring it back. LOL

        “Also the, science fiction, rail gun is a possible alternative to use in boosting things to orbit”. Boost hings? Rail guns, like all “guns” are comparatively “low tech”—-why haven’t we used them before now? PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT FOR US, MYTH-BUSTER.

        Frank is right when he says it is “not worth getting into.Superluminal (faster than light) travel” That’s why is “the finest minds in physics” spend their times on more practical things. And here’s another “myth buster” type challenge for you, Frank. I’ll shout so you don’t miss it and run away as you did last time.

        TELL US ALL ABOUT THE FINEST MINDS IN PHYSICS WHO ARE DEBATING “SUPERLUMINAL” TRAVEL. WHO ARE THEY AND WHAT ARE THEY SAYING IN THIS DEBATE. GIVE US SOME LINKS.

        (And where did you come up with “superluminal”? A rather pretentious term that I can’t recall ever seeing in the literature—-all the “finest minds in physics” simply called it “faster than light speed travel”.

        “Your imagination giving you my height as 4’2″ is funny, you think I am a little person because?” Just kidding with you, Frank, in spite of your having no sense of humor with which to understand it. Your physical size is unimportant, the “size” of your science understanding is, and that’s what I am metaphorically speaking of. You know, like the bulls and horns thing?

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Okay Frank, let’s try it this way……..brought to you by Zeno and his paradox.

        You exist in a universe whose diameter is 2.

        You are at the center of it.

        You have to travel a distance of 1 to escape.

        But the universe has a very special property, in that every discreet step
        you take away from the center, can only be one 1/2 the distance of the
        previous step, which produces the following series, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8,
        1/16, 1/32, etc.

        How many steps will it take to escape?

        http://www.space.com/5725-spaceship-fly-faster-light.html

        The problem with “serious discussions”, is when you find out they aren’t
        all that serious, after all.

        The error at Cern, with neutrino’s, was exactly that, an error…….

        You do know that there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, or Free Lunch?

        • Frank Kahn

          I was willing to discuss this as long as you refrained from insults.

          You posed a stupid question. And a childish one at that. I know quiet well the concept of infinite.

          Your position, and Einsteins equations, about it taking infinite energy to accelerate an object, of significant mass, to the speed of light does not change the premise of my math. The word “IF” was used, that means it it speculative. The math is still correct 32 feet per second per second acceleration times 31557600 (seconds in a year) = 1009843200 feet per second or 191,258.18 miles per second. The speed of light is ~186,000 miles per second.

          Again you used a reference to some theories about FTL that are not a part of this concept. I did not say FTL would, or could, be achieved. Although I have read several theories on the subject, I am not even close to knowing enough to either support or refute the findings and theories of expert physicists. My education in differential equations is very rudimentary.

          As to Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, they are myths (lies) we tell our children to give them some mystical and beneficial object that gives them nice things. In reality they do exist but they are actually called grownups or maybe just parents.

          A free lunch? Must be a metaphorical statement, of course there is no such thing, there must always be a cause for an effect as well as a reaction to every action.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Frank Kahn says to GALT, “I was willing to discuss this as long as you refrained from insults”, and then proceeds to insult GALT (who did not insult Frank to start with), by saying, “You posed a stupid question. And a childish one at that”.

        Lord love a duck, Frank!—-will you ever stop playing your one-note flute? (and perhaps look up some more “adult” words to use for your insults than “stupid” and “childish?)

        Are we seeing some small signs of self-awareness when Frank states, “I am not even close to knowing enough to either support or refute the findings and theories of expert physicists”?. Let’s hope so, although I am very doubtful that he really believes that about himself. Come to think of it, he is not even able to do that with plain old physicists.

        And “A free lunch must be a metaphorical statement”? That coming from someone who has difficulty dealing properly with the the mere mention of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny? Frank, you are a stitch! LOL

        Say goodnight, Frank!

        • Frank Kahn

          I could just sit back and watch the others rip you apart but then I would not have any fun.

          The question he posed was stupid and childish because its intent was to ridicule. His closing statement about santa, the easter bunny and free lunches was an insult. Much the same as all your nonsense is insulting to anyone with half a brain.

          Lets dissect your malicious attempts in this post.

          You said:

          “Frank Kahn says to GALT, “I was willing to discuss this as long as you refrained from insults”, and then proceeds to insult GALT (who did not insult Frank to start with), by saying, “You posed a stupid question. And a childish one at that”.”

          WELL, I ALREADY COVERED THIS INACCURATE ANALYSIS, B”UT I DID NOT INSULT GALT DIRECTLY, I MERELY POINTED OUT THAT HIS QUESTION WAS STUPID AND CHILDISH DUE TO ITS IMPLICATION THAT I MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THE OBVIOUS TRUTH ABOUT THE HALF QUESTION.

          “Lord love a duck,”

          IN THE SAME VEIN, I AM NOT INSULTING YOU WHEN I SAY THAT, THAT STATEMENT IS NOT ONLY CHILDISH BUT NOW IT IS INANE AND ANNOYING.

          “Frank!—-will you ever stop playing your one-note flute? (and perhaps look up some more “adult” words to use for your insults than “stupid” and “childish?)”

          OKAY, NOW YOU MUST BE TRYING TO TEST MY MEMORY. THE LAST TIME YOU MADE THAT PATHETIC STATEMENT, I INDULGED YOU AND PROVIDED SYNONYMS FOR THE WORDS YOU WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT. THIS TIME, YOUR NOT SO LUCKY. STUPID WAS THE DEFINITIVE TERM FOR THE QUESTION, NO SUBSTITUTION IS WARRANTED. IMPLIED INSULTS, WHEN NONE ARE ELICITED, ARE CHILDISH, IF YOU WANT TO USE ANOTHER WORD THAT MEANS CHILDISH YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION.

          “Are we seeing some small signs of self-awareness when Frank states, “I am not even close to knowing enough to either support or refute the findings and theories of expert physicists”?. Let’s hope so, although I am very doubtful that he really believes that about himself. Come to think of it, he is not even able to do that with plain old physicists.”

