Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Professor Critical Of Climate Change Fired

June 22, 2012 by  

Professor Critical Of Climate Change Fired
Oregon State University is a staunch proponent of climate change.

Oregon State University refused to renew the contract of chemistry professor Nicholas Drapela. The professor has been openly critical of global warming.

Drapela, who has published several textbooks, received the Loyd F. Carter award for outstanding and inspirational teacher in 2004.

Drapela was notified of his termination last month, while classes were still in session.

“He read a prepared statement and took my key. I was unable to hold office hours in my office because I didn’t have a key,” Drapela said.

Despite his efforts, Drapela has not received a reason as to why he is being let go. Universities typically must give a concrete reason for firing a professor. Some people suspect it is because of his climate change views. Since 2007, the chemistry professor has been vocal about the fallacies he sees within climate change theories.

The slides for one of his talks can be seen here.

Gordon Fulks, a climate-change critic who holds a Ph.D. in physics, defended Drapela. Fulks wrote this letter in hopes that it would circulate and raise awareness about the politics behind global warming.

From Gordon Fulks:

Hello Everyone,

In theory at least Oregon State University (OSU) seems to be a bastion of academic freedom, diversity, and tolerance. A wide range of ideas are openly discussed. The most viable rise to the top and the least viable fade away. But it is all a fairy tale, because OSU operates under a politically correct regimen that dictates what is acceptable to say and what is not. Transgressors who dare to be different are eventually weeded out so that the campus maintains its ideological purity.

OSU is not yet as swift or efficient as the Soviet system when Joseph Stalin was trying to quash dissent among biologists who refused to go along with Trofim Lysenko. If warnings to compromise their integrity were not followed, Stalin simply had biologists shot. That quickly thinned the ranks of all biologists and persuaded the remaining ones to comply with Stalin’s wishes. Of course, it also destroyed Soviet biology, because Lysenko was pedaling nonsense. And Russian biology has never recovered.

We learned over the weekend that chemist Nickolas Drapela, PhD has been summarily fired from his position as a “Senior Instructor” in the Department of Chemistry. The department chairman Richard Carter told him that he was fired but would not provide any reason. Subsequent attempts to extract a reason from the OSU administration have been stonewalled. Drapela appears to have been highly competent and well-liked by his students. Some have even taken up the fight to have him reinstated.

What could possibly have provoked the OSU administration to take precipitous action against one of their academics who has been on their staff for ten years, just bought a house in Corvallis, and has four young children (one with severe medical problems)? Dr. Drapela is an outspoken critic of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, the official religion of the State of Oregon, the Oregon Democratic Party, and Governor John Kitzhaber.

Five years ago, Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor went around quietly saying that he was not a believer. Then Governor Ted Kulongoski and many faculty at OSU including Dr. Jane Lubchenco made life impossible for Taylor, and he retired. (Lubchenco is now head of NOAA in the Obama administration.) Under those currently in charge, OSU climate research has grown to be a huge business, reportedly $90 million per year with no real deliverables beyond solid academic support for climate hysteria. A small army of researchers ponder the effects of Global Warming on all sorts of things from tube worms living along the Oregon Coast to butterflies inland. When the climate refuses to warm (as it has for the last twenty years), they just study ‘warming in reverse!’ Most of us call that “cooling,” but they are very careful not to upset their Obama administration contract monitors with politically incorrect terminology.

Skeptics of Global Warming who oppose the OSU approach and oppose the politicians who make it all possible but do not work for OSU also find themselves attacked. Dr. Art Robinson who is running against Peter DeFazio for an Oregon Congressional seat found three of his children under attack at OSU. All were attempting to obtain advanced degrees in the Nuclear Engineering Department and were threatened with dismissal. Because Robinson fought back, we understand that the OSU administration backed down.

…We can only speculate as to how the decision to fire Drapela was made. Unlike the decision to force Taylor out (which came from the governor’s office), this decision was likely internal to OSU with the implicit backing of Governor Kitzhaber and NOAA administrator Lubchenco. I would suspect that Dr. Phil Mote (Director of their Climate Change Research Institute) had a hand in the decision, because he has previously been highly intolerant of those who oppose his ideas and could potentially threaten his business empire.

Please join with me in supporting Nick Drapela. Please join with me in supporting objective science, as well as academic freedom, diversity, and tolerance. The issues here go far beyond just Global Warming and strike at the very heart of who we are as scientists and Americans.

Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA

Bryan Nash

Staff writer Bryan Nash has devoted much of his life to searching for the truth behind the lies that the masses never question. He is currently pursuing a Master's of Divinity and is the author of The Messiah's Misfits, Things Unseen and The Backpack Guide to Surviving the University. He has also been a regular contributor to the magazine Biblical Insights.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Professor Critical Of Climate Change Fired”

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

  • GALT

    Searching for more TRUTH today, Bryan? This might help…..

    • GALT

      “Most people call that cooling”……….

      Most scientists would call that, what it is…….sure doesn’t look like coooooooling.

      Which might explain why he lost his job as an “instructor” of science…….although not having “tenure”……means…….You can be fired! He’ll be fine, the creationist’s could put him right to work.

      • Brad


        Then you might want to look through this website,

      • Brad


        The reason Dr. Drapela was fired was of his beliefs as a scientist, he wasn’t going to tow the perverbial line of political correctness. He researched and found fundamental flaws and twisting of data, his reasoning was to renounce climate change extremists but provide verifiable data which proves the direct opposit that is what a scientist does, tells the truth. In you utopian mind it’s one way your way and no one else can have a say even when they are right and you are wrong.

      • Brad


        You might want to read through this,

      • GALT

        Brad, did you actually read the links you posted or my links………what are you trying say, that warming is or is not taking place? Because your links don’t match your comment regarding Drapela………and there are no facts here of any kind……..we have no idea why he was fired……..because they didn’t say……..( therefor it must be because…….?)

      • Brad


        It’s my considered opinion that you are wrong, Dr. Drapela was fired for his opinions and this website refutes your site,

        Have a great day trying to explain it or twist the facts to suit your dreams.

      • Robert Smith

        Let’s meet Nicholas Drapela:

        For a TV news interview.


      • Vigilant

        GALT, of course, misses the whole point of the article, which is not an indictment of pro- or anti-global warming philosophies, but an excoriation of the universities for intolerance to any point of view which contradicts the party line.

        Notwithstanding that, GALT foolishly considers modern “science” to be fixed in concrete. Both academics and politicians have, throughout history, denigrated scientific theories of individuals that didn’t fit the establishment model. Today’s categorical dispensation of any empirical evidence that doesn’t fit the global warming model is just such an example. Science and the empirical method of inductive reasonong take a back seat, as they always have, to whatever the current establishment deems to be in vogue.

        GALT would have settled with the notion that the earth is round or that it is the center of the Universe simply because a “scientific” community claimed it to be so.. He would also have been a proponent of the 18th century proclamation that we had learned everything there was to learn about the world.

        A hint GALTY: the sciences are works in progress and always will be. History has proven more often than not that the opinion of a majority of scientists is no guarantee that their “science” is seriously flawed. The world according to GALT brooks no dissent when it comes to his opinions.

