I highly doubt many of you are unaware of my stance on so-called “global warming” (aka “global cooling,” “climate change” or “ManBearPig”). I suspect most of you share my rather dim view of former Vice President Al “The Oilman Goeth” Gore and his “inconvenient slide show,” though I am aware that some of you still cling bitterly to the last vestige of his fading glory.

Of course, my refusal to bow to the low-information set and their invective-laden insistence that ManBearPig is as real as actual stuff does seem to elicit some red-faced tirades. Gore and company’s increasingly suspect belief that something bad is going to happen has become religion to liberals. And like any zealots, our Democrat friends get more than a mite testy when their dogma is challenged. Thus have I observed the newest epithet in the ever-growing liberal lexicon of hate: “anti-science.” For refusing to swallow the global warmists’ anecdotally based pseudo logic, I am apparently “anti-science.”

That sort of ad hominem pabulum might pass for discourse in the White House or the studio audience of a Bill Maher telecast, but it isn’t actual debate — just as ManBearPig isn’t actual science. Allow me to demonstrate.

About 17 billion years ago, it happened. Better minds than mine have wrestled with the nature of it, what preceded it, what caused it and what exactly it produced. What we all seem to agree upon is the fact that it wasn’t, and then it really was. What captivates me isn’t what it was. I expect many eons more will pass before anyone figures it out. What really inspires my inner science geek is what happened after it.

In the first few moments after it, there wasn’t much to look at. Within a millisecond or two, hydrogen atoms had formed; but stable hydrogen and helium atoms didn’t debut for nearly a half million years. The first star didn’t begin to shine for nearly 100 million years. The first galaxy didn’t coalesce until nearly a billion years had passed since it. Our own sun didn’t rise and shine until almost 10 billion years had passed. And the first human didn’t do his first Fred Flintstone until mere moments ago, from an astronomical perspective.

Everything in between it and now has been the product of a crescendo of creation and destruction. From atoms to galaxies and everything in between, now exists as it does only because everything that happened before it not only happened, but happened in a fairly precise order. A series of almost ludicrously unlikely events followed one another throughout all those years like dominoes on a cosmic table: seemingly random yet magnificently structured, unfolding on scales from the infinitesimally small to the infinitely huge. From the first buzzing subatomic particles to the galactic superclusters spanning the entire universe, it led unexpectedly, yet inexorably, to now. In the words of One far greater than I: “without form, and void” (Genesis 1:2).

From the aforementioned timeline of the universe, I can divine two inescapable truths:

  1. The idea that a collection of perfectly ordered coincidences of almost astronomical unlikelihood happened despite incalculably bad odds without assistance from an entity that exists beyond all of it defies logic.
  2. The idea that any of those perfectly ordered coincidences could be altered, stopped or started by a creature that has existed for less than 1/100,000th of all of history — and has never ventured farther from its home than a few hundred thousand miles — defies basic common sense.

On my side, I have a geological and astronomical record that dates back close to 20 billion years. I have the inescapable certitudes of math and physics. And I have what my old Western civilization professor, the incomparable Dr. Stegemann, referred to as “the accumulated wisdom of the tribe”: the sum total of tens of thousands of years of humanity’s progress toward answering the ultimate questions.

My detractors have a fluidly anecdotal theory based on 150 years of observations that trades fact for folly and has required no fewer than three name changes in four decades due to climatological cycles it has yet to predict correctly. If that’s “pro-science,” then color me “anti-science,” I suppose.

–Ben Crystal

Personal Liberty

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.

Join the Discussion

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

  • Bob666

    Ben might have actually have come close to writing a coherent article.

    • Toy Pupanbai

      Either way he gives us a chance to think!

      • GALT

        Stay tuned…….on saturday he is going to tackle the unicorn
        problem……….that’ll really get you thinking…..

    • Jeff Samuels

      Coherent as an English essay perhaps. But Ben seems “oblivious” to the fact an animal (in this case a very capable animal) can foul its own nest. Nothing we do with CO2 will alter the Earth in a cosmic sense nor will it impact Earth’s relationship to the Sun, the other planets, or the Universe itself. But no one is claiming it will. What the actual scientists are saying is that our activities will warm the planet enough to impact life on the planet. Humans have evolved and human civilizations have developed under certain physical conditions that haven’t changed much over the past couple of thousand years. The coastlines have remained more or less constant and cities and cultures have been built based upon their proximity to the ocean, to rivers, etc. If sea levels rise and if many plants and animals in the food chain die off, the Earth will still look the same from outer space and it will still revolve around the Sun. But will any of that matter to us if all our coastal cities flood, etc.?

  • Warrior

    I wonder what ever happened to “Tipper” after the gorester went all “supernova”?

  • oldbill

    I arrived in 1947. Everything, to this day, is pretty much the same as it was then. I can conclude that everything will be here after I turn to dust. I have some idea where I am on this planet. I have some idea where the earth is in relationship to the sun. I don’t really know where the sun is in relationship to the Milky Way, other than it is likely away from the center. I don’t know, but suspect that the solar system orbits the center of gravity of the milky way. Most galaxies appear to be moving away from us, although I know at least one is moving towards us. I doubt that the earth is at the center of the Universe. I have no idea where the center of the Universe is or where the earth is in relationship to it. The same “scientists” who 500 years ago thought everything revolved around the earth, still seem to think they know where we are and how we got here. How is that “science”. It is one thing to develope a theory that can be proven in a lab. It is another thing to develope a theory that cannot be proven at all and then call it a fact, and then build theory upon theory on that “fact”. I am here, and limited by my five senses, my education (high school), and ability to reason, I don’t know much more than I am here.
    Global Warming: as long as the average temperature is above 32 degrees F, the trend will be for the ice on the planet to melt. As long as records have been available, the temperature has averaged 54 degrees F. The globe is warming, but it has been, at least, since records were kept.

    • Unlicensed Dremel

      “as long as the average temperature is above 32 degrees F, the trend will be for the ice on the planet to melt” Oh, that’s brilliant… you must be a scientist. If this is true, and the temp has always averaged 54 F as you say, then there would have been no ice left oh, about 100 million years back…. You, sir, are a nincompoop. There will NO MERCY granted in debates with anti-gun blissninnies, nor climate denier idiots, the two groups who are going to destroy our earth and civilization/democracy.

    • -Disabled American Patriot-

      No changes in 65 years! Where have you been under a rock?

    • SkyHunter

      This has got to be one of the most inane comments ever.

      The same “scientists” who 500 years ago thought everything revolved around the earth, still seem to think they know where we are and how we got here.

      How many of these 500+ year old scientists do you know?
      Or are you just arguing that men are ignorant and only God can alter the chemical and thermal structure of the atmosphere?

  • Ried

    Based on causal reading and listening to old farmers talk, I believe there has always been climate change going on, both macro scale and micro scale. Based on this, I believe man’s influence on global climate is greatly exaggerated. I do believe that it is in our best interests to live more respectful of how fast we consume and throw away resources, but I do not intend to make a religion out of this. Rather, I try to live by the motto “Waste not, want not.”

  • boyscout

    Ben, TYVM for the Readers Digest condensation of Big Bang theory and for actually getting to your point in the last paragraph. Clearly your logic and that of the incomparable Dr. Stegemann trumps the imbecilic guesswork of 97% of today’s leading climatologists.

    • Unlicensed Dremel

      Exactly… this is a laugh… who is this clown anyway? Certainly not a scientist.

    • topmah

      Geez, I keep seeing 97%–methinks thou dost exaggerate…but just to add to the fun, here’s an excerpt from a piece on The Economist:

      “The Economist has been fairly consistent in its stand that carbon dioxide
      emissions from man-made sources are the chief cause of global warming. But in an editorial this week, it sounds less certain.

      Global warming predictions haven’t panned out as predicted in the past decade, but the why is a bit fuzzy, the magazine admits.

      Greenhouse gas emissions have soared during the past
      15 years, the magazine notes, with 100 billion tons of carbon having been added to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. Still, both air and ground temperatures during that time have remained virtually unchanged.

      Buried deep in the highly technical piece, the magazine admits that evidence suggests something that global warming skeptics have long maintained: Natural variations in the earth’s climate likely play a bigger role than scientific models have said.”

      • SkyHunter

        The latest research shows that global warming has accelerated.

        • rocketride

          Do you mean more of the same “research” performed by and for what Kipling called “state-kept schoolmen”?
          I wonder when the evidence of how they “cooked” that data will get leaked?

          • SkyHunter

            The stolen emails contained no evidence of scientific misconduct.

          • topmah


          • SkyHunter

            You may not like it, but the truth exists without your belief.

          • Daniel F. Melton

            All you have is your belief.

          • SkyHunter

            That and the concurrence of every science institution in the world.

          • Daniel F. Melton

            You have a very small world.

          • SkyHunter

            Is there a scientific institution in your world that does not accept the AGW theory?

          • rocketride

            Funny, we could point the same thing out to you.

          • SkyHunter

            Except that you have not been grounded in science. Your tether to reality has become unhitched.

          • Daniel F. Melton

            Do the words “Hide the decline” ring any bells?

          • SkyHunter

            Yes. Not only have I heard them before. I know what they mean.

          • Daniel F. Melton

            Did you work for Pravda?

          • rocketride

            So, you don’t consider the sum of the following actions taken (the recipe they used in the cooking, as it were) on the dataset that was used to produce the “hockey-stick:” graph fraudulent?