          YOU ARE USING THE TERM SELF AWARE INCORRECTLY. WHAT YOU PROBABLY MEANT WAS HUMILITY. AS TO YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT PLAIN OLD PHYSICS, THERE ARE TWO PROBLEMS, ONE IS GRAMMATICAL THE OTHER IS IN THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE “PLAIN OLD PHYSICS”. THE WORDS “DO THAT” ARE FAR TO REMOVED FROM ANY DISCERNIBLE SUBJECT TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE REFERENCING. ARE YOU SAYING HAVING HUMILITY IN REGARDS TO BASIC PHYSICS, ADMITTING THAT I DONT KNOW ENOUGH TO ARGUE BASIC PHYSICS OR THAT I BELIEVE IT ABOUT MYSELF? “PLAIN OLD PHYSICS” WOULD NEED SOME FORM OF DEFINITION SINCE IT IS NOT A STANDARD REFERENCE TO ANY PARTICULAR PHYSICS AREA. IN SOME AREAS OF BASIC PHYSICS, I AM CAPABLE OF DISCUSSING INTELLIGENTLY THE PRINCIPLES INVOLVED. I WOULD NEVER PRESUME TO KNOW MORE THAN AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD, HOWEVER, I WOULD BE WILLING TO DEBATE IT WITH YOU ANY DAY.

          “And “A free lunch must be a metaphorical statement”? That coming from someone who has difficulty dealing properly with the the mere mention of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?”

          FIRST, THIS PART SHOWS YOUR OWN IGNORANCE (DULLNESS, INEPTITUDE, UNEDUCATED) IN THE STATEMENTS CONTEXT. SINCE YOU OBVIOUSLY DONT UNDERSTAND THE WORD METAPHORICAL I WILL DEFINE IT FOR YOU. METAPHORICAL MEANS A STATEMENT THAT DESCRIBES A BROAD AREA WITH A LIMITED BUT EASILY IDENTIFIED EXAMPLE. OR “A metaphor is a figure of speech that describes a subject by asserting that it is, on some point of comparison, the same as another otherwise unrelated object.” SINCE GALT WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT FREE FOOD, HIS STATEMENT WAS A METAPHOR.

          ALSO, YOU SEEM TO WANT TO MAKE FUN OF AND ASSERT SOME FORM OF AUTHORITY ABOUT MY ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING ABOUT HOLIDAY CHARACTERS. IT IS A PROOF BY BALD ASSERTION SINCE IT IS YOUR OPINION AND NOT BASED ON OR EXPLAINED BY FACTS. I AM SURE THAT YOU PROBABLY THINK THAT ADDRESSING HIS QUESTION ABOUT SANTA AND THE EASTER BUNNY SHOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED BY SOME CHEST PUFFING INDIGNATION OR BY UNCONTROLLABLE LAUGHTER BUT I CHOSE TO RESPOND WITH INTELLIGENCE AND DIGNITY. IT IS YOU THAT HAS A PROBLEM IN DEALING PROPERLY WITH THE STATEMENTS OF OTHERS, NOT ME.

          ” Frank, you are a stitch! LOL”

          I AM PLEASED THAT YOUR DIMINISHED IQ HAS NOT ROBBED YOU OF YOUR ABILITY TO FIND HUMOR IN LIFE. I DO HOWEVER FIND IT SAD, AND I DO PITY YOU FOR THE FACT, THAT YOU THINK THAT ACTING LIKE AN ADULT AND DEALING WITH LIFE IN A LOGICAL AND INTELLIGENT MANNER IS FUNNY.

          SOME DAY, MAYBE WHEN YOU FINALLY DIE OF OLD AGE, SINCE YOU APPEAR TO BE IN THE THROWS OF SENILITY, YOU WILL ACTUALLY FIND A WAY TO EXPRESS YOURSELF THAT DOES NOT ALIENATE YOU FROM NORMAL SOCIETY.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Frank Kahn says:

        “I could just sit back and watch the others rip you apart but then I would not have any fun”. And then Frank launches into one of his longest, least-rational, and most convoluted pieces of “intellectual analysis” yet.

        And Frank is too dense to understand that GALT and I have ripped HIM apart and that NO ONE has stepped up to defend Frank or attack GALT or I in Frank’s defense. This thread is dead, Frank, in case you haven’t noticed. I’m not likely to visit it again so don’t waste a lot of time writing a response that I won’t see (unless you enjoy talking to yourself—you DO seem to do that a lot).

        And DO remember that you have now walked away from yet another challenge, just like you did with “myth busters”. I refer to the “super luminal” question and those top physicists that you were going to tell us about that were discussing it. I WILL remind you of that at an approprite time on the next thread you want to play whack-a-mole on.

        I have to say it again. Frank, you are a stitch! LOL

        • Frank Kahn

          It was neither my longest nor was it irrational. I did not walk away from the superluminal discussion. I just archived the notification of your request so I could give it the time needed to list all the physicists and provide links to their works.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        OK, Frank, whatever you say in your delusional view of reality. I came back for one last look at this thread to see if you would reply, and am glad to see you didn’t waste much time on it. Since I am logical and rational, and you are neither of those things, it is perfectly proper for me to judge your post the way I did, and perfectly understandable that you would deny that truth. Keep reading Thinking for Dummies and someday you may understand that.

        And I don’t want just links to the physicists, Frank. I want answers to my questions from YOU in YOUR words that demonstrate you know what you’re talking about about superluminal travel. Back that up with things copied from those links that support your reasoning. Still waiting for you to explain the difference between global warming and climate change as I asked for in the “myth buster” exchange. You can do most of that by quoting ME, actually. I provided a framework for you elsewhere on this very thread.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Frank, the effects of general and special relativity have been verified.

        The author I referenced whose corrected name is Michio Kaku, first came to
        my attention because of his book Hyperspace……and a more recent work
        The Physics of the Impossible…………

        http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman4.htm

        Given the subject matter, I would have expected you to be familiar with him.