        P.S. the link you are so fond of posting was prepared by a UN functionary. Now, if you consider one of the most biased and politically motivated organizations in the world as definitive proof of your contentions, then I pity you.

      • GALT

        Well since you have two of your own links to refute, and 1 of mine, I’ll wait for you to catch up……..btw, the key to warming is ocean temperatures……….and they have been rising steadily, as the graphs indicate…….and photographs of sea ice, prove nothing, not that was what your link was about…..but I was just curious if you knew that photographs were two dimensional. And I intend to have a great day……when you can actually post something that demonstrates that you understand what you are linking to….maybe I can find some time for you……….meanwhile, being fired with no explanation, means that someone has been fired with “no explanation”………..and just curious, but how do you know that………..”Universities typically must give a concrete reason for firing a professor.”
        …………………… in fact the case? and the tenure thing fits in here somewhere too… once again……..where you should all be asking questions, you all already know the answers………… live in an amazing world…’s not REAL, but it is amazing.

      • Vigilant

        “GALT would have settled with the notion that the earth is round…” Obviously, I meant “flat.” Mea culpa

      • GALT

        Thank you Robert…….so now we know that his “contract will not be renewed”, and that he will be working until September, the end of his contract……….that he was not given a reason ( I guess the meaning of “contracts” and the option to not renew them becomes mystifying for “free market capitalists” depending on context? ) and this has fueled
        “speculation”…………( good thing he wasn’t black )…… what do we call this “playing the climate change card”?

        As for never, ever Vigilant……my initial responses were to Mr. Rolley’s playing of the “climate change card” ( or did you miss this, like you always do )………..people failed to get contracts renewed all the time…….which is pretty much the decision of mgmt. So this is a non story, with no facts……being used for other reasons……similar to adidas dropping a sneaker line because Jesse Jackson thinks it’s racist………what is strange is that, you can see clearly what is going on in the second instant, but are clueless as to what is happening here…………..( maybe I am giving you too much credit for actually seeing what is happening with anything ) but the problem is………being consistent, which is always a problem with the w.i.A.L.F. s,………….which is to be expected when your “reasoning” lacks any foundational framework. Be nice now, and go play with the other’s of your kind.
        (and please take the petard with you.)

      • Vigilant

        Thank you, GALT, for being true to form and not answering the bulk of my posting regarding the fallability of “science.”

        Saul Alinsky’s laughing from his grave..

      • Brad

        Galt do you realy know what the word petard means, I don’t think you do, here is it’s definition,
        pe·tard   /pɪˈtɑrd/ Show Spelled[pi-tahrd] Show IPA
        1. an explosive device formerly used in warfare to blow in a door or gate, form a breach in a wall, etc.
        2. a kind of firecracker.
        3. ( initial capital letter ) Also called Flying Dustbin. a British spigot mortar of World War II that fired a 40-pound (18 kg) finned bomb, designed to destroy pillboxes and other concrete obstacles.

      • GALT

        Brad, thank you ever so much for that wonderful definition……and since you clearly did NOT miss the fact that it was in response to a useless post by never Vigilant….and has used before, on other days……….( which you may have missed ) you can continue to
        ‘enlighten” us……or yourself……

        The expressions that would be relevant here are…..

        “Hoist with your own petard” or “upon your own petard.”

        You should not have a problem finding the above quotes and I look forward to your continued efforts here…….at last something useful….could this be a beakthrough?

      • TonyM

        The AGW hypothesis has always been about atmospheric CO2 causing warming at the surface of the earth. There is no independently verifiable observational data that shows any significant atmospheric warming in the last 20 years despite massive human production of CO2 and the thoroughly discredited “Hockey Stick”chart of Michael Mann. If in your “ocean” comment you are asserting that the oceans are getting warmer because the atmosphere at the surface warms the ocean at depth, you need to first prove that there is atmospheric warming due to CO2 (that has yet to be convincingly shown) and then prove that the atmosphere is capable of exerting a significant warming of the ocean. The reality is that even if the atmosphere was getting warmer, it could only influence at most the top millimeter of the ocean. Hint: the sun can penetrate ocean to very significant depths and is the main driver of ocean warming.

      • GALT

        Actually, that is not required…….atmospheric warming or cooling, is part of the problem
        with those who do not understand the “system”…..and are then easily confused by others
        who seek to mislead them………or eagerly mislead themselves……..because they believe they have sufficient understanding………

        All these little puzzles can be sorted out in the first link in the first post…….179 of them…..
        and as for your particular frame of reference…’s the SUN, that is covered also…..
        just briefly…… do understand that there is a reason why certain gases are called
        “green house gases”? You do know how a green house works?

        You do understand that the “greenhouse effect” of these gases, has been demonstrated
        by experiment…….and is not speculation?

        If so, then whatever energy the sun is providing, is being magnified by these gases, because like a greenhouse, it is trapped in the atmosphere….and can not escape……
        therefor this heat is distributed to whatever objects are available….by whatever physics
        governs the exchange rate of the the particular material involved…….and things become warmer on average………and you DO KNOW that the oceans circulate?

        Take your time and read…..all the mysteries will be revealed to you.

      • TonyM

        THe Earth climate system does not function as a “greenhouse”. A greenhouse is a closed system where the glass ( a poor radiator of heat) of the greenhouse prevents warm air from escaping. The Earth radiates heat into space very efficiently and is assisted by clouds in that process. There is no “blanket” of carbon dioxide or any other gas preventing that from ocurring. No one really understands the climate system. The variables are many in number and the relationship of those variables to each other is not well understood. Even the IPCC will admit that. Since projections of catastrophe come from climate models that are mathematical representations of the current realatively poor understanding of inter-relationships among variables, and the climate is known to be mathematically chaotic (small changes in variables can cause large changes in results), in the words of Gerhard Gerlich, a reknowed physicist and an expert in thermodynammics and the modeling of thermodynamic systems (paraphrasing):

        “The running of computer models to project the values of climate variables is nothing more than an expensive form of computer game entetainment.”

      • GALT

        So in other words YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THESE THINGS……would have saved time.

      • GALT
      • Jay

        My favorite USHCN hack to bring temperatures up, is called the “time of observation bias.” It is based on the idea that all 50,000 or so USHCN station owners have been morons.

        It is a misnomer. The correct name for it would be “time of reset bias.” It doesn’t make any difference what time you record the temperature, the concern is what time you reset the thermometer.

        Suppose you are brain-damaged and reset your min/max thermometer at 3PM every day. On Tuesday the high is 60F, which occurred right at 3PM. At 6PM a cold front comes through and the temperature drops to 10F and stays there for 24 hours. On Wednesday, you put on your heavy jacket and mittens go outside and look at your min/max thermometer. It says that the high temperature was 60F, which is off by 5o degrees.

        The opposite problem occurs if you reset your thermometer at 6AM. Only a complete imbecile would not recognize the problem, which is why almost everyone who operates a min/max thermometer understands that you need to reset the thermometer every night.

        The TOBS adjustment assumes that there used to be a lot of stupid people who reset their thermometers in the afternoon, and now there are a lot of stupid people who reset their thermometers early in the morning.

        What I find interesting is that the adjustments have been getting exponentially
        larger, based on the assumption that people are getting exponentially more gullible.