            1) They picked an arbitrary date.

            2) To the data prior to that date, they applied “correction factors” that had the effect of increasing the values of individual datapoints by amounts that increase in an approximately linear fashion the farther prior to that arbitrary date the data goes. (This has the effect of imposing a slight negative slope on the trendline prior to that arbitrary date.)

            3) To the data after that date, they did the same thing, only in the opposite direction and to a much greater degree. (This has the effect of imposing a large positive slope on the trendline after that arbitrary date.)

            Voila, one hockey stick, season to taste.

            4) They didn’t even release the unaltered datasets, only the resulting culinary “masterpiece”. Those only got released (alongside the emails describing/ comprising the conspiracy to apply the corrections/ cook the data) to public view in the course of the East Anglia/ “Climatgate” scandal.

            What part of this isn’t fraudulent? Without this political correction the “hockey stick” shape of the trend line disappears and the graph looks like noise on an approximately horizontal trendline.

          • SkyHunter

            1) The date was not arbitrary. If you want to reconstruct 2000 years of temperature data, you choose evidence that covers the time period.
            2) You need to provide evidence not accusations. The National Academies of Science disagrees with you.
            3)Complete BS. You have no idea what you are talking about.
            4)The data and methods for MBH98 were released long before the East Anglia emails were stolen.
            If you are only going to read the psuedo-scientific explanation of the research on the deniersphere blogs, you will always be an ignorant denier of science.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Skyhunter offers some good advice to rocket with, “If you are only going to read the pseudo-scientific explanation of the
            research on the deniersphere blogs, you will always be an ignorant denier of science”.

            I have commented elsewhere that rocket is a “looker upper” who hasn’t the slightest understanding of what he is talking about, and he is back to prove my point with this comment. Skyhunter has made his observations, I will add mine.

            1) The “hockeystick” is only one small piece of the AGW picture, a rather “ancient” one that the deniers chose to hang their hat on several years ago because they thought they “had something” with the climategate connection.

            2) Notice that rocket does NOT give any citations for his assertions, but merely parrots what he has read somewhere. I agree with Skyhunter that they must come from an AGW denier/skeptic site because I have seen them before, know that they have been fully debunked, and know that the deniers have stopped beating those particular drums. Why can’t rocket find more recent horsepucky to waste our time on?

            3) The climategate accusations have been investigated by several independent bodies, as well as the University of East Anglia and all the allegations of data manipulation have been disproved—-more recent attempts to start up a climategate 2 and a climategate 3 have also failed. It’s a DEAD ISSUE, rocket, and even the deniers know that.

            4) rocket directly quotes something without attribution here, and is too ignorant to realize that he has shot himself in the foot.. “What part of this isn’t fraudulent? Without this political
            correction….etc.” The answer is ALL OF IT isn’t fraudulent and the fact that the person you’re quoting talks about a “political correction”:makes it obvious that HE is the one who is manipulating truth and trying to deceive us. Real scientists talk about DATA, not politics, rocket—-a clue you should pay close attention to—-RUN from any discussion of AGW that sounds like this thing you have regaled us with—-it will not be about real science..

            In closing, you are going to have your brains beaten in, rocket, if you don’t “up your game” and stop talking trash. There are a number of us that frequent PLD who are well versed on the topic of AGW and will not allow you to tell untruths. I often say “Mess with the bull, feel the horns”—-that means mess with the truth, prepare to be skewered.

            By the way, have you googled “Youtube Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral” yet as I suggested? Would you like to discuss that and all the scary places it leads? Anyone else?

        • Daniel F. Melton


          • SkyHunter
          • Daniel F. Melton

            WoW. 700 meters down in the ocean depths it is slightly warmer. I didn’t download the article, but the authors surely did not measure more than a few sites in a very limited area. Any historic measurements that might indicate a cyclic rise and fall of deep ocean temps?
            Rather like measuring chlorine downwind of Erebus and ‘discovering’ manmade flourocarbons are destroying the ozone.

          • SkyHunter
          • SkyHunter

            Rather like measuring chlorine downwind of Erebus and ‘discovering’ manmade flourocarbons are destroying the ozone.

            I got your MO now.
            You’ve been out on the lunatic fringe all your life haven’t you?

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Daniel, do you have any intention of engaging in a serious discussion of AGW or are you just being a “pest”, as your cute little comments so far seem to indicate?

            Perhaps you missed a comment in which I mentioned that we now have satellites that measure very small changes in gravity OVER THE ENTIRE Earth? And that they are showing a change OVER THE OCEANS? And that is due to the rise in the ocean temps and the thermal expansion of the water? And that they are surprised that the data show that the water is heating up more rapidly to a depth of 700 to 900 meters EVERYWHERE?

            Your Erebus-chlorine-fluorine-ozone is a weak analogy, totally irrelevant, and a distraction, if not actually “lunatic fringe” as Skyhunter suggests. Your statement that “I didn’t download the article, but the authors surely did not measure more than a few sites in a very limited area” just shows laziness and ignorance. I will say to you what I said to rocket—up your game!.

      • rocketride

        At this point I’ve come to the conclusion that the opposing notions that we are not driving the climate system at all and that we are its main
        drivers are equally risible.

        • SkyHunter

          So the pertinent question is; at what point are you?
          What can we deduce from that statement, and what does your opinion tell us?
          We can deduce that your position has changed.
          We can also deduce that you are not familiar with climate science, since there is no other scientifically plausible explanation for the observed natural phenomenon of global warming.
          The Earth is gaining energy. Satellites have been measuring the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) since 1984. Ocean temperature measurements confirm that the energy is going into the deep ocean.
          The Next El Nino will break the global temperature record.
          I can’t wait to hear how you deniers explain that!

          • rocketride

            I believe that I made my opinion clear.

            On the one hand, we have people who think that we’re ruining the planet and need to get in lockstep behind tyrannical regulations (and those who stand to profit enormously from them- yes, I’m talking about you, Mr Gore) on the basis of cooked data delivered in a manner guaranteed to maximize fear and a sense that we have to do something (along the lines of handing them more political power and a blank check) RIGHT NOW or everything’s going to go to hell within the next couple of years.

            On the other hand, we have people who think we can dump pretty much any amount of any damn crap we want into the environment and the environment can handle it, ad infinitum.

            Well, both of those sides are wrong, and since both of them seek to impose costs, of one sort or another, on unwilling others, both can be considered evil.

            Even if AGW is the major driving force on the climate, how do we know that would actually be, on balance, a bad thing in the long run? Do we know, for example, that it is not the only thing holding off the next ice age? Or that it won’t be at some time in the future? As bad as a few degrees warmer climate could be, a new ice age would, I’m pretty sure, suck even worse.

          • SkyHunter

            There are better ways to stave off an ice age than causing an unprecedented perturbation in the climate cycle.
            Forget about the warming effect for a minute and just think about the chemistry.
            Carbon chemistry is organic chemistry is biochemistry. We are disturbing the carbon/life cycle, pushing it to levels not seen for millions of years, and doing it in a shorter time frame than at any time in the geologic record. We do know that large excursions in the carbon cycle are accompanied by blank spots in the fossil record.
            Whether climate sensitivity is 1C, 3C, or 5C, is IMO not as important as the changes in the chemical soup that life has evolved in!

          • rocketride

            First of all, that bit about staving off an ice age was SPECULATION. At least I label mine. You did notice the big faux-HTML-code-tags, didn’t you?

            Second, yes I’m perfectly well aware of what organic and bio- chemistry are. I even passed (with good grades) courses in both subjects in college.

            Who is to say that having more carbon where living things can get at it is a bad thing? How do you know that Great Mother Gaia doesn’t want us getting all of that Carbon currently locked up in coal, oil, etc. out into the atmosphere where she can use it?

            If everyone were as afraid of change, just because it is change, as you seem to be, we’d still be living in caves.

          • SkyHunter

            It may seem speculative to you, but that is due to your personal bias. We manufacture long lived chemicals every day with 10,000 times the GWP of CO2. We understand atmospheric chemistry and radiative physics enough to geo-engineer climate.
            The fossil record, especially in the oceans, says that more large pulses of carbon in the carbon cycle coincide with large extinction events.
            Why should we expect this time to be different?

          • Right Brain Thinker

            You have now wandered off into organic chemistry and biochemistry. Which you must have taken at Lake Wobegon University, that place where all the children are above average and get “good” grades—no one takes organic and bio as “cultural electives”—they are for serious students of science and you have shown no evidence of being such.

            You have distracted Skyhunter from the discussion of the science that really matters, the PHYSICS of how AGW is altering the PHYSICAL attributes of the Earth’s environment. Chemistry and Biology are important only in the way they impact the physics of the situation. And the part of physics that concerns us most is energy and its interactions with the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere.

            You again distract with your “speculation” about “Who is to say that having more carbon where living things can get at
            it is a bad thing?” That is an argument used by some well known and laughable deniers—CO2 is good for us! (see the Idso writings—-google “55 reasons CO2 is good for you”).

            Try to focus, rocket. The big worry is that the PHYSICS of AGW is going to cause all Mother Gaia’s living things to DIE—-I hardly think that she wants that, and you are being a dilletante and a science lightweight with those kinds of comments.