        I have been following all of this intensely from the time when there were
        3 theories of origin……big bang, steady state, continuous creation…..
        all the way to the present…….to include Why is there something rather
        than nothing……..and Lisa Randall’s new book, Knocking on Heavens Door,
        she works a Cern, btw……but all of this is pretty much boring NOW and
        none of has altered my own “explanation”…..so, it no longer commands
        as much attention as before…..and keeping up is not difficult.

        Conversing with you on any subject, however is extremely tedious, regardless
        of what it is……because what ever the state of what you believe your knowledge
        to be…….on any subject is woefully deficient…….so that all that is possible
        to do…..is direct you to where you can at least acquire the information you
        need………to get you up to speed. ( which you seem to think is unnecessary )

        You wish to argue what you think you know and the only intelligent response
        is to demonstrate, that you in fact do not know it. ( which you will not accept,
        making attempted intelligent conversation pointless )

        Do the work…..there are no short cuts.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Sorry wrong link….but you should be able to find the authors mentioned on your own.

        in short….read more, talk less…..until you are at least current on the material,
        you can start with this subject here……there is a lot of science on that site….
        including correcting the science you posted…….

  • Ken10

    RBT has it right.

    • cawmun cents

      Actually from the basis in thought of his chosen moniker,and from having Rabid Secular Humanistic Progressive Social Disorder,or what is tenatively known as liberalism,he is left.
      -CC.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Another bit of “heavy thinking” from cawmun cents. His failure to comprehend anything much at all about where I am “coming from” proves once again that he is the one who is “left”. LEFT OUT, that is, when brains and the instructions for their use were being handed out. Babble on, CC—-someday you will say something that shows some actual thought and requires some actual thought in response—-I can’t wait.

  • joe berger

    Forget Climate change…
    Our emphasis should be on Pollution.
    We are poisoning our air, our food, our land…through CHEMICAL FARMING. and our water. All of these factors will have far more serious consequences than a little extra CO2.
    Almost every day I watch the LOCAL weather reports. And look at the record highs… very seldom do I see a record high in the past 30 years. Most are over 50 years ago. I live at 50 degrees north latitude. Supposedly we have warmed almost a whole degree in the past 100 years( although our local weather records DO NOT bear this out ). I can hardly wait for another 3 or 4 degrees. Can’t come too soon for me.
    I would start by abolishing unnecesary insecticides. … growth hormones in our meat….preservatives in everything… and a host of unpronouncable chemicals in many of the foods we buy. Aspartame is one proven poison. etc.

    • meteorlady

      The facts are that we can get into the carbon trading business and watch people like Al Gore and those invested in the Chicago Climate Exchange rake in the money while we pay higher energy prices. I believe the earth is changing, it’s evolving and always has. We might have a small role in this or not. But another fact that people don’t often mention when they talk about the earth is the fact that we are loosing rain forests at a phenomenal rate. Go take a look at the once beautiful Washington State – it’s called the “clear cut state” now. The federal government even gives out permits for logging on public lands hence the near loss of the rain forest on the Olympic Peninsula.

      Pinning down exact numbers is nearly impossible, but most experts agree that we are losing upwards of 80,000 acres of tropical rainforest daily, and significantly degrading another 80,000 acres every day on top of that. Along with this loss and degradation, we are losing some 135 plant, animal and insect species every day—or some 50,000 species a year—as the forests fall.

      Trees help our air quality more than most anything. So if we in the US start trying to save the world we would not even make a dent. We have all those other countries like China where people actually wear masks because the air pollution is so bad. To try and solve these problems would be more effective if we stopped purchasing their products until they cleaned up their air quality and put aside forrest lands.

      • Wellarmed

        Well said. I am always amazed at how those who refer to themselves as good stewards of the natural world are the first ones in line at their local big box store buying everything up they can regardless of its point of origin.

        I believe that China has over 2900 coal fired power plants at last figure. It could be far more than that now. Lets not even discuss the 2600 Chinese coal workers who die every year so the world can get the products they deserve at the price that is right, as we deserve to have access to cheap products at any cost.

        I wonder if China will be forced into this cap and trade system like my fellow Americans?

        Something tells me that the answer is no.

        • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

          Wellarmed said:

          Something tells me that the answer is no.

          The negotiations to stop destructive climate change included work to get China to control its pollution. In fact, China’s working much harder at it than the U.S., with not as good results — but they argue that they should not be force to do more than the U.S. is, since the U.S. remains the greatest emitter of CO2.

          In short, yes, China would be forced to control CO2, but they said they won’t play until the U.S. does.

          Can we set an example? We’ve always been proud of leading the world in technology, and fighting disease, and improving conservation before. I gather you think we should abdicate our world leading role to China. That’s not helpful.

        • Jeff

          Something tells me China will do so before we do. As the world leader and the country that has benefitted the most from earlier burning of fossil fuels, we have an obligation to lead. If we develop the technology necessary for cleaner fuels to provide the energy we need, China will definitely use them.

  • Deerinwater

    Well, weather around the globe is changing and of-course that is indicative of weather “To Change” .

    Weather without change would be water without “wet”, to have one we must have the other.

    It is the violence and speed of this change that offers the greatest concerns. While the last thing I plan to do this morning his share my concerns about weather, leaving me to say ~ there nothing that tells us that a storm is required to have an end. One force can feed on another to a point of critical.

    And for the record, we are all going to die regardless of what we do. That’s a trip no one can avoid. ~ while we can control the ride or just endure what ever comes our way.

    I didn’t listen to Obama’s speech ~ my bad.

    i think all of us and especially the Corporate world fears the notion of Carbon Credits ~ as some sort of beginning to some end. In my mind, this is where much of these fevered opposition is about while no spoken of.

    If government can do this, ~ how long before they can tax air?

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      Deer, obviously you have not been made aware of Patrick Cox…….

      As well as the “many other opportunities” that exist within Personal Liberty
      Digest……..regarding the many different ways you can increase and safeguard
      your wealth while the world collapses around you………

      So many shocking video’s, banned video’s, middle age patriots that power
      companies fear, and site’s whose information is so critical and dangerous that
      they could be removed and never seen again…….