    • coal miner

      How can you fire a person for voicing their own opinions?I have to agree with Bryan Nash.Dr.Drapela and Dr. Gordon J. Fulks could be right or could be wrong.We don’t need another form of Lysenkoism in science. Let’s join in supporting Dr. Nick Drapela and academic freedoms.I do agree with Bryan on this one.

      • GALT

        Bryan’s headline is :Professor critical of climate change fired……..and then proceeds to link the two………..the facts here are that “no explanation” was given”……and that his contract was not renewed………and this is still the case………you are free to “assume” what you like………..but that is all it is, until you have “proof”…… this stands…….the only one that benefits from this assumption……is the professor himself……….he has provided the explanation for his firing……….making his rehiring, by those who are sympathetic to this, more likely……..( rather than say, having sex with students or other faculties members wives ? ) this is speculation too, btw……….can you follow this, as in, does this make sense……….or do you wish to continue to ASSUME you know, what there is no evidence for?

      • Third_stone

        Would we accept a science professor teaching students that gravity was questionable? The evidence is in and teachers teach what is proven to be true, not their own wild theories.

      • GALT

        Please……….for most here science is ONLY A THEORY…….and they could do that with “gravity” too…….since not everything regarding Gravity is understood…….

        facts are irrelevant to them……….and they are easily led by “words” which they do not understand, provided that the context is simple…….

        you need slogan’s……….which require no thought………

      • phideaux

        As usual galt posts ever larger piles of horse manure along with a substantial quantity of bull sh!t. I am glad my only connection to him is thru my computer for if I were in his presence I would need a full body anti HM & BS protective suit with breathing apparatus.

    • Robert Smith

      Those who support global warming have been harassed in many ways. There is an article about the horror AND who is behind the junk science that’s oppposed to the global warming at Popular Science:

      From that article the opposition / deniers are organized. “Both Milloy and his counterpart Marc Morano, who runs the site and once declared that climate scientists “deserve to be publicly flogged,” occasionally publish the e-mail addresses of climate researchers, a stunt that can result in scientists receiving a flood of vitriolic messages. A few weeks before our meeting, Milloy had offered a $500 bounty for a video of anyone who would heckle Mann with “an alarmism-debunking” question during the California leg of his book tour.”

      Yup, the abuse from the extreme right continues. This one has the potential to kill us all.


    • TonyM

      gALE, THe simulation of the Earth’s climate system in a laboratory environment has never been done and probably never will. So showing a greenhouse effect in the laboratory is quite meaningless as applied to the Earth’s climate system. You should read this thorough examination of the physics of greenhouses and why it does not apply to climate on earth (link below). I haven’t put you down for believing what you do and I don’t expect to be put down by you for “lack of understanding” for my beliefs based on the reading of a massive amount of material from physicists, mathematicians, climatologists, The IPCC, etc. I am only presenting information for debate without the emotional necessity of trashing someone else’s opinion, namely yours, based on your research.

      • TonyM

        Sorry for the typo, GALT

      • Jay

        TonyM says: I haven’t put you down for believing what you do and I don’t expect to be put down by you for “lack of understanding” for my beliefs based on the reading of a massive
        amount of material from physicists, mathematicians, climatologists, The IPCC, etc. I am only presenting information for debate without the emotional necessity of trashing someone else’s opinion, namely yours, based on your research.

        But that is just standard procedure from the “great Galt”, TonyM. You see, Galt has great difficulty in dealing with anyone questioning, or criticizing his assertions, theories, and arguments, however flawed they may be, and when someone, God forbid, should point out the flaws, Galt’s response is always a scientific one; ridicule, name-calling and personal attacks, all the while claiming he understands the definition of science, and its correct use…charming fellow!

      • TonyM

        Thank you, Jay. Apparently Galt has adopted the IPCC/Gore method of debating controversial issues: First, declare that the debate is over -the high priests have spoken – you are not allowed to disagree because your authorities have declared they own Truth – since Truth has been established no other opinion need be considered; Second, debase, trivialize, and insult those who have valid challenges to the orthodoxy regardless of the challenger’s credentials. It is pathetic that science has become so politicized and conversations must degenerate into name calling. The search for truth has been replaced by political correctness, probably the result of a post-modernism infection of the scientific community, the general atmosphere of political correctness existing on campuses, and the intense competition for grant money.

  • Shame on You

    Shame when common sense bows to political pressure. Shame when institutions of education follow money instead of intellectual honesty. Shame when freedom of thought, research and opposing theories of crushed by oppressive leadership at every level. Shame when even blogging support for an alternate theory is cause for attack. If this response comes from “educational elites”, where critical thinking is criticized, how can we grow? What will we become other than backward drones? Shame.

    • eddie47d

      I question everything and some around here don’t like it. I won’t jump through hoops on this article either until a solid reason is given for Drapela being fired. I wrote about the oyster beds on the Northern Pacific coast 3 months ago. Where these farm raise mollusks were dying because the water temperatures were becoming to warm. Climate change is effecting many areas of the earth and in this case the Oregon coast so each and every view must be looked at. Maybe Drapelas views were too radical even for radical Oregon. Since his class was popular I’d hate to see him fired for political reason for that is just as cheesy as Conservatives attacking Liberal professors.The OSU officials need to be more upfront about this and let academic freedom take precedence.

      • phideaux

        “I question everything and some around here don’t like it.”

        Tell us another joke eddie for you question almost NOTHING if it is pro union, leftist slanted, or pro obama.

    • GALT

      Shame when you can’t sort fact from fiction…….

      • Vigilant

        Better move out of that glass house before the shards kill you, GALT.

      • GALT

        To never, ever was Vigilant, and probably never ever will be…….once again for YOU, with feeling…….

        ” To conquer, first DIVIDE!”

        Unfortunately, the study of “economics” has no connection to “reality”, so the specific system is irrelevant, and the one being claimed as the solution, is in fact the most responsible for the “problem”……….but this requires that one actually has a fundamental understanding of the “history” and it is clear that very few here have this understanding or are capable of considering the possibility that it is their very ignorance which allows this
        idiocy to continue. In short, you are being played……by those who are benefiting from the continuation of this “fraud” on every level…….and since it is quite clear that you have very little in common with any of these people who show up every day ( except sunday ) to jerk your chain…….the fact that you are unquestioning participants in your own victimization is particularly ironic………..but such is the way of things for the w.i. A.L.F.

        You may alter this lack of understanding at any time……..

        The Social Conquest of Earth
        Debt: The First 5000 Years.
        Power Inc.
        Extreme Money
        The Great Divergence
        Economic’s Unmasked

        Just as you resist the implications of the simple question Where are the common law and equity courts?, as it applies to The Constitution…….

        That there is NO NOBEL PRIZE for “economics” and therfore there are no Nobel Lauriets on this subject…….should also stimulate anyone intelligent into the mode of further inquiry……….after all, why would these supposed ‘prize winners” actually allow this misconception to continue……….

        This is similar to the question on the Constitution and the silence of Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano to address what is in fact the most direct way to restore what has been lost, and it is impossible for any Judge not to know this, so again we have a case of direct FRAUD……..which continues without missing a beat……..