            More glibness with “If everyone were as afraid of change, just because it is change, as you seem to be, we’d still be living in caves”. So cute, and so ignorant—-there will be no one alive to live in those caves if we don’t turn things around soon.

          • rocketride

            You finished your goat, already?

            I wasn’t the one who brought up the subject of bio- and organic chemistry. Besides, last time I checked, chemistry was a branch of physics, dealing, at its root, with the quantum mechanical behavior of electrons in association with atomic nuclei. The fact that some molecular species are greenhouse gases in the first place is a function of that very branch of physics. In what way, therefore, is it irrelevant to the physics of climate? Who is the ignorant and uninformed one here?

            “You have distracted Skyhunter from the discussion of the science that really matters. . .”

            Well, given that this is a conservative/libertarian site, I’m guessing that most of the folks around here would count that as a public service. Call me “trollbait”. BTW, I just LMAO picturing SkyHunter as one (pretty much any one) of the dogs from the movie “Up!” “Squirrel!”

            So, your and his holinesses get to decide ex cathedra what physics is relevant? It must be wonderful being so incredibly confident in your dogma that you’re comfortable attempting to shout down anyone who questions the group-think of the “state-kept schoolmen”* of the AGW community or who points out that some of its most influential members have been caught taking liberties with their data.
            Here’s a clue, guys, the moment you stared treating AGW as settled and no longer subject to being examined further, it stopped being science and became religion.

            SkyHunter’s and your argument amounts to “He (Rocketride) doesn’t agree with our infallible and undeniably correct opinions and therefore he is an idiot”. Meanwhile, I’m the one remaining calm, living a life away from the computer (which one of you seems to have a problem with– jealousy?). And you are the ones ranting, SHOUTING, SCREAMING and hurling insults. Wouldn’t you guys be happier (as in suffering much less agita) hanging out over on communist/fascist/progressive sites with your own kind?

            So long, suckers!

            * “MacDonough’s Song”– Rudyard Kipling

          • Right Brain Thinker

            “So long, suckers!” Does this mean rocket is going to go away and stop cluttering the site with his trash? One can only hope.

            He once again regales us with “political” rantings rather than discussing the topic at hand—-AGW. Yes, Skyhunter is “this” and I am “that”—-ad hominems all—the refuge of those who have no real arguments to make. And rocket is STILL trying to slip in the LIES. with “some of its most influential members have been caught taking liberties with their data”. I will repeat AGAIN that rocket is a liar every time he says that—-climategate NEVER HAPPENED—-it was a disinformation campaign by the deniers (unfortunately quite successful) and has been so thoroughly debunked that only a desperate fool like rocket would bring it up.

            I wonder if rocket’s Troll Manual includes the information that his employers (Koch brothers) funded a study that was meant to support the climategate lies but actually ended up concluding that “Global warming is REAL” (actual quote)—-see Berkeley Study. The following tidbit DEFINITELY is copied from the Troll Manual—-“Here’s a clue, guys, the moment you stared treating AGW as settled and
            no longer subject to being examined further, it stopped being science
            and became religion”. It has been used uncounted times by those who are really saying “we want to distract everyone from the fact that almost no scientists have said it is truly “settled”, but nearly ALL have said “it’s looking more like it is every day”.

            And he squirms about bio and organic chemistry and tries to impress us with “quantum mechanical behavior of electrons in association with atomic nuclei”. WOW! How long did you have to search for that so that you could copy it? Let’s not let him distract us from focusing on bio- and organic chem, those subjects he did so well in that he got “good grades”, if you remember?

            Do we all remember “Gut Associated Lymphatic Tissue”? (GAG-GAG-UPCHUCK-wipe mouth). Our biochemistry genius used “Lymphatic” rather than the word he should have used—-LIPIDIC—-which refers to lipids, which we commonly call “fats”. That’s the only “biochem” term that makes any sense in his senseless acronym, since fat IS found in “guts” (bellies), whereas lymphatic tissue is NOT (ever). So, it appears that he has also lied to us about how “smart” he was in biochem and organic—-the high school sophomores I taught about lipids and lymphatics would not have made this mistake.

            Rocket asks, “Who is the ignorant and uninformed one here?” Easy answer—YOU are, rocket—you keep proving that to us every time you return to the thread. Skyhunter and I have not called you an idiot as much as we have pointed out that you demonstrate idiocy in nearly everything you say—there IS a difference there.

          • John woodbury

            Wow NBT, you taught Science, was/are a successful businessman and a AGW to boot. (plus other claims when needed)! My God, all I have to say to you is a repeat of Catalina’s words to C.J., “Well freak you.”

          • Right Brain Thinker


            A reply (and perhaps two?) that I made to rocketride’s comments has apparently disappeared. There was NO, repeat NO, content therein that in any way violated the comment policy, either the old one or as newly stated by Bob on the Disqus thread..

            If rocketride is to be allowed to spew all his ignorant horsepucky about AGW, those of who know the truth should be allowed to dispute him WITH VIGOR. If one sentence is “objectionable”, delete it or do a “comment has been edited”, but deleting whole comments that we have taken the time and care to write is going to drive me away from PLD.

          • John woodbury

            Please, Mr. Livingston, Please. Keep up deleting NBT’s posts. OH, I see it is just like other liberals who have said they will go away if….. Just more Narcissistic and Condescending attitudes.

          • rocketride

            “There are better ways to stave off an ice age than causing an unprecedented perturbation in the climate cycle.”

            Such as?

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Skyhunter has not replied, so he has perhaps left this dying thread. I will “stand the wall” until the bitter end (it’s a USMC and Semper Fidelis thing). So I will take the liberty of answering for him here.

            Rocket thinks he has “caught” Skyhunter here—-I can see him wriggling with delight like a puppydog waiting for a treat. Sorry, rocket, but all you caught Sky in was your little net of distraction and irrelevancy, just as you did with the bio- and organic chem foolishness.

            What he was saying was that YOUR suggestions about “staving off an Ice Age” were idiotic, not that there were “better ways”. If you were better educated in things scientific, you would have realized that. Ice ages have come and gone many times in the history of the Earth and they are HUGE events—-humans don’t have one chance in a billion of even mitigating them very much, never mind “staving them off”. Sky knows that, I know that, why don’t you?

          • rocketride

            “. . . (it’s a USMC and Semper Fidelis thing).”

            Given the dying nature of this thread, it seems more like a Japanese soldier found with his rusty Arisaka in an island jungle in 1972, thing. Although, I will concede that your emperor hasn’t actually surrendered, yet.

            No, the way he worded it, “There are better ways to stave off an ice age than causing an unprecedented perturbation in the climate cycle.” didn’t say any such thing, and, indeed, clearly does indicate that he thinks that there are better ways. You’re misinterpreting your allies’ words, what chance do mine have?

            Ice ages are indeed huge events, but like most huge events, they start with much smaller ones. In this case, it looks like a few years of 4-5°C cooling presaged the last few ice ages. If this is so, then a similar degree of warming might prevent the necessary initial cooling.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Yes, that Japanese soldier would have understood Semper Fidelis. That’s why they were such a tenacious enemy in WW2.

            To get back to the point, why are you still trying to distract us with talk about Ice Ages and playing juvenile semantic games? I have asked you several times to talk about the ICE that is of greatest concern to us right here and right now. When are you going to address the video clip I suggested several times that you google?


            Why are you essentially repeating what I said earlier? That it looked as if we were heading into the next ice age but that AGW may have delayed it? (and it’s more than just mere speculation)

            What’s your point, besides distraction and obfuscation? I await a substantive answer.

          • SkyHunter


          • Right Brain Thinker

            Ah yes, the good old “ice cubes from space” plan—-how could I have forgotten that? All we need to do is go to Mars and the Moon and the asteroid belt and find some ice and bring it back. Or snag a comet and have a planet-wide “snow event”. I’m sure rocket will like that plan.

            Or were you thinking of buying a couple of million Chinese made air conditioners and setting them all on high? But where will we get the electricity to power them? And since they are nothing more than heat pumps, where will we send the heat that they extract? Hmmmmmm—-this is all getting so confusing—-rocket—-explain it all to us!

          • SkyHunter

            Non-halogenated hydrocarbons do not damage the ozone layer. We could produce enough with one factory to stave off the next glacial cycle.
            Some of them have a GWP (global warming potential) of 10,000, IE 1 HFC molecule = 10,000 molecules of CO2.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Ah—you were serious! And you’re right—-if we wanted to, we could accelerate AGW by quite a bit by putting even more greenhouse gasses up there.

            Talking about staving off the next ice age is a fruitless intellectual exercise though, particularly when the other side (rocket) is not interested in being intellectual, but merely in provoking and distracting.

            You have allowed rocket to distract you into talking about an ice age that is now not likely to happen until long after all humans are gone from the planet. I would like him to stay on topic and talk to us about AGW insterad. He is still avoiding that.

          • SkyHunter

            The professional deniers are a waste of time. However, there are many who simply lack some key understanding of the science. IMO, it is not a distraction to discuss science with anyone.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Rocket appears to be one of those “professional deniers” and a general nuisance. He has quoted some fine-sounding “science” but shows little evidence that he really understands it or wants to “discuss” anything. He appears to have finally gone away—-the challenge to discuss the sea ice “death spiral” apparently overwhelmed him—his “denier troll” manual would have had nothing to counter it.