      The quality of intellectual exchange here and the products being offered,
      seem to share a remarkable correspondence……….that only minds of
      similar character and ability, could appreciate and persist……in the stagnant
      swamp that surrounds it, blissfully unaware of it’s intended influence.

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

      deer: If government can do this, ~ how long before they can tax air? Not is not as far fetched as you may think. How about the “window tax” for sunlight used?

      The window tax was a property tax based on the number of windows in a house. It was a significant social, cultural, and architectural force in England, France and Scotland during the 18th and 19th centuries. To avoid the tax some houses from the period can be seen to have bricked-up window-spaces (ready to be glazed at a later date), as a result of the tax. It was introduced in 1696 and was repealed in 1851, 156 years after first being introduced. Spain and France both had window taxes as well for similar reasons.

      The bigger the house, the more windows it was likely to have, and the more tax the occupants would pay. Nevertheless, the tax was unpopular, because it was seen by some as a tax on “light and air”.

      Carbon credits?

      This should be great news for the environment, but i have my doubts. The notion that emissions trading is going to make a significant dent in global warming is deeply flawed. Current emissions-trading schemes have proved to be little more than a shell game, allowing polluters in the developed world to shift the burden of making cuts onto factories in the developing world. Too often, factory owners use the additional profits banked from carbon credits to expand their dirty factories. Even more worrying, emissions trading may have set back the battle against climate change by diverting investment from renewable-energy technology, which arguably is essential to any long-term solution. So far, the real winners in emissions trading have been polluting factory owners who can sell menial cuts for massive profits, and the brokers who pocket fees each time a company buys or sells the right to pollute. Brilliant scam!

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Lord love a duck! JAY appears on the thread and immediately begins twisting reality so that he can propagandize and try to score political points.

        The “window tax” was NOT a tax for “sunlight used”, as JAY has so erroneously stated. It was simply a property tax, based on the number of windows in a house, and was “progressive” in that the bigger and more expensive the house, the more windows it likely had, and the more tax was levied. Small houses with few windows were exempt.

        JAY states, “Nevertheless, the tax was unpopular, because it was seen by some as a tax on “light and air”. Yes, that seems highly likely, since there were wing nuts back then as well who couldn’t take things at face value and would have made such leaps of logic. Think about it, it was a simple tax on the number of windows—-you could have as many windows (and as much light and air) as you were willing to pay for—-nobody was talking about taxing “light and air”—-just raising revenue based on the value of a house. The rich folks who boarded up windows were the ancestors of the greedy rich today that hide their money in offshore accounts and fail to pay their fair share.

        JAY asks “Carbon credits?”, and goes off on a political diatribe against them. Unfortunately, there is some truth in what he says. The free marketers, capitalists, plutocrats, corporate oligarchs, their lobbyists, and the bought and paid for “government” will all play their games to avoid doing the right thing as they privatize profit and socialize costs. What else is new? This means we must fight doubly hard to get it right and use carbon credits as a positive tool in the fight against AGW. Would JAY have us throw the baby out with the bath water?

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        RBT: Would JAY have us throw the baby out with the bath water?

        I think if you re-read my post, you will discover the answer to your question, RBT.

      • eddie47d

        WTS; The Carbon Tax could be a scam for these businesses were polluting long before this tax was thought of and they will still be polluting if it is initiated. (so you say) How about doing away with this tax then and just fine the heck out of all the polluters. Maybe a little jail time to enhance their bad behavior. Hmmm!

        • BR549

          Eddie wrote: ” …. and just fine the heck out of all the polluters. Maybe a little jail time to enhance their bad behavior.”

          Hey, we agree on something, but the point I’ve trying to make all along is that it is the corporate ties to the banks and the ultra-wealthy that determine whether anyone will be fined or even taxed for ANYTHING. The complexity of the protective nest they’ve created for themselves is far beyond the scope of these discussions, safe to say that they “know people”, ….. and they don’t pay fines or taxes, unless it serves some larger hidden purpose that benefits them. The fracking issue is just such an exercise in sheer environmental stupidity, yet Glen Beck is touting it 24/7. That guy changes positions more than I change my jockey shorts. Then there is the pharmaceutical industry being shielded from law suits from their overuse of aluminum and mercury adjuvants in vaccines and the rise of autism.

          I seem to recall that, before the plague of the Rockefellers, we used to require corporations to have a ten year charter AND they had to prove their benefit to society. What happened with that?

      • Right Brain Thinker

        JAY, I have reread your post and have not discovered an answer to my question. I know I’m old and pre-senile, but could you spell it out for me? Without the usual obtuseness and political propagandizing? To restate my question a bit, I was asking if we should abandon the carbon credit scheme because we know that the “usual suspects” would abuse it and asking if you saw any alternatives?.

        RBT: Would JAY have us throw the baby out with the bath water?
        I think if you re-read my post, you will discover the answer to your question, RBT.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        RBT: Would JAY have us throw the baby out with the bath water?

        No.

  • http://midcontent ridge runner

    The idea of humanity changing the weather, is about as dam stupid as when people thought they could build a tower to the heavens. These pukes are Godless, aggragantself centered idoits, the common denomenator is the idoits are a from D party, The Dung Party, Mankind can take care of everything because these book trained are sooo damn smart and bright.Weather is never static and is always changing in cycles all the time. Wake p all you braindead morons and get a job of sucking out cess pools.

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      “When gods cease to be powerful, they necessarily become good.”

      Don’t you just HATE IT when that happens?

    • boyscout

      Firmly agreed. Almost as insipidly stupid as saying man is responsible for species extinctions; Killing all (even the last) of the Great Buffalo in the east and damn near the equivalent in the West with the lesser bison was the responsibility of BULLETS. Killing the organic fertility of the soil has nothing to do with single cropping or dosing with herbicides and pesticides. And, just because there are now many Billions of us (humans), why do THEY want to blame ecological consequences on our inability to live in harmony with nature. Hey, Up Theirs and the last semi-healthy pony the rode in on !