        So I guess if is your belief that it is my fault for raising the questions, and this seems to be the general reaction, you might want to consider that any claim you have to being capable of intelligent reasoning……..lacks any evidence to support it……….

      • Jay

        Galt: Unfortunately, the study of “economics” has no connection to “reality”

        Hmm, what in your opinion is reality, Galt? Come on now Galt, we could all use a good chuckle…

  • Randy131

    The Earth’s yearly average temperature has been declining by a small percent of a degree each year for the last 10 years, the winters are now becoming harshly colder and the ice sheets have been growing in the artic regions of both poles for the last 3 years, and NASA and the Russian Space Agency both have reported this last month that their instruments on Venus and Mars for the last 20 years, have detected a similar increase in temperatures on those two planets, that are in direct correlation as those here on Earth, and without humans to increase any carbon based gasses in their atmospheres. All this indicates that there is no ‘Global Warming’ progression on Earth, caused by an increase in carbon based gasses in the Earth’s atmosphere by mankind, which has more than doubled in that same 10 year period of decline in the Earth’s yearly average temperature, and that 81% of the world’s atmospheric scientist are correct in their belief that only the Sun causes ‘Global Warming’, by cyclic appearances of many sunspot storms on it’s surface, the same thing that causes the appearance of the ‘Northern Lights’, whose appearances also correlates with past known warmings of the Earth. ‘Global Warming’ is a scam to increase the wealth of the 19% of the worlds atmospheric scientists, who falsely postulated the theory, and falsified data in order to prove it to be true, which nature itself has now proven it wrong. Also carbon based gasses in the atmosphere is nothing more than an airborne fertilizer that has increased plant growth, and farm production per acre, that benefits the feeding of mankind, with no harmful effects to any living animal, including mankind. Now this good Professor Nicholas Drapela has been fired, to advance the biased believe in the ‘Global Warming’ scam, for the enrichment of those who are promoting that bias, by silencing an objector to that biased theory. There should be a law against promoting unproven theories, especially the ones that our natural surroundings are disproving daily.

    • GALT

      Unfortunately, the same lies re-posted don’t make them true….all 179 lies are refuted by the first link above……you need to find new ones…….although, it will probably take you awhile to learn the 179 that have already been covered…….

      • Steve

        When they gave Obama the Noble Peace Prize, for having accomplished exactly zero at that piont in time, the Noble Prize became a joke. It doesn’t take a Noble winner to read between the lines & see exactly why the professor was let go. Stupid is what stupid does & claiming ignorance because the school didn’t give a reason is weak. Remember Alinsky lover, the means justify the ends, and for far left libs, lying is that ‘means’.

      • phideaux

        “Unfortunately, the same lies re-posted don’t make them true”

        You should know galt for you post the same lies repeatedly.

    • coal miner

      The Geologic temperature record are changes in Earth’s environment as determined from geologic evidence on multi-million to billion (109) year time scales. … The last 3 million years have been characterized by cycles of glacials and … of this ice age over the last 3 million years has been associated with declining …

  • Chester

    To Dr. Fulks, if anyone on here can get this to him. Please, sir, start a petition on Change.Org, and you should have enough weight behind you to convince the U of O staff that they are making a serious mistake. I have seen what those petitions can accomplish, as has our good friend Bob on here, if he will admit it.

  • Brad


    Maybe you should open your eye’s and quit believing the hysteria,

    • GALT

      Wow, I get it now………and you finally posted a link that supports what you actually believe…………too bad, because you now need 3 more…….because the first two you posted, say the same thing as mine……..and your link actually attempts a factual refutation, so all you will have to do is take the last link you posted and match them up with the first two you posted…….and you need to start paying attention to the meaning of words…..when you see “myth busting” as it refers to Global Warming……., it is not the
      Warming they are referring to as the MYTH……….and science deals with facts, so there is no P.C. component………..unless you are referring to Bush altering the reports when he was president. Anyway….my link deals with the 179 myths of why people like you, believe that Human caused global warming isn’t taking place, interestingly it actually comes from the same myth the supports the economic idiocy that capitalism has produced benefits for everyone………..nice to see w.i.A.L.F. s………continuing to support their own victimization.

      • Vigilant

        Wow, I get it now. It’s not the validity or invalidity of the “science” of global warming, it’s the number of links that can be provided, no matter how rife with mis- and disinformation. GALT, that’s a child’s game. And that definitizes your mental age to be about 14.

        You must be related to TIME, whose sole claim to fame entails the number of youTube videos he can ferret out. Difference is, you know how to read with some limited amount of comprehension and I don’t think TIME has mastered that skill yet

      • Brad

        It just goes to show your total intellectual loss, that you would stoop as low as to discredit another’s post What you don’t get science is manipulated by the left to support their theories, Cap and Trade comes to mind. Al Gore the world’s biggest global warming alarmist lobbied the US congress to pass Cap and Trade; wasn’t it Al Gore who bought into that carbon exchange to make money off of tax payers and businesses buying carbon credits. By the way it fell through the floor and he got out before he lost his millions.
        Since you have no idea what a myth is let’s define it;
           mɪθShow Spelled[mith] Show IPA
        1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
        2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
        3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
        4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
        5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution

        This is what science strives to do as defined;
           ˈsaɪənsShow Spelled[sahy-uhns] Show IPA
        1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
        2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
        3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
        4. systematized knowledge in general.
        5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

        Through science we can prove or disprove a myth and today science has proven our oceans have raised less than 1% of its total volume in the last 30 years. So are the Glaciers thawing, who knows, are the two poles thawing, who knows, have sea levels increased, not that I can see and I live next to a large body of water.

      • GALT

        Well then Brad, you need to regroup………Cap and Trade was no problem for industry, they were in favor of it…….because they had done to it, what the health insurance industry did to the health care bill………..or did you miss the “announcement” by the major insurer’s
        that they would continue to provide those things in the “health care bill” regardless of how the Supreme Court ruled regarding the mandate?

        Cap and TAX, was their big concern……because this would actually do something about the “problem” and effect the profits by transfering the cost of the damage back to those that caused it…………

        As for your instruction regarding MYTH…….you posted two links, the first two, regarding
        1.) global warming myths and 2.) climate change busting myths……in both cases, these myths were about those who continue to deny the evidence of anthropogenic global warming…………

        Now, for some reason…….you failed to grasp what you were posting, which means that you assumed the word myth meant something it did not………your other links did not use the word myth, but they are clearly posts that “deny” the evidence……

        So while I thank you for all that effort…….you could save yourself a lot of time, by actually trying to comprehend what you are reading………

        Still let me try one more time……it is a waste of time trying to convince me that GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT…….because I AGREE WITH YOU……..nor do I BELIEVE
        that there are any SOLUTIONS available in government, no matter who is elected, to what………..and for me this includes Ron Paul, Judge Napolitano, and anyone one else
        whose has taken an “oath” to the ‘admiralty and maritime’ constitution……….yet failed to disclose that it is THIS which is why the ‘constitution’ is “seemingly missing”……..