            If you want to discuss AGW as science, go to one of the sites where it IS discussed as science rather than mainly as politics as it is here on PLD.

            Have you viewed the Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral video clip yet? That clip, along with associated links, provides enough material for weeks worth of discussion.

          • SkyHunter

            If you want to discuss AGW as science, go to one of the sites where it IS discussed as science rather than mainly as politics as it is here on PLD.

            But here is where the ignorance is. Rocket learned something through this exchange. Knowledge is the surest way, the only way, to cure ignorance.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            You are a hopeless optimist if you think rocket learned much science here. Or most of the others who visit PLD—-they are motivated reasoners and blissful in their ignorance—-they don’t WANT to learn, and come to this site only to have their ignorance reinforced. I think the only thing rocket learned is that we will continue to beat his brains in if he keeps coming back here—-he is probably now on some other site earning his pay as a denier—-perhaps they will let him get away with his lies there.

            That said, I too share the thought that we might, just might, educate someone on PLD. Or at least show everyone some truth as an antidote to the lies. One of the teachers I supervised once said to me—“I’ve got you figured out—-you’re a cynical idealist”.

          • SkyHunter

            Rocket learned a little tidbit about green house gases and radiative forcing. That is knowledge that amplifies his cognitive dissonance. At some point, most people cannot maintain that dissonance as the contradictions mount.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Again, you are a hopeless optimist if you believe that most of the folks on PLD will EVER overcome their cognitive dissonance—-since they refuse to accept any “contradictions”, they go nowhere—-in fact, if you read The Republican Brain, you will see that some recent research says that there is a “backfire effect”, that pushing them too hard can cause them to become even worse. I have seen evidence of that on PLD.

            I don’t recall rocket ever saying anything that would imply he learned anything—-not in response to you, me, or GALT—-refresh my memory.

          • SkyHunter

            I still prefer it to hurling insults.
            Besides, the target is not the troll, but the lurker.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Yes, rocket, you have made your OPINIONS clear. Too bad that they are unsupportable with any scientific FACTS. There is really only one side that is supported by science, and it is not wrong, political, or evil. Your “speculation”, in spite of your smug ignorance, has some truth to it. We have been in the Holocene for some 10,000+ years, an interglacial period of very favorable climate that allowed human civilizations to develop. It was predicted that we would be heading into the next ice age before too long, but it now appears that AGW has postponed that, likely for an indefinite period. This is good, in that the next Ice Age will be very tough on humans, just as the previous ones have been. You ask about “worse”? Right now it looks as if AGW has every likelihood of leading us into the sixth major extinction event in the Earth’s history, and that would really (that inelegant term you and so many children are so fond of—-how old are you anyway?)

      • boyscout

        If your interested in Science/Art/Fiction go to an Economist for your citation – they cover those very well. If interested in the scientific reality of the earth’s altering weather pattern, try heading over to where the climatologists hang out; hint: start with the weather (ie. related sites. Bet that 97% figure will smack right off the page. If that doesn’t phase you, reach out into the bio sciences, Arctic and Antarctic ice core readings, or just step outside some time with your eyes actually open.

        • topmah

          ‘…an Economist’? You misunderstand–I didn’t ‘go to an Economist’ for that citation, I went to THE ECONOMIST which is described as an “Authoritative weekly newspaper focusing on international politics and business news and opinion” & is noted for its agreeing with GW, but at least has the courage to print something that doesn’t fit with their beliefs..if you’d read the entire post, you’d have noticed that it’s a MAGAZINE, not a person. As for taking seriously anything that has ‘underground’ attached to it, don’t think so….

          • independent thinker

            As I recall a few years back the “weatherUnderground” refered to a radical leftest group that would now be classified as a terrorist organization.

          • topmah

            Yes, indeed, it did–but you know, “Birds of a feather…”

          • rocketride

            It’s a different “Weather Underground”. I think this lot were just trying to be “cute” by reusing the name. They seem to be about midway between Accuweather (less) and The Weather Channel (more) in how hard they flog the Warmist line.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            “flog the warmist line”? And compare them to Accuweather and TMC? You look to be less serious every time you post a comment.

          • boyscout

            “THE ECONOMIST”! wowie! tyvm for cluing me in – would have certainly missed it without your clarification of the obvious, and am now also painfully aware that you are also oblivious to sarcasm and that your ‘underground’ reference is to be taken seriously. Oh, good luck with that portfolio.

          • topmah

            Oh, don’t mention it! You’re very welcome since you obviously DID miss it but then it appears that you’ve ‘missed’ a lot, so ‘good luck’ with catching up…

          • rocketride

            Get a clue, dimbulb.

  • JustMe

    The masses of today tend to use science the way a drunken man uses a lamp port. More for support than illumination. They collect data and manipulate it until it supports a preconceived conclusion.

    True science has always been to design an experiment and data analysis technique to arrive at a conclusion. But this method requires an open mind that is not clouded by preconceived fictitious conclusions.

    • SkyHunter

      I always get a kick out of ignoramus’ like yourself lecturing your betters on how to conduct a scientific experiment.

      • rocketride

        “. . . lecturing your betters. . .” Another self-appointed elitist coming out of the closet. Folks, you heard it here first. :<)

        It's so satisfying to let the air out of some tool who thinks he’s so much smarter than us proles. You know you’ve succeeded when they start hurling insults in all upper case, especially when the the entire post is like that. Are you listening, RightBrainThinker? We’ve had these warmists ranting for a whold day and a half, now.

        @ SkyHunter & RightBrainThinker
        One wonders why you have so much emotion invested in the issue that I could get you ranting so quickly. Are you wannabe bureaucrats who are looking forward to to your power fix?

        • SkyHunter

          looks like someone is a little on the thin-skin side.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Yes, he is “thrashing”, isn’t he? Typical of the WIFI’s who have no self awareness, no knowledge, no arguments, and no intellectual integrity.

            Because they have nothing of substance to say, they resort to name and trash talk, and tell themselves that they’re “winning”. LOL

        • Right Brain Thinker

          Rocketride has been in hiding all day, but he has foolishly returned to provoke his “betters”.. Why is he putting in his feeble two cents way back here in the thread when I have issued him some direct challenges to his comments at the very end of the thread?.

          And are you talking to me when you talk about “hurling insults”, RR? I haven’t “hurled” a single insult your way. All I have done is point out your MANY failings as a science expert, rational thinker, and teller of truth. No sense trying to put lipstick on you—-you are one UGLY pig when it comes to your knowledge of science and your lack of skills at discussion and debate.

          And here you are, proving my point yet again by strutting around like a retarded barnyard rooster and crowing about how you have “let the air out of some fool”. LOL Your self-delusion knows no bounds. You have “let the air” out of nothing but any remaining thoughts anyone might have had that you are an honest and serious commenter—-you’re a lightweight that just wants to provoke your betters. Go for it—-I will be here to help you if you want to continue to look like a fool.

          And you have heard no emotional “rants” from those of us you so ignorantly and smugly call “warmists”. We merely state the case for AGW and point out to the world that YOU have presented NO case about anything but how ignorant and self-deluded you are. The only thing I get even slightly “emotional” about where you are concerned is more a feeling of extreme disappointment and frustration over the fact that you are SO freaking out of touch with reality and they let you VOTE.

          I DO get “emotional” over the damage that humans have done to the Earth, particularly AGW, since it is looking ,more and more like it may be too late—-that we may have passed several serious tipping points and that it’s only a matter of time until most humans follow the dinosaurs.

          So, the ball is back in your end of the court and you haven’t scored a single point yet. I have suggested that you try to redeem yourself by googling “Youtube Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral”, a two minute video clip, and discussing it with us—-tell us what it shows? Do you have the character to talk real science? Or will you just continue to talk trash and “strut the barnyard”? I eagerly await a response.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            I must apologize to rocketride (but only a bit). It was USAFVET that I had issued the direct challenge to at the very end of the thread. The two of them are so much alike in being first-class WIFI’s, and their comments sounded so much alike in their ignorance of science, that I confused them. No matter, both of them need to “show us something”, and the Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral is there for either or both of them to pick up on.

          • rocketride

            Rocketride has not been hiding. I have been away from computers living my real life, hanging with my girefriend and other friends, going on a hike on the first decently warm-ish and non-windy weekend day around here in quite a while, things like that. You might try some or all of that sometime and get out of your mom’s basement for a bit. (But get your own s.o. and friends, you can hike anywhere you damn well please.) He realizes that your personality might make the whole “significant other” thing problematic.

            Frankly, this is getting boring. How the hell did I get so far under your skin that my daring to leave the computer for a bit is cause for complaint, anyway? Are you getting a crush on me? Sorry, I’m straight, I’m taken, and even absent those two things, I have standards!

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Rocketride has once again proved my point. Not a single thing in his comment pertains to the topic at hand—-AGW.

            He is NOT an honest and serious commenter—-He IS just a lightweight that only seeks to provoke his betters, and, more significantly, he appears that he might actually be a climate denial troll. Jobs are tight for the young and ignorant. Perhaps rocket has been reduced to telling lies for one of the many Koch brothers’ funded AGW denial groups? The “science” he has included in some of his other posts has been quite good—-undoubtedly copied verbatim from his Climate Denier Troll Manual. The Koch brothers are not afraid to spend some of their dirty $$$$ to provide their serfs with good material.