  • Scott Petrick

    I agree with the issue of this is just natural weather cycle! I do not agree however with the equally answers notion of millions and millions of years! Understanding truth is a Biblical issue! 6 day creation and 6 to 10,000 years old at best!

    Creation science is more reasonable and plausible !

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      Bishop Usher was quite precise, and wrong.

      You clearly have managed to be wrong and imprecise in all aspects
      of your comment. I thank for your brevity…….it is an element you should
      strive to maximize.

    • Karolyn

      How do you accout for scientific evidence?

      • http://midcontent ridge runner

        It was proven this so called sceince evedidence, from the UN and socalled”colleges” manufactored and mailipulated (facts), just like stataticions and lawyers do. Don’t know if you are another book train idoit or a plant from the Dung(democrap) Party. Idoits that think they have enough power to take on God, what conceited sobing freaks. Either have lived in doors all your life, and beleives any BS the media feeds you. Read a few history books on dictators mind set and their blue prints, Hilter tactics are being followed by the Dung party pukes, first registrations, put together government sactioned lists, the confication of firearms, this puke and his paty pushed thru Nocare , which is now going to have bean counter idiots to determine if you are worth enough. The muslim marxist mouth shock even this socialist reporter when Onumnutt’s said he is going to appoint a panel and check what people are saying and writing and give these pukes the power to immediately arrest anyone and incarate them for an indefinate time. The only thing left to do is kill the people the panal doesn’t approve of. Still think this cross bred hairless puke cares about the USA and jobs?

        • Jeff

          Ridge Rat:

          I discussed the scientific evidence with my dog Leo this morning, and we had a far more intelligent conversation than one could possibly have with you. Learn to read, learn to think, and learn to SPELL.

      • 45caliber

        Karolyn:

        While I do not agree with Scott on time (2Peter3:.[8] But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.) there really is no real “scientific evidence” of global warming. Climate change has always occured.

        Scientific evidence is something that can be repeatedly demonstrated by experiment. What you are calling scientific evidence is actually someone’s theory. A theory is basically an educated guess. And they are disproving theories all the time. The real problem with theories is that the person who believes them tends to discard all evidence that might not fit that theory. Yet it is evidence. That it WHY it is a theory and not scientific fact.

      • Karolyn

        Well, for every theory, there is a counter theory. We each choose what sounds right to each of us. NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING FOR CERTAIN!! (although many, like ridge runner) think they know everything as gospel.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Karolyn: NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING FOR CERTAIN!!

        Careful there, Karolyn; you just contradicted yourself by positing an “absolute-statement”!

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

      The two main concepts of time are “presentism” and the “block universe view” of time.

      In “presentism” view of time, only present is real while past and future do not exist and passage of time is just an illusion. Presentism may appear more intuitive, however, the “block universe view” is more popular among physicists and is supported by heavy weights in physics like Einstein.

      In “block universe view”, time is laid out as a time-scape. This is based on theory of special relativity and an interpretation of Lorentz transformation equations called the Rietdijk–Putnam argument. Physicist Roger Penrose advanced another variation of this argument called the Andromeda paradox. These paradoxes and anomalies arise from lack of simultaneity due to Einstein’s postulate of constancy of the speed of light in theory of special relativity. There is no free will in the block universe of time. All times in past and future already exist. There is however no explanation of lack of visitors from a futuristic technologically advanced civilization. “Block universe” also cannot explain what causes us to move through time towards the future and why we cannot willfully move back and forth through this time-scape.

      Neither of the two “views” on time can explain what time really is and what the cause of time is.

      more: http://www.timephysics.com/

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Uh, JAY? If one is going to bother to copy irrelevant clips like this from some obscure website, one should go the one step further and relate “time” to the three-dimensional world we live in. At the very least, you should have mentioned Minkowski.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Why should i spell everything out. I provided a sample, let any who are interested pursue the rest…

      • Right Brain Thinker

        JAY—-you provided a sample of a discussion of time from the physics perspective, when everyone else seems to be talking about biblical time. I doubt anyone will be interested in pursuing the rest…I only did because of “Why in the world is he posting this?”, and saw no relevance to the discussion at hand.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        RBT: I only did because of “Why in the world is he posting this?”, and saw no relevance to the discussion at hand.

        Scott Patrick introduced the topic for discussion.

        Scott Petrick says: February 12, 2013 at 9:51 am
        I agree with the issue of this is just natural weather cycle! I do not agree however with the equally answers notion of millions and millions of years! Understanding truth is a Biblical issue! 6 day creation and 6 to 10,000 years old at best! Creation science is more reasonable and plausible !

        It was continued and expanded upon by 45caliber.

        45caliber says: February 12, 2013 at 2:30 pm

        Karolyn:While I do not agree with Scott on time (2Peter3:.[8] But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.) there really is no real “scientific evidence” of global warming. Climate change has always occured.

        Scientific evidence is something that can be repeatedly demonstrated by experiment. What you are calling scientific evidence is actually someone’s theory. A theory is basically an educated guess. And they are disproving theories all the time. The real problem with theories is that the person who believes them tends to discard all evidence that might not fit that theory. Yet it is evidence. That it WHY it is a theory and not scientific fact.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Jay, that is remarkably disappointing…….the meaning of “theory” as it
        pertains to “the empirical” in science is one step short of “law”…….which
        is the goal of “inductive logic”…..moving from the “particular” to a “general rule,
        principle or law.” as in the Laws of Physics……..or the Theory of Gravity.

        Gravity being only a “theory”…..

        The Laws of Thermodynamics provides more insight into the nature and direction
        of time…….

        and two books you might find interesting……….

        Quantum Reality ( there are actually 8, including the Fenyman’s ‘sum of histories”
        which you allude to, as well as copenhagen, chicago, etc……

        and

        Doubt and Certainty, which covers a lot of stuff and both have been
        around for awhile………..

        But……given that you invest a lot of time here, why is it that, given the choice
        between clarity or confusion…….you still seem to lean toward the latter,
        rather than the former?