        Understanding this, gives YOU the power to do something about it…….FOR YOURSELF, since you will reap the benefits directly……failure to understand this, makes you impotent, because all you can do is comes here and waste your times complaining in your clueless woe is me….the big bad government is going to get us all. of course, this “willfull ignorance” empower’s them and disempower’s you……and guarantee’s that in the end, you will be RIGHT……on the other hand, you don’t have to do anything but wait……no risk there, is there……….so I understand your “willfull ignorance”, and that you insist upon it…..there are words that also describe this……..and they are not flattering……

      • GALT

        Brad, you do realize that only the melting of land based ice would increase ocean volume?
        The complete disappearance of ocean ice, at both poles would be irrelevant……so the calculation of actual increase of 1% ocean volume in terms of height, would not seem overly taxing to calculate…………and since this as you say, IS the evidence…….”who knows”? because you can’t see it……..? is hardly compelling………

        The above would be a more useful definition of the word science, since it describes the
        application of the scientific method……. and which can then be distinguished from “creation science” which involves no science ………

      • Jay

        Creation is a discipline of science concerning the origin of life on Earth as well as the origin of our planet and the universe.

        The creation model consists of the hypothesis that the Earth, the universe, and life itself was created out of nothing in complete and fully functional forms. This can be scientifically verified, and represents a better model for origins than the evolution hypothesis.

        Scientific creation essentially refutes Darwinism and much modern evolutionary thought in nearly all disciplines of science, especially biology, paleontology, and geology. It is worth noting, however, that creationists do not simply dismiss the work of evolutionists.

        Creation is NOT “anti-science”, furthermore 99% of the research by evolutionists has nothing directly to do with evolution even if you do see the word bandied about in their journals, papers, and magazines.

        The creation evolution controversy is more of a framework or foundational mindset difference; often its only bearing is in the INTERPRETATION of observation and the proceeding conclusions.

        A scientist can objectively study a virus, search for the cure to cancer, map a genome, even study how organisms have changed over time, all without any regard to their predisposition for creation or evolution.

      • GALT

        There is no “science” involved in “creationism”…… such it “refutes” NOTHING.

        To be ignorant of what science has “proven” is not “proof” of anything except willful ignorance.

        To claim that science has not yet proven something, does not establish evidence for
        that which there is no evidence for, as the cause, of that which has not been proven.

        Failure to comprehend the preceding does not prove or demonstrate anything except the functional illiteracy of the willfully ignorant. ( regardless of insistent repetition )

      • Jay

        Nonsense, Galt. Creationism is absolutely based on science.The Bible describes the origin of life on earth. Many have questioned whether a book written thousands of years ago could still be found accurate when scrutinized by modern science. But each time man thought that science contradicted the Bible, later scientific discoveries proved it to be true – while proving the previous scientific theories to be false.

        Many of the greatest scientific discoveries occurred during the Reformation period. A thousand years previous of almost no scientific discovery passed in the period known as the Dark Ages. During this time the Bible was not in the hands of the people or even available in their own language. Biblical knowledge was restricted during this period. But with the onset of the Reformation, when the Bible was translated and put into the hands of many more people, something happened. Major scientific discoveries were made by men whose minds were illumined by the Scriptures. The psalmist’s revelation aptly describes this advancement of scientific knowledge: “The entrance of Thy Word gives light” (Psalm 119:130).

        Many scientific principles were recorded in the Bible thousands of years before scientists actually discovered them. Throughout history, popular scientific opinion was typically against what the Bible suggested regarding a certain idea – until new scientific discoveries supported the idea put forth by God’s Word.

        Consider the field of astronomy. Before the invention of the telescope, man actually believed that the stars could be numbered. The great Ptolemy gave the number as 1,056. Tycho Brahe cataloged 777 and Kepler counted 1,006. The astronomers of those days were certain that they could count the number of stars.

        Since the invention of the telescope by Galileo in 1608, we now know that the number of stars are limitless. Today, astronomers estimate that there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy with an additional 20-100 billion galaxies in the universe!

        But long before the telescope was invented, the Bible had put forth the notion that the stars are countless in number. God spoke to Abraham that his descendants would be “as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the grains of sand on the seashore” (Genesis 22:17). Jeremiah 33:22 states: “The host of heaven cannot be numbered.” Thousands of years later we see the confirmation of the Bible by modern astronomers.

        Men also speculated on the earth’s foundation and how it was supported in space. At one point, it was believed that space was filled with a hypothetical substance like ether. Today, gravity is used to explain certain phenomena, but the world still appears to be hung on nothing, as is evident from our space travels. Again, this concept is not new from the viewpoint of the Bible. Job 26:7 mentions that God “hangs the earth upon nothing.”

        For ages, scientists believed in a geocentric view of the universe. The differences between night and day were believed to be caused by the sun revolving around the earth. Today, we know that the earth’s rotation on its axis is responsible for the sun’s rising and setting. But 4,000 or more years ago, it was written, “Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place? It is changed (turned) like clay under the seal” (Job 38:12, 14). The picture here is of a vessel of clay being turned or rotated upon the potter’s wheel – an accurate analogy of the earth’s rotation.

        The Bible is the first source to mention that the earth is spherical. The prophet, speaking in Isaiah 40:22, mentions that God “sits above the circle on the face of the deep.” The word circle in Hebrew, khug, is best translated in terms of sphericity or roundness. The Bible had refuted the flat earth theory long before scientists actually disproved it.

        The Bible has also accurately described the water cycle, which includes precipitation, subsequent evaporation, and transpiration followed by condensation in the clouds (see Job 36:27-29). Science later documented the direction of wind currents and wind paths. This was unknown in previous centuries, but Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 1:6, “The wind blows to the south and goes round to the north; round and round goes the wind, and on its circuits with wind returns.”

        Solomon also mentions about the movement of water in verse 7: “All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again.”

        Matthew Maury (1806-1873), who is known as “the Pathfinder of the Seas,” was the founder of modern oceanography and hydrography. Maury firmly believed in and was inspired by Psalm 8:8, which mentions “whatever passes along the paths of the sea.”

        Maury believed that if the Bible wrote about “paths in the seas” then there must truly be paths in the sea. He dedicated his life to find and document these paths God had mentioned. Maury spent part of his career with the U.S. Navy charting the winds and currents of the Atlantic which were not known before his documentation.

        Most of the great scientists in history were men who believed in the Bible as the inspired Word of God and did not see a contradiction between science and the Bible.

        In fact, many of the great scientific discoveries were actually inspired by the Word of God.

        Sir Isaac Newton is famous for his discovery of the law of gravity, the development of calculus into a comprehensive branch of mathematics, and the construction of the first reflecting telescope. He believed that the Bible was God’s Word and said: “We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.”

        William Thompson, known as Lord Kelvin, was a physical scientist of the same stature as Newton. He held the chair of Natural Philosophy at the University of Glasgow for 54 years.

        Kelvin established the scale of absolute temperatures so that such temperatures are today given in so many “degrees Kelvin.”

        He also established thermodynamics as a formal scientific discipline and formulated the first and second laws in precise terminology.

        Despite his 21 honorary doctorates, Kelvin remained a humble Christian, firmly believing the Bible. In a famous testimony given in 1903, Lord Kelvin stated that, “with regard to the origin of life, science positively affirms creative power.”