            And he has a GIRL friend (the homophobes on PLD will like that) and has FRIENDS he goes HIKING with. We actually have something in common!—-I have been married to my “girlfriend” for 48 years and we often go hiking too! (My mother has been dead for probably more years than rocket has been alive, and her basement now belongs to someone else). Do you ride a bike too? I have logged more than 35,000 miles on my Hoo-Koo-E-Koo—-does that qualify as “things like that”?

            You, personally, have not gotten under my skin, rocket. You are just one of a string of WIFI’s and trolls that I gladly deal with anytime one surfaces. My background is in science and education and I have been active in environmental issues since before Earth Day—-it’s a kind of “missionary” thing and I deal with the unwashed and ignorant as I find them—-if you’re here talking trash—-you’re “it” for today. I’m not complaining at all about your absence, just noting it. You may have noticed that this thread is petering out rather rapidly—-most PLD threads last only a few days before everyone gets bored and moves on to the “flavor of the day”. Bread and circuses, you know. Skyhunter and I would also be gone from this thread but for you—-I will not delete it until we are done with our little game.

            You are still scoreless, by the way. Do you ever intend to try for even a single point with the Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral? Or, as I suspect, are you afraid of getting your brains beaten in again if you attempt it?

    • GALT

      How did you manage to separate yourself from the masses?

      BTW when did science, become “true science”?

      Ptolemy went through a lot of trouble to “prove” the science that claimed
      the “universe” was earthcentric!!!!!!

      Would that be an example of the “pre-conceived conclusions” you were
      referring to?

      “irreducible complexity”?

      “Heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones”?

      The “ether”?

      Just shout it out when you know!!!!

  • Andie

    Well said, Ben…bravo!

  • Average Joe

    Evolution is religion, Creationism is science.

    100 reasons that evolution is stupid:

    Enjoy the vid…I wonder how many evolutionists I can tick off today.

    in advance, I am not going to reply to anyone…I just want to see some of the comments…this should be fun…. (dispelling myths always is).
    May America…Bless God again.


    • -Disabled American Patriot-

      Creation first then Evolution.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      This is one “evolutionist” that you haven’t ticked off in the slightest. The video clip was nearly two hours long so I just sampled it in half a dozen places—-I WILL go back and watch it in full one day because it is hilarious in its “stupidity” (a word the good Reverend Snake-Oil-Salesman uses more than 100 times to attack any science that contradicts the inerrancy of the bible). I DID watch the last minute or two because I suspected the Reverends SOS’s REAL message would be found there.

      Sure enough, he is pushing not one but THREE sets of tapes containing the Rev’s collected BS—-and ONLY $99 each! AND gives a little nudge to join him on one of his “cruises”, where he will regale you with more horsepucky (and of course take a BIG cut of the fees).

      I hope you enjoy my comments here, Below Average Joe—it doesn’t appear that anyone else cares enough to answer you—-since I am a caring person, I will pay you some attention. I would also suggest you check your dictionary, because there is NO “dispelling of myths” here, just the “disseminating” of myths—they both begin with “dis” and end with “ing”, but they DON’T mean the same thing.

      To all—-watch this video—-it’s a laugh riot—-watch the first few minutes and the last couple and as much more of it in between as you can stand—-the Reverend Snake-Oil-Salesman has an expensive suit and an expensive haircut and is a very smooth speaker—-selling anti-evolution BS must be a good living because he could probably make an honest living and succeed at selling anything, particularly used cars—-I guess he’d rather prey on those of “faith” instead.

      (And some disclosure here—-he resembles our VA governor in many ways, so that may have prejudiced me against him just a tiny bit—-we refer to our governor as “Suit and a Haircut Bob”)

  • Unlicensed Dremel

    This guy is not a scientist, and is in fact a plenary moron who makes stuff up but uses big big words to make it sound halfway plausible… 97% of actual real scientists vehemently disagree with him – why is that? And to those that say or imply that “l’il ol’ us” – mankind cannot influence the environment in a material, significant way – that idea is demonstrably laughable. Why did the cod fishery in eastern canada and northeastern usa just shown down completely in 1992 because no fish were left? Why are the world’s biggest dams built in china, to successful change and alter hundreds of thousands of years of massive-scale land flooding? Why was there acid rain? Whis is there a massive garbage swirl in the pacific ocean? There are multitudes of examples of man devastating and influencing the environment on a mass scale.

    • rocketride

      At this point I’ve come to the conclusion that the opposing notions that we are not driving the climate system at all and that we are its main drivers are equally risible.

      • GALT

        You must be one of those who believe that “gravity” being only
        a “theory”……..must be worthy of continuing discussion, and that the opposing point of view deserves equal time?

        • rocketride

          I don’t “must be” any such thing. That’s such a poor attempt at an analogy that I’m tempted not to waste any more time on you, but here goes. You really think that we humans and ONLY we humans are driving the entire climate system? Really? I doubt that that there are many educated Warmists who’d go that far. BTW, which theory of gravity are you even talking about. Newton’s? Einstein’s? One of the new string/brane models?

          • GALT

            I don’t “must be” any such thing.

            What you are is a “willfully ignorant, functional illiterate”!

            That’s such a poor attempt at an analogy that I’m tempted not to

            waste any more time on you, but here goes.

            You should have NOT yielded to the temptation……

            You really think that we humans and ONLY we humans are driving the entire climate system?

            Where did you see that?

            Really? I doubt that that there are many educated Warmists who’d go that far.

            “functional illiterates” usually fail to be able to discern subltle things and you clearly have stated position as being one of “extremes”…..which concludes with ” are equally risible.”

            Available evidence demonstrates a pre-industrial CO2 range of 180 to 280 ppm……….current levels are at 380 ppm, ( atmospheric ) with natural sinks still not having reached saturation. ( oceans )

            Proper comprehension of “mans” influence, for a literate and intelligent person would be “everything over 280 ppm”, assuming that the natural level ( absent humans ) would actual be at the high point of the normal range. ( pre-industrial ) This would still not include any excess regarding the oceanic range, since we do not have data available, although we do know that the warmer the oceans get, the ability to absorb CO2 decreases……..

            An intelligent person, can easily see that human influence over climate, based on evidence is SIGNIFICANT and increasing…..

            BTW, which theory of gravity are you even talking about. Newton’s? Einstein’s? One of the new string/brane models?

            Again, for the “functionally illiterate”……..those are all different theories of gravity…….that Gravity is only a Theory, is and was intended as being similar to the “ignorance” implied by “evolution is only a theory”……..if you are unfamiliar with this as it applies to gravity see


            So, was it good for you?

          • rocketride

            Wow! Wind him up and watch him go! Seriously, dude, what’s with the shouting? The truth of a statement is not altered by the frequency of repetition or the volume at which it is shouted. from here, it looks like I got seriously under your skin– perhaps you need to gain some perspective. Hint, your mother’s basement is probably not the best place for that. Everyone else on here must have noticed that one side of this discussion, yours, has been reduced to shouting.

            What I have been saying is that the truth is certainly somewhere between those two extremes. Which shouldn’t be a particularly threatening proposition to anyone who:
            1) Doesn’t have a near-religious attachment (or should I say devotion) to a particular politically motivated theory and;
            2) Has been taking all of his medications.

            You do know that there are other climate drivers besides atmospheric composition, don’t you? Various cyclical changes in parameters like Earth’s orbital obliquity (axial tilt) and eccentricity, and the changes in the phase relationship between the line of nodes and the axial orientation with the precessional cycle. (These are known collectively as “Milankovich cycles”.) And don’t forget the Sun’s less-than-constant output. There’s a component of the temperature curve that follows the 11-year sunspot cycle.

            I guess the thing that I find most offensive is the whole “ready, fire, aim” schtick you warmists are trying to pull on entire societies. Communism crashed and burned, so you try to take power using the climate as an excuse. You hope that a dictatorship of the planet will succeed where dictatorships of the proletariat failed. I’m guessing that from your point of view, the fact that the planet can’t tell you to f*** off and die, like the proles did, is a good thing. From ours, not so much.

            We’re supposed to trust people whose answer for literally every problem is for us to give up our freedom and autonomy and let them run everything with an even tighter fist? Look how well that worked with Stalin, and Hitler, and Mao. It won’t work any better if Obama gains all the power he obviously craves, either. But how many millions of people will be killed by their dear leaders this time?

          • GALT

            Simple html coding my friend, shouting is all caps… for any other “ignorance” you might have, and ones you haven’t even considered, you can find them all here……including the latest
            distortion, referenced in the “Economist”…..and other “non scientific” sources,,,,,


            There are over 170, so you could actually expand your repertoire of “ignorance” as well as quoting a “possible scientist” as the source of it…….

            but do not concern your self as you flail impotently to find a “label” to answer the question: Who is GALT?

            Economics is INVALID, therefor no variation of it is valid…but
            this is just the beginning of the “mythologies” held by
            “willfully ignorant, functional illiterates” that are in the process
            of being shattered……

            Try to control your emotions……because this is the easy stuff, and your REALITY is rather stark in that, all your future holds is the inevitable admission that in the scheme of things, you possess no actual knowledge about anything.

            Since you had nothing either intelligent or relevant to say a detailed response is not required….

            Thus endeth todays lesson….you are dismissed.

            “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”

          • Right Brain Thinker

            WOW! Untie rocketride’s restraints and watch him walk into walls (endlessly and leading with his head). Pity the walls!