    • 45caliber

      Scott:

      See 2 Peter 3, Ver. 8.

      Time has no meaning for God. The Bible was given by God to man. While it says one day, that is one of GOD’S days, not necessarily one of ours.

      I believe both creation science and Darwinism are correct. Darwinism says that the universe was started with the Big Bang. But – except for 6 days – the story in Genisis and Darwinism is VERY close. The ONLY reason the Bible could match Darwinism is that God told the writer what happened since the writer had no knowledge of things like that at all. It reinforces the fact that God was the one who dictated the Bible to me.

      The real clue is: What set off the Big Bang? And where did the matter come from? It isn’t time that sets the two theories apart but the answer there.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        darwinism deals with the mechanism of natural selection, one of the
        three aspects of the Theory of Evolution.

        It has no relevance to the big bang or any other Theory, regarding the
        “origin” of the universe…..

  • Steve E

    I bet if Obama gave a statement in his State of the Union address tonight and stated that he didn’t believe in global “whatever”, and he promised that no measures would be taken on that subject, henceforth, The libs would not dare say a word about it. Like now, they don’t say anything about the dept, the wars, Gitmo, drones, tax hikes, etc.

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      Doing your Brandon ( alinsky-like ) Smith imitation?

      • meteorlady

        I’m sorry but since when do insults and name calling pass for intelligent comment?

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Yes, well I apologize if certain comments made here may seem “cryptic”
        to someone to whom the references are, that which they have no familiarity,
        but then if you are claiming to be “unfamiliar”, with the reference, how could you know
        it was “insulting”…….or intended as “insult”……..and while it used a name,
        would that qualify as name calling……what’s in a name, after all?

        Fortunately for you, further elaboration is available a bit below, and in the
        Brandon ( alinsky like ) Smith archives ( articles ) above and to the right.

        It was an accurate description of the relevance of the comment of the author,
        whom I am familiar with, and whom I know to be both familiar with me and
        the reference.

        Clearly you are not, which makes it difficult to understand why you would offer
        such an opinion…..about things which you all can claim is based on a
        condition of ignorance?

        Rather a foolish choice if one is encouraging or wishes to be seen as
        encouraging intelligent comment, is it not?

    • Steve E

      No, Gault, that my statement was just too much for you brain to comprehend. Or are you just acting like an idiot again to avoid the answer?

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Yes Brandon’s mastery of the irrelevant question to distract from his
        incompetence was equally obvious and uncompeling, but what was
        most telling was the tragic and delusional insistence, that if he could
        only repeat this enough times, with enough references to claims of
        false logic and false characterisations which were equally misappropriated
        and irrelevant, he could somehow escape the fact of his own “willfully ignorant,
        functional illiteracy”…..and the fact that the sum total of his offering, here
        could and would only be appreciated by those, who shared his gift for
        pointless,mindless, self contradictory rhetoric…..full of sound and fury,
        signifying nothing…….whose intent was merely the expression of his
        small minded vision and obviously rationalized self interest.

        You are thankfully a lot less windy, but then this is probably due to an even
        smaller minded vision, and even pettier self interest.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Steve issues come up. Just because we don’t constantly talk about certain issues doesn’t mean we do not care. Okay lets talk about the debt and the economy. Lets hold Obama accountable for the drones and gitmo. I am a liberal. I do not simply talk about what Obama is focusing on.

      • Jeff

        The previous poster raises an interesting point. If Obama were to announce himself a global warming skeptic, would not the Republicans have to get on board to fund climate change abatement?

      • 45caliber

        Jeff:

        The way politics works in Washington – yes.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        If Obama were to say he was a global warming skeptic I wouldn’t be surprised if the Republicans and most of Obamas political opponents suddenly claimed they believed in it.

        • Frank Kahn

          So, you thing everyone is just objecting to the bad science because Obama supports it? Most of the people I know that are against it were that way before anyone had heard of Obama.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        No I would not say that Frank. I just meant it would not surprise me if they changed their opinions based on what Obama believes. Because from deficits to the wars to executive orders to czars people seemed to change their opinions when Obama came into office. What was fine when Bush was around suddenly became unAmerican. And when Obama did things his opponents wanted they still attacked him. I have no doubt people believed climate change was a hoax long before Obama came onto the scene. But I would love to see how people would respond if he suddenly became a skeptic.

        • Frank Kahn

          If he did, the people I know would say “wow, maybe he can get something right for a change”.

    • eddie47d

      Yup! Steve E is still a knuckle dragger and wrong again!. Liberal sites continually berate Obama on those Middle East wars. Its almost like G Bush never left! They also complain about drones so do YOU really know what you are talking about?

      • http://midcontent ridge runner

        Maybe some dumbocraps actually do have a nano brain, the hairless sand lizard is starting to be IDed on what he really is, a muslim marxist!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Obama is not a Muslim. And if he is a marxist he is a terrible one. Like requiring people to purchase insurance plans from for profit insurance companies. I don’t remember Karl Marx including corporate domination in his Communist Utopia.

  • Cliffystones

    “you + suv + walking porterhouse = impending doom.”

    Stop calling the first lady names! :)

    • BR549

      You mean like “Wookie”?

  • Dad

    I’ll pass… heard it all before… and not a word of truth.
    “Their hipocracy knows no bounds.”

  • 45caliber

    The big problem with these “climate change experts” (expert – a has-been drip under pressure) is the automatic assumption that man is the apex of all creation – and creation was all done at random. Therefore man can screw up everything and should be able to fix everything … if you give those “experts” enough cash.

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

    In another discussion, a guy told me that listening to the evidence of climate change can only convince those already convinced — he doesn’t find evidence of rising temperatures persuasive.

    I responded:

    If you’re not convinced of warming, you’re not paying attention.