        Samuel Morse is famous for his invention of the telegraph. The first message he ever sent over the wire was “What God hath wrought!” (Numbers 23:23).

        Here’s a list of scientists who were creationists, all deluded, no doubt, according to you:

        Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
        Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

        Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
        Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. He rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, “It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.” (Of Atheism)

        Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
        Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity – well before Newton was born!

        His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity.

        Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
        Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo’s telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one “proof” based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope’s favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo’s) was very offended. After the “trial” and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

        Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
        Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth.

        At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted – suggesting the famous “I think therefore I am”.

        Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY.

        Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

        Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air.

        He was raised a Roman Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began publishing a theological work, Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most influential theological work, the Pensées (“Thoughts”), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous concept from Pensées was Pascal’s Wager. Pascal’s last words were, “May God never abandon me.”

        Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
        In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central.

        What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God’s plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, “The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

        Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
        One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to “Boyle’s Law” for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: “By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, ‘for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels…’

        Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
        Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

        Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
        Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called “Mendelianism”. He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868.

        His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and “rediscovered” him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860′s was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of “conflict” between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics – selective breeding among humans to “improve” the stock). He was writing how the “priestly mind” was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton’s contribution.

        William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
        Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says “Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions.” Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth’s age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

        Max Planck (1858-1947)
        Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture “Religion and Naturwissenschaft,” Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that “the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols.”

        Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a “tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition” with the goal “toward God!”

        Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
        Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe.

        The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: “Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in “Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists.” This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.”

        Einstein’s famous epithet on the “uncertainty principle” was “God does not play dice” – and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

      • GALT

        wow…that is so coooooolllll and lllloooooonnnnnnnggggg…….
        and you don’t understand a word of it……..

        continue to react to my name…… are a teaching tool………a useful idiot that responds when baited…….”full of sound and fury, signifying NOTHING!”

      • Jay

        Great response, Galt! It contains insults, and personal attacks; the scant produce of the intellectually bereft…now for sure people will pay more attention to you, and will consider more seriously, your contribution to any discussions…or should i say; Galt’s instructions on how to correctly insert foot-into-mouth…seeing you are the expert in the field…of course…

      • GALT

        Take the blue pill……it won’t solve your problem…….but with a little luck it might help you forget……..

  • T. Jefferson

    See what happens when you don’t support the left wing power mongers?

  • joseph

    Chester its osu not u of o. Both collages are liberal hot beds .but they are two different schools

    • jopa

      joseph;It is colleges, not collages.Just couldn’t resist, however you were probanly a graduate of (offensive comment removed)

      • coal miner

        What about (offensive comment removed)?Ha Ha Ha

      • Jay

        joseph;It is colleges, not collages.Just couldn’t resist, however you were probanly a graduate of (offensive comment removed)

        jopa; its probably, not probanly. Just couldn’t resist…

  • Sirian

    In it’s own way, this subject is rather comical. Never, if but possibly on a very, very seldom time is former & present day solar activity mentioned or studied. It’s always this, that or the other. Never discuss what relation our star has in our climates highs and lows. In reality, it depends upon how much power and control is sought. The arguments tossed out are, as I said, quite often comical.

  • Silas Longshot

    Time and time again from our ‘progressive’ universities we see this BS. The libs at the top will consistently try to muzzle any opinion or dissent that is against their dogma. “Global warming” critics or ‘free speech’ that doesn’t agree with their political agenda is always a target for persecution or dismissal of faculty or students. “Free speech, as long as you agree with us” is the rule.
    click the name.

  • s c

    Like it or not, when dealing with a utopian university, you’ll probably have to resort to a lawsuit to ‘get their attention.’ So, the prof is not a high priest of global warming. BFD. Maybe if he volunteered to kiss Gore’s posterior, maybe he could be seen as being less of a “radical.”
    In the interim, prof, get all the media attention you can get, make the school pay for its power-mad proclivities and NEVER let a utopian make you think they have all the answers. ANY group that includes Gore is automatically a group that needs to be monitored. Remember, Gore and most utopian global warming retards have NO clue.
    What they want is MONEY, POWER and a sheep-like herd of followers.
    The day they have to be ACCOUNTABLE is the day they have to change their retarded ways.

  • jopa

    sc: Why does everything have to involve a lawsuit.The best description I have heard for this type of mentality is these folks are ” Sewers”.

  • FEDUP!

    Twisted data that has to do with the Obama administration. Say it aint so! Can you expect anything else but flaws? Nope. A lot of Scientists believe that evolution is a joke and everything points to a Creater. They don’t get to say that much either. Any surprises? If so, why?

    • Deerinwater
      • Combat seabee

        First of all, Deer in water is a joke, they can swim, but usually drown as they only go into water after being pursued to the extent of that is the only option for escape, and death it usually is!. So, they pushed him to the water.
        Oregon is a “GONE STATE!” It has lost all respect for America and kisses everybody elses ass, except mine!! You suck Oregon and your last syllable explains how you are as a state should be., “GONE!”
        Why are you Hard Working Americans, if you are still working, paying for a free ride for the illegals in your state, or competition to your own jobs? W.T.F.U. people!!!!

    • GALT

      Dear FEDUP, any scientists who though there was a creator based on evidence for a creator, would by definition NOT be scientists…….even if they had a piece of paper that says they are………you can buy anything you want these days…..or haven’t you figured that out yet?

      • Jay

        Galt says: Dear FEDUP, any scientists who though there was a creator based on evidence for a creator, would by definition NOT be scientists…….even if they had a piece of paper that says they are………you can buy anything you want these days…..or haven’t you figured that out yet?

        Not exactly a scientific statement, Mr. Galt. In fact, no scientist worth his/her salt would be so foolish as to make such an asinine statement, much less, agree with you!

        Conversely, your statement could be framed; any scientist who thought there was no Creator based on zero evidence for a Creator, would by definition NOT be a scientist…why?

        Because, “no evidence/proof” is not, “evidence/proof”, to either confirm or dismiss a assertion. Another words, without proof, or no proof, science is at a loss, and therefore, disqualified from providing a helpful contribution.

        Previously, in another discussion, you made the bombastic claim that you understood well, the methodology, or the correct application of science with respect to what is, and what is not; yet, your above statement proves the contrary.

        A scientist you are not, far from it. What you are is; a driveling simpleton that cannot find his ass with both hands and a road map. You are the very pinnacle of insensateness. You are the model of banality and subnormality.

        I cannot believe that anyone could muster such a prodigious, astounding level of stupidity.

        If you were any more asinine or incogitant, you would surely have been put to death long ago. Your vapidity has gone so far beyond any previous boundaries of puerility and nugacity as to banish any and all chances of an intelligent thought from your head.

        Even the most hardened of regulars unquestionably cannot believe your fatuousness and illogicality.

      • GALT

        let me make this clear, just for you Jay……..there is no evidence for a creator.

        but of course you feel free to post all the evidence you believe exists for one, and make sure you get it all……..because I am only going to explain to you once, why it is not.

        clock is ticking, tic, tic,tic……

      • Jay

        Save your non-sensical flatulence for the crowd you run with, Galt. And even though they may back-slap-you, and cheer you on, it shouldn’t come as any great revelation to you, that inwardly they think you a fool. You’re a fraud and a hack.