            As I predicted he is once again demonstrating his EXTREME ignorance about AGW and the world in general to us with “the truth is certainly somewhere between those two extremes” and referring to AGW as a “particular politically motivated theory”.

            Of course, we have beaten up enough on him that he now feels it necessary to talk some REAL science rather than just spout ignorant gibberish. So he has actually looked some things up and is now confident enough to ask, “You do know that there are other climate drivers besides atmospheric composition, don’t you?” and gives us some copied information about exactly TWO of those drivers. I would love to see rocket attempt to explain those to us, but let’s give him credit for at least COPYING truth he doesn’t comprehend and posting it here.

            Now that he has established his “credentials” with a little “science”, rocket then tells us he is OFFENDED! Lord love a duck! Doesn’t he realize he is speaking to many charter members of P.O.O.P. when he posts on PLD? (P.O.O.P. being People Offended by Offended People and we don’t give a rodent’s rear end about his “feelings”).

            Rocket then launches into some insane rhetoric about communism and “dictatorship of the planet” and and misses the point ENTIRELY with “the fact that the planet can’t tell you to f*** off and die is a good thing”. Have you not been paying attention, rocket? One of the things that we have said in many different ways is that the planet actually CAN (figuratively) tell us to “f*** off and die” (and there’s more of rocket’s “elegant language, by the way). If we don’t stop doing what we’re doing, we, and most other living things on Earth, ARE going to do a lot of dying. There will be NO “freedom and autonomy” for anyone once we’ve all returned to ashes and dust.

            And an O’Bama reference? That rates yet another Lord love a duck! and needs no further comment.

            A challenge for you, rocket. Now that you’ve shown that you CAN actually look up some “science” and regurgitate it without screwing it up, I ask you to google “Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral Youtube” and view the short video. Note the date changes in the upper right corner. Read the comments below the video. Then google “Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral Graphs” and check out the many hits you will get there. Then tell us what it all means, particularly, how it represents any sort of “ready, fire, aim” situation. You are running out of chances to redeem yourself—-try hard on this one.

            PS to all—-this Youtube video will ruin your day, but it is short and easy to understand—-I recommend it for all who seek truth.

  • Patriot_Dave

    Once again Ben has shown his brilliance like a pocket laser pointer vs the sun!!… when all else fails use an ‘anti-argument’… If You can’t beat them with all the facts.. ‘point out’ only the ones that support your view!! This allows him (and the ‘deniers’) to claim that he is not anti-science but in reality he is still dodging the issues and continues to pander to the denialist conservative faction that will do or say anything to ‘hold the course’ so they and their fossil fuel cabal can continue to rake in massive profits while downplaying the the probable impact of their actions. Ice core data, seabed cores and tree rings all have captured past climate change events and have provided climate science with the basis of what happens to our hydrosphere when CO2 and methane concentrations start to climb from whatever the sources may be. Likewise those accused of being liberal or the self appointed liberals that use climate change as a front to push carbon cap and trade are just as suspect for profiteering! The only common sense thing to do is to continue to watch the change very closely while simultaneously work to end the era of fossil fuels. It is not an overnight transition as some would have you think nor is it impossible as others would have you think. Tipping points have been proposed and if correct we are on a course that will lead to more crazy weather, higher sea levels, less polar ice, warmer oceans, methane hydrates breaking up and an acceleration of climate change in our lifetimes and we will be passing down a legacy that will negatively impact the future of mankind. Critical thinking is what is needed here as well as a desire, no… a Promise, to leave the next generation a better world than what we inherited.

    • GALT

      He actually had a fact?

      • Patriot_Dave

        He did, he just miss-used them!!

        • GALT

          You have a “generous” spirit.

          • Patriot_Dave

            I prefer to give them enough rope…to hang themselves if need be….

          • GALT

            problem with that is……..they are intellectual zombies, and they won’t stay dead.

  • topmah

    My son-in-law is a meteorologist with the NWS; he did his Masters at Creighton University–when the question of GW came up, his profs laughed & said it would always be an issue as long as it attracted money, either for the so-called experts/pawns getting grant money or the opportunists who profited from it. He would tell you that cyclic changes have been going on for centuries, as any thinking person would acknowledge. Like ried says about ‘old farmer’s talk’, I’ve been around long enough to see those same cycles & hear the same warnings, none of which have panned out. Those who’re dead set on altering our lives with this theory are best described by a quote from Czech president (and economist) Václav Klaus, who once explained, “Environmentalism is the successor to failed socialism as justification for all-pervasive rule by a politburo of experts. Only now, it acts in the name of, not the proletariat, but the planet.”” And that is exactly the agenda of Gore & his lackeys. I also notice that those who get their dander up when their beliefs are questioned almost always resort to name calling–moron, nincompoop–it says a great deal about their intelligence…

    • Bill

      You have hit the nail on the head, Topmah. It is all about the money. What amazes me is that it has been sold so well to the ignorant minds. People are so emotional about global warming that it is like you are offending their religion.
      The whole argument was started by Carl Marx and Frederick Engles when they were trying so hard to push their socialist ideas. Since then, the socialist have infiltrated the academic community and they have fine tuned it so well that every kid that graduates college is a mind numbed robot to the global warming movement.
      The real goal is to kill capitalism, and guess what, it is working

      • topmah

        Yes, Bill, capitalism is anathema to socialists/liberals. It empowers people & we certainly can’t have that!

        • GALT

          You feel “empowered”?????? and you are posting here because?

          That like claiming “Warren Buffet” is a producer, when all he has ever been is “old” and “boring”…… he even older. causing more damage than ever, and being even more boring…….

          As boring as he is, and as bored as he might me, you don’t see him posting here……….

          • topmah

            Relax, Galt…you do get worked up when your convictions are challenged–but then, I find that’s usually the case when someone consciously or unconsciously has nagging doubts about their beliefs.

          • GALT

            What possible “challenge” do you imagine you represent?

            Economics is neither science nor discipline…….

            No “belief” required.

      • SkyHunter

        I just love it when deniers use socialist conspiracy theories to bolster their psuedo-scientific opinion.

        • rocketride

          Here, take this nice, tasty goat and go back under your bridge.
          Your scientific socialism is right up there with scientific creationism in its ability to predict future events. And damn near as much fun to watch.

          • SkyHunter

            You imply that I am a troll.
            Then equate physics with creationism.
            You should stick to watching.
            It is better to remain silent and appear stupid, than to speak and remove all doubts.

        • Avenger

          And I just love it when simple-minded useful-idiots like yourself try to pose themselves as intelligent. Makes me laugh at the arrogance every time!

          • GALT

            As you are clearly a “willfully ignorant, functional illiterate”,
            how would you ever be able to determine what was what?

      • GALT

        Capitalism doesn’t require any assistance to FAIL, as an “economic” variant ( subset ) it, it has no more “validity” than any other aspect of
        Economics……..which has no empirical foundation.

        There are no Laws of Economics and as such, it is subject to manipulation for either good or ill, in much the same way as any
        other meta-physical philosophical system.

        The stakes regarding “climate change” on the other hand are
        “empirically based” and “dire” as to the potential outcome……because
        ultimately you are risking a “self induced extinction level event”.

        Since the understanding of BOTH of these “facts”, is generally
        absent among the general population, logically reasoned intelligent
        discussion is rare……..and YOU are part of the problem.

        Ironically, from an “economic standpoint” and the present stagnation
        that exists…….the shift from carbon based fuels to alternative energy
        sources………would break the current malaise.

        Clearly this transition will be gradual, simply from a logistical
        stand point, but continued use of carbon based fuels, even if
        the obvious climate change component did not exist is
        foolish anyway, since the environmental damage is considerable
        on any number of other levels, and these costs are not reflected
        in the profits of the company (corporations ) causing them, or
        the cost of the product for consumers…….and if these costs
        were factored in……..( immediately ) you would have no problem
        deciding which was the more “intelligent” path.

        As long as you continue of remain “ignorant” of the entirety
        of what is involved………you have nothing “intelligent” to offer….you are simply echoing;

        “A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying NOTHING.”

        I am sure your “pusher” appreciates your loyalty ( addiction )
        to his product.

    • SkyHunter

      Gotta love that fallacy of an argument.
      Appealing to your son-in-laws authority is a logical fallacy.

      • topmah

        Well, of course, it’s ‘a logical fallacy’ to put any substance in a meteorolgist’s ‘authority’–all that weather knowledge means nothing when it comes to propping up a socialist theory…doggone it, all that money wasted on education & degrees–who’d of thought it!

        • SkyHunter

          I don’t even know if you have a son-in-law, and if you do, whether or not he is a meteorologist. If he is, that doesn’t mean he knows anything about climate science. Anthony Watts is a meteorologist, and look at the stupid stuff he writes on his blog.
          If you want to appeal to authority for the basis of your argument, then the authority of every science institution in the world says your son-in-law is an idiot!

          • webbie7

            If humans are responsible for climate change? How? The industrial world has only been around a short time. How come we had an ice age and the great warming and floods before there were very many factories, cars, oil run stuff. More pollution comes out of a Volcano explotion then from humans could do in a hundred years. Just think about things logically for a minute. This warming Gore thing was done to get money from governments. It has sent Spain into the tank and the PResident has thrown billions down the tubes to his supporters who weeks after receiveing millions of dollars declare bankruptsy. This is just the Big Government Progressives making their move to give money from one person they don’t like to someone they do, with out money. Where are the questions. The middle class has disappeared and no one is working and the press barely thinks it is important to mention. What that means to you and me is more debt and more taxes.