    ==> 120 years of warming growing zones mapped by USDA
    ==> Increasing frequencies of El Nino and La Nina, which can only be driven by more heat worldwide
    ==> Rising tree lines in the Rockies, Sierras, Appalachians
    ==> Rising tree lines across the latitudes of the Arctic tundra,
    ==> Changing rain patterns, driven by warmer air
    ==> Changing snow patterns, heat-driven again
    ==> Changed migration patterns of hawks
    ==> Changed migration patterns of butterflies
    ==> Dramatically changed migrations of songbirds
    ==> Death of coral reefs, due to rising temperatures of water
    ==> Deaths of western American forests, apparently due to increasing low daily temperatures in summers
    ==> Increasing range of insect damage on conifer forests, due to expanding range of insects, due to lack of long duration freezes
    ==> Expansion of range of Argentine fire ants in North America — they can’t live where it freezes a couple weeks every year.
    ==> Declining glaciers, especially in lower latitudes, like the High Uintas, Wasatch Ranges, Rocky Mountain National Park, and especially Glacier NP

    Clouds, air, water, plants, animals, and even the rocks have been shouting the news for 50 years that they only spoke about for the previous 100. If you’re not convinced, you’re in denial.

    As is our host, here: Deep in denial, and not worth listening to in policy discussions.

    • 45caliber

      Ed:

      120 years. That is so short a time that it is meaningless when referring to climate and the Earth. That is like flipping a coin once and insisting that all coin flips will turn up heads. That very time limit invalidates everything else stated there.

      • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

        It’s not the short period of time that the effects cover that causes concern; it’s the thousands of years of change packed into that 120 years that should cause your hackles to rise.

    • Gary

      North Africa used to be a tropical jungle. How did modern man change that to a desert? Middle America used to be an inland sea. How large were the ice caps then? Who was blamed for causing them to freeze and dry up the inland sea? Does the world change on it’s own? Do we penalize a country when a volcano errupts and dumps C02 into the system?

      • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

        North Africa used to be a tropical jungle.

        I don’t think so, but I’ll defer to your claim. It hasn’t been jungle, nor tropical, in the past 50,000 years or so.

        How did modern man change that to a desert?

        The Sahara has been in part of its current range for the entire time humans have been on the planet. Humans have contributed to much greater desertification around the borders of the Sahara, especially in the past 10,000 years, with poor soil use practices.

        It’s not easy to make a case that desertification would have expanded without human aid, but there are some clear cases where bad conservation practices unintentionally or intentionally made things worse — the Roman salting of the fields and orchards of Carthage, for example. There is significant evidence of overgrazing in many places across North Africa. These things have been regional in scale for most of human existence, up to now.

        Even as only regional calamities, however, they were destructive, and not worth emulating.

        You appear to be alleging that someone is saying that all warming was human caused. No one has said that.

        Middle America used to be an inland sea.

        Not much since mammals became dominant life forms, 65 million years ago. (Actually, it was more like 100 million years ago the last time, I think — but I’d need to consult some geology sources; see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway . The Laramide Orogeny, which really put a permanent end to the seas, ended 35 million to 50 million years ago at the latest.)

        You’re confusing processes that occurred over millions of years, or hundreds of millions of years, with processes we’re accelerating contrary to natural climate cycles, occurring in decades, or years. The current speed of change alone is destructive of life on Earth, including human life, even were the changes otherwise beneficial.

        How large were the ice caps then?

        What ice caps? Do you have a clue what you’re talking about?

        It appears to me you’re confusing continental “drift” with climate change. The time scale is wrong, and — need I remind you? — humans didn’t fare well at that time. The human population was zero.

        That’s okay with you? You’re one of those population control nuts who wants to see zero human population again? May God save us from your political machinations to wipe out humans, eh?

        Who was blamed for causing them to freeze and dry up the inland sea?

        The rise of the North American craton, the shifting of the continents, the Laramide Orogeny (the building of the Rocky Mountains). As I noted, you’re confusing processes of continental plate tectonics that take tens of millions to hundreds of millions of years, with global warming. Such confusion does not shed light on current problems nor how to solve them.

        Are you not in the least concerned that we’ve screwed things up so much that these processes have been accelerated millions of times?

        Does the world change on it’s own?

        Yes. Not so fast as it is now. And, the natural climate shift we should be going through is cooling. We’ve completely reversed that, it appears.

        You appear very confused. Humans die naturally. But that’s not a justification against a charge of murder. What you’re doing is claiming that since the world changes gradually over billions of years, and that all people die, it’s okay to screw up the environment so the world changes in a decade or so, and to murder people while we’re at it — after all, in the long run we’re all dead, right?

        I can’t tell whether you’re genuinely at sea on these issues, or if you think it’s clever to be clueless and cavalierly unconcerned about human survival. Yes, there was a sea over Kansas; not, it wasn’t while humans existed. No, the elimination of that sea was not caused by warming. No, the amount of warming needed to get rid of a sea like that is not healthy.

        Do we penalize a country when a volcano errupts and dumps C02 into the system?

        What would make you even propose such a thing? Volcanoes tend to dump more aerosols and particulate matter, things that combat global warming, than CO2. Were you serious, shouldn’t you be aware of that?

  • http://midcontent ridge runner

    The liberaltoids that spout the changing climates, never think weather isn’t static, but think man kind can change everything. No wonder why they voted forthe muslim marxist and his merry band of domestic terrorists. Of course these mental morons have confusion between the word meanings like blow and suck, That is why telling a democrat to go suck start a jet, the fans always turn thevwrong way,1 because they are always at the exhaust port, and get black faced when the engine backfires. Keep watching to see how close our government is going to (change) fail.

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      wow, interesting way to encourage “mindless rhetoric”…….just shift everything around,
      so the stuff that came first is no longer there………

      way to go, Bob.

  • meteorlady

    Something has to be done so Al Gore, the Clintons and others can start making their money off the Chicago Climate Exchange, and Goldman-Sachs can get to the trading floor.

    • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

      Chicago Climate Exchange is no more. Died about a year ago.

      But, I imagine facts don’t affect your views much, do they?

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    “And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; AND SHOULDEST DESTROY THEM WHICH DESTROY THE EARTH” (Revelation 11:18).

    In the coming day of God’s wrath, one group singled out for destruction is “them which destroy the earth.” When God finished creating, Adam and his descendants were told to “replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over . . . every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Genesis 1:28). But “dominion” did not mean “destruction,” and “subduing the earth” did not mean spoiling it.