        There cannot be even a fragment of intellectuality or perspicacity to be found within the gaping void which should contain your brain.

        It amazes me that you are able to perform even the most facile of everyday functions with your exorbitantly disadvantaged and gormless lack of intellect.

      • Jay

        let me make this clear, just for you Galt……..there is no evidence to support the absence of a Creator.

        but of course you feel free to post all the evidence you believe exists for none, and make sure you get it all……..

        Come on Galt, tick tock….

      • GALT

        Nothing to tic about jay, I am not the one claiming there is one…….and since there can’t less than zero evidence for something…….it’s not my job……..

        You seem to have difficulty with the rules of logic and the burden of proof, which always rests on the positive assertion……because you can not prove a negative…….

        Not the first time for you………but we’ll do this again……for the last time…..

        I can not find any evidence for a creator……and you can not find any evidence for a creator……which means there is no evidence for a creator, so once again we are done here…..actually we were done before we started,,,,,although it does seem a bit strange that all those scientists that you claim had such evidence seem to have vanished?

        We will not be speaking again, or rather I will no longer be acknowledging you… are
        of no consequence, bye!

      • Jay

        (offensive comment removed)

  • Deerinwater

    Hmm? Sound like a “sales job” that took a bad turn.

    It’s not just windows & tires ~ but see-thu impact resistant widows and firm gripping, soft riding rotating tires.

    You can get away with saying just about anything if you really try to be less adversarial.

    My guess is, the professor was a fire breather and behaving like a dragon, out living his usefulness.

  • justdooit

    Isn’t it strange that all mention of climate change and the coming disaster of it, is only mentioned in reference to the USA ? NO one ever says it’s happening in other places, at least not on the scale it’s done so here. Could it be mostly political? Hmmm…

    • GALT

      yeah, all that starvation, famine and drought in africa, pollution in china, and the islands that are slowly being inundated……..not being mentioned at all, anywhere, by anyone……
      could be political…………

      • Combat seabee

        Can you get your head out of your anus long enough to really understand that the Earths climate goes cyclic? And if you don’t believe that irrefutable truth as witnessed in tree ring growth, you just might need to give a donation to Al Gores 4x the average carbon footprint mansion, as witnessed by public record for energy use! Effin Hypocricy and false science!!~

      • GALT

        If you get the impression that I am ignoring you, don’t be alarmed…..because I AM IGNORING YOU.( see previous links and argue with them. )

  • Combat seabee

    The ONLY reason is that Oregon is a seat of liberalism! It is well documented! It is also a Haven State for illegal immigrants, what part of “Illegal” don’t you understand Oregon? Keep making Americans pay for the illegals, but when you are out of money, Don”t hold your breath for a pay back!!!!

    • Curt

      STOP!!! Not all Oregonians are like that. Those who are, are in the Portland Metro Area. Please, for God’s sake, stop lableing everyone in Oregon the same, we are not!!! That is the same as saying everyone living in California are communists. Everyonr living on the Eastern seaboard are Democrates. Well, D.C. is in the eastern part of the country, so anyone living there MUST be democrate…right? If you want to direct your attacks at anyone, make sure you aim straight, otherwise, there is too much collateral damage. When S.H.T.F., trust me, there are a lot of Oregonians you do want backing you, do not alienate us.

  • Curt

    “Anthropogenic Global Warming, the official religion of the State of Oregon”, as an Oregonian, I take offense at that statement. Not all Oregonians are tree hugging, sandle wearing, Subaru (or Prius) driving hippies. The majority of those who are, are in the Portland Metro Area (named the Unmanliest City in America). And those are California (Commiefornia) transplants or from other areas.

    • JeffH

      Curt, you’re right of course. I live in the more conservative area of Kommiefornia, the heart of the worlds agriculture know as the central valley…it’s disheartening to watch the ignorant masses of progressives destroy the richest state in the US. Politics here are run by the public unions and the environmental extremists. Really pathetic.

  • wavesofgrain

    The “Global Warming” hype is politically motivated, and Obama, indeed, has been involved from the get go by funding the first climate exchange from the Joyce Foundation in early 90′s..(with Ayers) Gore saw the dollar signs, and created his own company, Generation Investments Management, partnered with Sachs executives. Many ex-Sachs boys/girls are heavy investors. This is a massive redistribution of wealth scheme, and involves the UN. It is the largest fraudulent scheme in history of man to dupe the world population and enrich those involved in the scheme.

    There were many Universities buying stock in the “Climate Exchanges”. You can bet this is a hotly political issue! WAKE UP AMERICANS!!!

    The Kyoto Protocol: Oppressing People, Enriching Banks

    “””””””;”Dr. Richard Sandor, Time Magazine’s 2002 “Hero of the Planet,” and the so-called “father of financial futures,” is an economist and trader, and the creator, major shareholder, and chairman of Climate Exchange PLC. Climate Exchange PLC is an Isle of Man based financial company that owns both the voluntary Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and the mandatory European Climate Exchange (ECX). The ECX is the major marketplace through which the emission credits, including CERs, are traded, and operates as the major exchange for the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. In an interview with Bloomberg earlier this year, Sandor predicted that the US would have to enter the emissions trading scheme, and stated that he believed the greenhouse gas emissions would soon be a $10 Trillion market. (Gore’s Generation Investments Management also registered in the Isle of Man…no taxes)

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

    Look at how this has infiltrated our country….we are now following UN treaties!!!!

    “”””This represents politically assisting the IPCC to enable UN, EU and U.S. bureaucrats and political appointees avoid official email channels for specific official work of high public interest, performed on official time and using government computers, away from the prying eyes of increasingly skeptical taxpayers””””

  • JeffH

    Monckton names names on Climategate – Lord Christopher Monckton debunks climate fears in Copenhagen

    • wavesofgrain


      Your link is priceless, and should be sent to everyone. I am not sure if you can see my post directly preceding yours, as it still says “awaiting moderation”, but I also have the entrie scheme linked to the Joyce Foundation that O ran with Ayers in the nineties. But America should WAKE UP, as it is the greatest global fraudulent scheme in history.

      • JeffH

        wavesofgrain, the people are waking up every day and, as you can see, the anti-American marxist/socialist/commie progressive propagandists are ramping up their assaul on this website.

        Good to hear from you.

      • Jay

        Agreed, EXCELLENT link, JeffH!!!

  • JeffH

    Sustainable fizzle: Rio+20 utopia

    Twenty years ago, the Rio de Janeiro “Earth Summit” proclaimed that fossil fuel-induced climate change had brought our planet to a tipping point, human civilization to the brink of collapse, and numerous species to the edge of extinction. To prevent these looming disasters, politicians, bureaucrats and environmental activists produced a Declaration on Environment and Development, a biodiversity treaty, Agenda 21 and a framework for the Kyoto climate change treaty.

    This year, recognizing that people are no longer swayed by claims of climate cataclysms, Rio+20 organizers repackaged their little-changed agenda to emphasize “sustainable development” and the need to preserve “biodiversity.” To garner support, they professed a commitment to poverty reduction, “social justice” and the right of all people to “fulfill their aspirations for a better life.”