          • GALT

            That “short period” represents and increase in atmospheric
            a CO2 from ( 180-280 ) ppm to 380 ppm, so human contribution
            represents a 35% increase over pre-industrial levels at a minimum…….with a cascading effect, triggering the release of

            more powerful green house gases (methane and nitrous oxcide), decreased albedo, and decreased ocean absorbtion due to warming oceans, etc.

            The bulk of money from government goes to “oil companies”

            who spend far more keeping you “ignorant”, than all government

            money “invested” in green tech combined…..and you as a taxpayor are still on the hook, for all the external costs, that carbon based fuels cause, but is not included in the cost of using them.

            All you have is “ignorance” which you believe is an argument.


            Educate yourself.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Actually, the latest figure on CO2 concentration is ~395 ppm.

            Another interesting piece of data—–the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Annual Greenhouse Gas Index shows that from 1990 to 2011, radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases increased by 30%, with CO2 accounting for about 80% of this increase. That’s a 30% increase over only a 21 year span—-only the ignorant will not understand the implications of that.

          • GALT

            Unfortunately, the supply of “w.i.f.i.’s” does not appear to be
            in decline…..nor is the number of sites which cater to the preservation of each special interest version of it.

          • rocketride

            “w.i.f.i.’s” ?

          • GALT


            w.illfully i.gnorant, f.unctional i.lliterate.’……s = plural

            Still, I guess you actually asking a question is an “improvement”
            of a kind…….

          • topmah

            ‘every science institution in the world says your son-in-law is an idiot’! Have mercy! Your name calling says volumes about your intelligence…wait, did I use the word ‘intelligence’…my bad…

          • SkyHunter

            You premise your argument on an appeal to your son-in-laws authority.
            If you can use an appeal to authority to claim AGW is a hoax, I can use an appeal to the authority of all the world’s leading scientific institutions to claim that your son-in-law is an idiot.
            The evidence is clear. He went to college, where they taught him science and physics… yet according to every science institution in the world…he cannot properly apply the knowledge he was given.
            Therefore one must conclude, based purely on the sparse evidence suggested by your story of your son-in-law… he must be an idiot.
            Not an insult. I have no idea if this person exists, other than in your imagination. But if he does. He is an idiot, or you are a liar.

          • GALT

            Volumes? Not really……at best, use of the term “idiot” was inaccurate for two reasons…..1.) there is no way to determine

            whether or not that designation would apply for certain, rather than imbecile or moron. 2.) That particular i.q. measurement standard has since been abandoned.

            Fortunately, the proper description of “willfully ignorant, functional illiterate” is now available…..and should see increasing use, over time as the proper identifier……since as you can see, once one applies it…..demonstrating why it is being used is fairly simple, as you can see.

            Who is GALT?

            To prepare for the challenges ahead, you may want to become
            a little more familiar with what an “ad hominem” argument actually is…….and what it is not. After all, logical fallacy, in the form of both inappropriate use of labels, posing as argument followed by irrelevant rhetoric, devoid of logos, represents the entire repertoire of the w.i.f.i. and for those truly seeking to

            train their minds in the discipline of logical reasoning….which

            is not a genetically inheritable characteristic of the human or any other natural genome……..the exercise of this discipline should become more efficient over time.

            The temptation to employ, ethos and pathos, without logos
            is one which MUST be avoided by those who truly seek to master this “unnatural” discipline.

            “The Master said….If names are not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language is not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success……..Therefor a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately. What the superior man requires, is just that in his words, there may be nothing incorrect.”

            “The Master said,…..Without knowing the force of words, it is impossible to know men.”

            Confucious 551 -479 B.C.

          • topmah

            You have far too much time on your hands, don’t you?

          • GALT

            Whatever time I have or have had, it is obvious I have made better use of it.

          • topmah

            That’s debatable…but if you mean being a self-righteous twit, then I would agree

          • GALT

            As you have demonstrated, there is no debate, as
            you have nothing to say………Q.E.D.

    • rocketride

      It really is as simple as the fact that pretty much all climatological “research” is paid for by governmental entities. Which is to say, by bureaucrats and politicians, two classes of people who live to amass power and money.

      Now, given two research proposals, one by a researcher who has a track record of saying that “the sky is falling, we need to give the government more power to run pretty much everything– to save us all” and one from someone who doesn’t have such a track record, or, worse, one who has a record of saying the opposite, guess which proposal is going to get funded. . .

      • topmah

        Damn right, rocketride…follow the money–it’ll reveal all you need to know about ‘motive’….

    • webbie7

      Of course, Science is based on whoever paid for the study. That is the way it is now. For instance , scientists have found that the shroud that could be of Jesus is from the time right around his life. What do you think the left would say about that? Science and studies are just like polls. It just depends on the way you ask the question.

  • Shawn

    Genesis 8:22 NIV
    New International Version
    “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.”
    I guess I’m “anti-science” as well. When these bumbling sycophants put their undying “faith” in the creation and shun the Creator, well, you get what we have now…

    • SkyHunter

      You have it reversed.
      When you; bumbling sycophant that you are, put your faith in a bad history book and an imaginary being, instead of empirical reality… You get what we have now.

      • jack

        You’re a special kind of stupid aren’t you? Air head.

  • GALT

    The best estimate of the age of the universe, as of 22 March 2013, is 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years

    And this has been true for quite some time…..while ole Ben seems confused

    citing first 17 and then 20…….which dates his understanding a bit, although he seems to be familiar with Weinberg’s First Three Minutes……..has a vague notion of the “anthropic principle”, but none regarding quantum reality, in order to deal with these ” coincidences”…..Feynman’s “sum over histories” as an example,

    and where “real science”…….in terms of modern understanding doesn’t even
    begin until the 50’s……and for most things, is a lot more “recent”.

    If he imagines that his “stream of consciousness” rambling indicates that
    he is Pro-science……..he has as much credibility on this subject, as he does
    on any other…….NONE!

    a fluidly anecdotal theory based on 150 years of observations

    That statement alone is enough to demonstrate his “ignorance” of the range
    of observational evidence that is available for the particular aspect of
    “science” he seems focused on………but then “writing” requires no actual credentials……..the real trick is, can you get “paid” for being “ignorant”????

    Check is in the mail Ben…..while your waiting…..have a kudo.

    • rocketride

      No, but judging from the goings-on at occupy rallies, one can get laid for being ignorant.

      • GALT

        Must work even better at the TEA Party rallies.

        • rocketride

          So, Gut-Associated Lymphoid Tissue*, I haven’t heard of anyone “getting any” AT any tea party rallies. Maybe after the rallies, but I’m assuming they keep it to themselves. It’s only occupiers who do that sort of stuff on camera.

          Name one tea party rally site that needed much in the way of litter removal afterward, never mind having to be hosed out like several occupy rally sites did. (Be prepared to provide photos/video.) Do you honestly think the MSM would have failed to trumpet to the world if a group of tea partiers had left a significant amount of litter, let alone the kind of sewage that needs firetrucks to hose it away, or had a robbery, rape or other assault (and I seem to recall that there was even a murder or two at occupations)?

          So, your attempt to equate the two is just stupid.

          * Since I can’t quite picture anyone using the name of a Rand protagonist taking the tack you seem to be, and since you are using ALL CAPS for it anyway, I figure you must be using the acronym rather than the name.

          • GALT

            Who is GALT? is still a question…….the question regarding

            the Rand “protagonist” you are referring to, was answered

            by Rand, herself………

            You, “willfully ignorant, functional illiterates” can’t even manage

            witty reparte with any degree of skill?

            Sorry those caps confused you…….and you missed the sarcasm.

            See RBT for clarification.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Just watched a Netflix movie, so I’m catching up.

            GALT said “Looks like the “w.i.f.i.’s” are getting a little “livingston” assistance, as posts are disappearing……. ”

            Really? I hadn’t noticed. Are the ones that are disappearing the ignorant and stupid posts made by the WIFI’s or the comments made by those who point out their ignorance and stupidity?

            GALT also said to rocketride, “See RBT for clarification”.

            I am afraid that “clarification” is a totally alien concept for rocketride. Anyone who is so handicapped in his thinking that he talks about something as idiotic as “Gut-Associated Lymphoid Tissue” is beyond hope. Lord love a duck! That is one of the sorriest attempts at “ray-par-tay” ever seen on PLD.

            I am also trying to wrap my head around how rocket ever got the idea to bring occupy into this discussion. And how he is so unaware of the massive cleanup effort that was needed here in the DC area after the Tea Party rallies on the Mall—-it took days to clean up all the grammatically and logically incorrect signage they left behind, and it wasn’t until a strong front came through that all the idiotic verbiage they spewed was cleared
            from the air. One could lose 10 IQ points by breathing it as one crossed the Mall.

            PS to rocket, who said, “BTW, Right Brain — that’s the side that sucks at logical analysis, isn’t it?”.

            I just love the “elegance” of your language, rocket! May I point out to you that your whole brain (insert “elegant” term here) at logical analysis? I’m looking forward to you proving that to us again and again (since Frank Kahn has gone into hiding, we will be glad to have you take his place).