    In these days, however, men are indeed in the process of destroying the earth and its inhabitants. Note the following partial list of global problems, all of which have resulted from human rebellion against the will of God: (1) global water pollution; (2) global air pollution; (3) global spread of AIDS and other deadly pestilences; (4) global spread of nuclear and other sophisticated weapons of mass slaughter; (5) global erosion of essential layers of topsoil; (6) destruction of vital rain forests and other important ecological communities; (7) global spread of addictive drugs; (8) legalization of abortion and homosexuality; (9) chemical pollution of lands and food chains with toxic wastes, nuclear wastes, insecticides, and other noxious substances; and, (10) animal and plant extinctions, averaging over one per day throughout recorded history.

    Question: Taking into consideration Revelation 11:18 was written long before industrialization, and that at the time of the writing man did not not posses the technological ability to destroy the planet, then what possessed the writer to conceive such a notion; “Them which destroy the earth”? Anyone?

    • tumbleweed

      At a time when ancient Rome was near about to be invaded by low tech tanks known as elephants, even at that time there was a weapon of mass destruction known as salt. The homeland of the invading elephant army received a salt treatment so that things could not grow on their settled estate and rendering it part of the earth’s wastelands. But even apart from defining that as destroying the earth, the Apostle John from the Island of Patmos had viewed future historic events as they were really happening and not by taking dictation from God. Otherwise why would John have to be told not to write everything down. That doesn’t sound like dictation. I believe it was time travel. John was writing those things down that he saw and heard that were really happening.

  • http://www.facebook.com/cairochris Chris McCloud

    First, climate and weather are far from the same. Climate is long term, centuries at the very shortest definition, and usually longer. Weather is day-to-day, and varies much more. Anyone making a claim based on a single event doesn’t know what they are talking about, whether it relates to warming or cooling.

    Why the change in terminology (from global warming to climate change)? Because the exact effect on climate – which is more than just temperature, it’s also precipitation & pressure – varies from place to place. For example, in VT the temperature won’t change much. But precipitation levels are dropping there, and are forecast to continue that trend, and as a result sugar maples are likely migrating out of the state. Globally, though, it should be noted that the past 11 years have resulted in the 11 warmest years on record. 90+% of all glaciers (continental and alpine) are receding, and have been for decades at a minimum, in some cases even longer. This, despite the fact that solar insolation models and past climate data indicate that we should be cooling right now, accumulating ice and leading to glacier growth.

    But ultimately, it goes back to two things: thermohaline circulation in the oceans, which is affected by salt concentrations in the water, and radiative forcing. The thermohaline circulation that is most prominent is the North Atlantic Deep Water. This stabilizes climate and reinforces whatever climate trend is occurring at that time – ideally, to maintain the status quo and lead to climate stability. That’s not what is happening now, so it’s a bad thing right now.

    The radiative forcing is the second aspect. There are 3 primary ways to affect the climate in this manner: change the amount of incoming radiation, change the amount of radiation reflected, or alter the amount of longwave radiated back to space. Milankovitch Cycles are the primary components of the first way. Milankovitch Cycles are 3 distinct cycles in geologic history: orbital eccentricity (shifts in orbit around sun, due to external gravitational factors other than sun; 100,000 year cycle), orbital precession (direction of axial tilt flips; 23,000 years), and obliquity (variation in angle of axial tilt; 41,000 years). Aerosols also have an effect, generally a cooling one, but it is minor in the grand scheme of things. They don’t account for warming trends. Albedo is the primary component of the second; warming decreases its capacity to generate a negative feedback (one that runs contrary to the prevailing trend). Finally, there is the amount of longwave radiated back; this is where greenhouse gases come in. Methane, which is released by melting permafrost, is the biggest offender as a greenhouse gas, but CO2 actually has the greatest radiative forcing capacity because it occurs in larger volumes (among other reasons). Water vapor is a major one as well, but not on the level of CO2 or methane. How does CO2 get in the atmosphere? Primarily through fossil fuel combustion. Yes, the ocean stores CO2, but it can only absorb it in certain areas where water is rough, so the actual amount that can be stored is not as great as the storage capacity. You can have a huge bank vault. If the door is small, you can only put so much in at a time.

  • http://www.facebook.com/cairochris Chris McCloud

    More importantly, why should we care about climate change?

    * Sea Level. Oceans are rising, and the latest projections (as of last winter) forecast 1 m/century for the next 3 centuries. That is a minimum estimate. You think economic impact now would be a problem? I don’t even want to think about what restructuring the economy would be like with places like New York City, VA Beach (where it is rising faster than anywhere else due to a crater in the harbor), parts of Boston, most of the Atlantic and Gulf coastline, and half of Florida underwater. Lots of jobs lost, financial capitals undercut, population displaced…the list goes on.
    * Agriculture. Depending on the area, growing season change, changes in length of season, changes in types of crops that can be grown in an area, invasive species that prey on various crops. Temperature and precipitation both have affects here.
    * Sports. MLBs best bats are ash. The Emerald Ash Borer thrives in warmer climates. It’s already an issue now in NY. If cities on the Atlantic coast are underwater, you’re going to have a lot of teams moving. At what point does it become uneconomical to ventilate and cool hockey and basketball arenas?
    * Energy. Without infrastructure to be prepared, even just in case the worst case scenario occurs, any current economic turmoil will appear miniscule to rebuilding an entire energy sector.
    * Responsibility. There are those who would say that it is irresponsible for the dominant species to act as if it has no effect on Earth’s climate and environment. We’ve already had major effects, but this one would be by far the largest.

    Science can never prove or disprove anything for sure. That’s a founding principle. But the question that ultimately needs to be asked it, do you want to be caught unprepared if the 90% of experts are correct? Do you really want to have to be making changes then, when in military terms the flank of the army of humanity is being turned, in a sense? No major changes could be made that would prevent it, at that point. Mitigating ones would be the only option, and they would not be cheap.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.