    However, mostly far-fetched or exaggerated environmental concerns remained their focal point, and (as always) they have been willing to address today’s pressing needs only to the extent that doing so will not “compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”

  • truesoy

    The guy was a quack, as I understand it. And he never published a scientific paper of ‘his’ research.


  • Jay

    Fritz Vahrenholt, a German green energy investor, says he has reassessed his position on man-made climate change.

    Vahrenholt has been a professor in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Hamburg since 2009.

    He served as a senator for the environment in Hamburg, Germany between 1991 and 1997, and was a member of the “sustainability advisory board” to chancellor Schröder and Merkel in 2001 to 2007.

    Speaking at the 3rd Global Warming Policy Foundation Annual Lecture at the Royal Society in London, Vahrenholt was representing RWE Innogy , one of Europe’s largest renewable energy corporations.

    Vahrenholt, who reviewed the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) most recent report on renewable energy, noticed that there was an obvious lack of scientific data to support their assertions. A prominent member of Greenpeace, a UN propaganda arm disguised as a proponent of environmental concern, edited the final version of the IPCC’s report.

    The IPCC’s report, according to Vahrenholt, is littered with falsities and a complete disregard for natural factors that would be considered in fluctuating climate such as Earth’s.

    Vahrenholt states that: “Real, hard data from ice cores, dripstones, tree rings and ocean or lake sediment cores reveal significant temperature changes of more than 1°C, with warm and cold phases alternating in a 1,000-year cycle.

    These include the Minoan Warm Period 3,000 years ago and the Roman Warm Period 2,000 years ago. During the Medieval Warm Phase around 1,000 years ago, Greenland was colonized and grapes for wine grew in England.

    The Little Ice Age lasted from the 15th to the 19th century. All these fluctuations occurred before man-made CO2.”

    The late Gerard Bond, marine geologist and professor from Columbia University, analyzed climate reconstructions of the North American deep-sea sediment cores, found that “the millennial-scale climate cycles ran largely parallel to solar cycles, including the Eddy Cycle which is – guess what – 1,000 years long.”

    Bond surmised through decades of research that variations in solar activity – the appearance of sunspots and changes in the emission of solar radiation – were directly causing palatable effects on the Earth’s global temperature. The heating and cooling of the Earth coincided with the activity of the sun.

    The sun determines the Earth’s temperature, as proven from real-world observations over the past 10,000 years.

    With the introduction of man-made carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere beginning in the 1850’s, the CO2 level has only risen 11 percent; which is nearly negligible.

    Empirical data has shown that pre-industrial carbon emissions were dependent on solar activity. This global warming was estimated by scientists as 1 degree Celsius. As far as the IPCC is concerned, this statistic could, and has, been manipulated to justify their agenda. However the account of the solar magnetic fields doubling over the last 100 years was completely ignored because it disavowed their scheme to blame carbon dioxide levels on human influences.

    Solar activity, CO2 levels and Earth’s surface temperature are interlaced factors defining climate parameters. As modern man has been using fossil fuels which disburse carbon dioxide, it made perfect sense for the IPCC to turn this obvious fact into an attack on man through fear-mongering and propaganda while suppressing natural processes.

    The infamous computer models used by the IPCC to justify their claims that CO2 levels are a direct causation of anthropogenic impact and regard solar influence as negligible.

    The IPCC inserts an “unknown amplifying mechanism” to explain away observed solar activity and its effect on the Earth’s overall temperature.

    Henrik Svensmark , a Danish physicist, has devised a computer model that takes into account the sun’s direct influence on the Earth. While his research is still in its infancy, the projections promise to clarify how much of an influence the sun truly has.

    Vanrenholt asks: “The IPCC’s current climate models cannot explain the climate history of the past 10,000 years. But if these models fail so dramatically in the past, how can they help to predict the future?”

    Considering how weak an influence CO2 is on the climate, as observational data concludes that it would only generate “a moderate warming of 1.1°C per CO2”, the IPCC’s assumptions are over-blown.

    They fail to include water vapor and cloud effects which intensify solar amplification. CO2 needs an amplifier to become the aggressive agitator that the IPCC would have everyone believe.

    The alarmist assertions that temperatures will rise to 4.5 degrees Celsius by a magically doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is scientifically unfounded.

    The solar magnetic field patterns have lowered significantly in the past 150 years, resulting in an obvious de-intensification to be observed in the decades ahead.

    In reality this would mean that global warming would stop and gradually reverse by 2030 to 2040.

    • GALT

      All 179 “mythologies of the global warming DENIER’s” were dealt with in the very first post
      on this “topic”…… all haven’t even managed ten different ones yet…….and they will still be wrong no matter how many times you repeat them……

      The concern, not that it matters to the w.i.A.L.F.s, is a 2 degree rise, in global temperatures, half of which has already occurred…….and the effects, will continue to increase for 50 years regardless of what actions are taken…….so this kind of time frame,
      is essentially beyond the intellectual capabilities of the sound bite brain……..both in comprehension as well as “planning”………..

      • Jay

        Galt: All 179 “mythologies of the global warming DENIER’s” were dealt with in the very first post on this “topic”……..Yeah, you sure did, by pasting 2 links, who’s contents is questionable at best. You must be exhausted…

        Galt: you all haven’t even managed ten different ones yet…….and they will still be wrong no matter how many times you repeat them……for sure, as your capacity for denying anything and everything contrary to your indoctrination knows no bounds….

        Galt: The concern, not that it matters to the w.i.A.L.F.s, is a 2 degree rise, in global temperatures, half of which has already occurred……THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING….RUN FOR THE HILLS…but first…empty your wallets…thus saith the honourable-reverend: Al Bore…

        Galt: and the effects, will continue to increase for 50 years regardless of what actions are taken…….so this kind of time frame…if this be so, mr. science, why are we giving it a second thought…and why continue with the likes of cap-and-trade, anti-industrial legislation, Al Bore, and most importantly…you?

        Galt: is essentially beyond the intellectual capabilities of the sound bite brain……..both in comprehension as well as “planning”………..there you go, mr. science, if they refuse your religious-global-warming-non-sense, then by all means, inundate them with ridicule, and insults, and banish them from sand-box….lol…


      • GALT

        All 179 “mythologies of the global warming DENIER’s” were dealt with in the very first post
        on this “topic”…… all haven’t even managed ten different ones yet…….and they will still be wrong no matter how many times you repeat them……

      • Jay

        Galt: All 179 “mythologies of the global warming DENIER’s” were dealt with in the very first post on this “topic”…… all haven’t even managed ten different ones yet…….and they will still be wrong no matter how many times you repeat them……because i said so…so there…na na na boo boo…

      • GALT

        Since you have been so kind as to quote me…..let me quote you….

        “because i said so…so there…na na na boo boo…”

  • jopa

    Perhaps there is more to the story than meets the eye why this professor was fired.It’s just like in the justice system where as first time offenders don’t normally go to prison, they work there way up to that point unless it’s a major felony.After the Sandusky trial I think we will be seeing a lot more college personnel taking a hike.We have only heard one side of the story in this particular case and it is obvious he would plead innocent knowing the university doesn’t want negative publicity


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

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

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

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