          • rocketride

            There’s an expression about people who can’t take a joke. That the humor went over your head may just be saying more about where your head is than about anything else.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            You were JOKING? Lord love a duck! The next time you go to the library, check out the “”Humor for Dummies” books. I’m sure you will find a chapter on “How not to sound like a 12-year-old when telling jokes”. You should also look for material on “How not to make your listeners throw up at your jokes”. Look in the back for a thing called the I-N-D-E-X—-ask a librarian for help.

            My head would need to be at the bottom of the deepest diamond mine in South Africa in order for your so-called “humor” to have gone “over” it.

            “Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue”?


      • Right Brain Thinker

        Judging from the ignorant comments you have made on this thread, RR, they’re going to be lined up waiting to “service” you.

        Bring Viagra and Red Bull.

        • rocketride

          Wow, it looks like I hit a little close to home. Did I spoil the only opportunity an unwashed troll like you is likely to get to score? Looks like I’m going to be handing out a lot of goats today.

          BTW, Right Brain — that’s the side that sucks at logical analysis, isn’t it?

        • GALT

          Looks like the “w.i.f.i.’s” are getting a little “livingston” assistance, as posts are disappearing…….

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Yes, some of my replies to rocketride on the first page of comments have disappeared in the last hour or so. I have complained to the “moderator” and Bob L and we shall see if they care. I am too old to waste my time urinating into the wind (although that is what nearly all of my posts on PLD are in the figurative sense, considering the density of the WIFI population here).

          • GALT

            Have you registered for diaqus, if not do you have a bar at
            the beginning of this page which gives you a choice, between best, newest and oldest, should be on the right side, right below the avatar……..also at the bottom of the page, there is a gray bar which says, load more comments……..if you select best, or that is what the choice is…….the order of posts changes based on the votes received, up down etc…..I don’t know what the formula is, but the more up votes a post receives, and activity, it moves forward…or back, competing with other posts……..regardless of when it was posted. Obviously, oldest and newest are self explanatory and determined by time, like it used to be, with replies
            sticking to the initiating comment……however, there are now mulTiple PAges PER TOPIC…..SO IF YOU ARE NOT ON THE FIRST PAGE, SCROLL DOWN AND CLICK THE LOAD MORE COMMENTS BAR…..and keep scrolling till you find the post you are looking for……hope that helps. see you in the trenches….

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Took time out to eat, watch Grimm, and read a book.

            Thanks for the “helpful hints”. I have not registered—-as near as i can tell, the only “extra” I would gain if I* did is the “community” feature and I have no need to have that quantified for me. I know who is posting and roughly how many times.

            Even though I haven’t registered, my name and email address now both appear in the “windows” when I type in the first letter, and that was my major complaint, the lost time typing it all every time. I have access to all the things you mentioned—-“best” and “load more”—-and have not hit “best” ever. The replies that disappeared (or nearly all of them) have now mysteriously reappeared, attached to (or close to) the comments they were meant for.

            I would imagine that a reply sticks with the comment it was made to—-it wouldn’t make sense to move it “up” just because it got a lot of “up arrows”—-how would you make any sense out of it if they were separated, particularly if the reply moved forward?—-under the old format, things often had to go far “down” but never “up”.

            Oh well, life in the PLD trenches will go on and I will survive. By the way, are you as amused as I am by the “votes” some comments are getting with the “up” and “down” arrows? The Republican Brain speaks to the “groupthink”, “herd” mentality, and fear of “not belonging” of the conservative brain, and I think the voting (both for and against) shows the truth of that. The most WIFI comment will get multiple “up” arrows while the most eloquent and intelligent comments from the anti-WIFI gets none or even multiple “thumbs down”. LOL

          • GALT

            Democracy, the gift that keeps on giving…..and one of the potential imbalances the Bill of Rights was intended to anticipate in the ole “republic”, even when only white propertied men had the right to vote……despite the “all men were created equal” rhetoric.

            More bad news on the way for those revered founders in the coming attractions for next week……

            The “initiating comment” will drag the replies with it, but there is some cumulative effect, of the votes for that “group”, which in turn moves the whole grouping…… new anti w.i.f.i. tactics are
            in order……at least for those topics for which I can maintain an interest…..seems to have been a bit of attrition amongst the
            usual suspects…..or maybe the red warning is working, either
            way there seems to be a lull, in the repetitive idiocy…..
            tax time?

            Until next time…..

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Yes, the “attrition” has been noticeable—–First DaveH—-of late we seem to be missing Frank Kahn, CAH, Vigilant, and a few others.

            Can we hope that Freedom Fighter and Alondra will soon move on?

          • GALT

            Be still my heart……..

            Just ran across a new ( pour moi ) author, Rick Atkinson, and started reading the first volume of his “Liberation Trilogy”,
            “An Army at Dawn”, The War in North Africa 1942-1943 and
            I was hooked immediately……..they just released the final volume, so my recreational reading is set for awhile…….if you are
            not familiar with him you might want to take a look……

          • Right Brain Thinker

            I’ll check Atkinson out—the first two titles sound vaguely familiar—-I read a lot of military history—-civil war, WW2, and anything USMC particularly, and my CRS often has me checking out a book only to find after a couple of chapters that I have already read it in my CRS past—-if it’s been long enough and I can’t remember all that much of it, I just keep reading—like having a chat with an old friend.

            Have just added a new website to my favorites list—-Have you seen it? Climate Denial Crock of The Week

            Not as technical as skeptical science but has links to lots of good videos particularly, as well as other good info.

            PS Have you looked at the Youtube Arctic Ice Death Spiral video yet? Lots of links through the comments to scary stuff about the Greenland high, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, perturbations in the jet stream, the North Atlantic-Azores Oscillations, and other feedback mechanisms—-bad stuff has been happening up there in the arctic over the past few years, and it’s happening many decades before any of the models predicted. Saw one very interesting link about how shallow ponds of meltwater on the arctic ice allow sunlight to penetrate the ice more easily, thereby heating up the ice from within and heating the water below—these ponds form more readily on the “flat” type of ice that forms now as compared to the multiyear ice we used to have with deeper meltwater ponds—-can’t remember the title but all I could think of as I read it was “All this feedback stuff just keeps piling up—-how far can we be from some big time tipping points?”.

            PPS On the “red warning”? “They” never knew it was a warning before it turned red, so I doubt it’s doing much more now. LOL

          • GALT

            The first one is copyrighted in 2002, the last one was just released….this one has 130 pages of notes, an sources
            and you would probably remember it….it’s like a written documentary…..but with all the major people, completely
            biographed….yet is not “tedious”……

            Before the symbol used to be red……..white backround.

            I’ll take a look at the sites and things….

  • Right Brain Thinker

    I wonder why Ben has to talk about Gore and Democrats so much in this allegedly “pro-science” piece, especially at the very beginning. Perhaps it’s because it’s really not about science but more about mindless political propagandizing? Yes, it is always a good propaganda technique to “stir up the troops” with the horsepucky they want to hear about people they’re not supposed to like before you attempt to mislead them with distorted logic. And you should always tell folks that you are about to expose them to “inescapable truths”. How can anyone argue with INESCAPABLE truth as defined by the all-seeing, all-knowing Ben?.

    On Ben’s side, he has some fine -sounding rhetoric.

    Ben says, “The idea that a collection of perfectly ordered coincidences of almost astronomical unlikelihood happened despite incalculably bad odds without assistance from an entity that exists beyond all of it defies logic”.

    Really? How about the thought that this “collection” is merely something we can’t explain and therefore mankind has felt the need to come up with some “entity” that is responsible? Like the thousands of “gods” and thousands of “religions” that have existed on this planet.

    I can think of another “entity” that could be responsible for it all. Some gum-chewing slack jawed middle school kid on some “higher plane” that is playing a “Sim Universe” game on his computer. He has only recently “plugged in” a thing called “human civilization” on a planet called Earth and is excitedly watching how the humans are exercising free will as they do things that “activate” the laws of science that make up the “perfectly ordered coincidences”. Why is he excited? Even at his young age, he can see that things are going askew, and like all middle school kids, he likes mayhem and destruction. The “order” of his “universe” is becoming VERY disorderly on that one tiny speck of a planet.

    Ben says, “The idea that any of those perfectly ordered coincidences could be
    altered, stopped or started by a creature that has existed for less than
    1/100,000th of all of history — defies basic common sense”.

    What defies “basic common sense” is Ben’s LACK of logic in making this glib statement. Guess what, Ben? The problem is NOT that “any of those perfectly ordered coincidences could be altered, stopped or started” by humans—-they are called the “Laws of Nature” for a reason—-they are basically immutable and, as you say, have governed “existence” for billions of years. The problem is that humans have done things that are WITHIN those laws and we are seeing effects of those actions also WITHIN those laws—-no “altering, stopping, or starting” involved—-it all just IS—-man does one thing, something happens—-man does something else, something else happens. And “science” just seeks to understand and explain it. And “something” is happening—-it’s called AGW—-and scientists ARE studying it—–and the VAST MAJORITY of them are concerned because the laws behind the “perfectly ordered coincidences” are expressing themselves and it’s not looking good.

    Ever the propagandist, Ben finishes with more fine-sounding horsepucky, none of it true—— “fluidly anecdotal theory—- trades fact for folly—-and the wildly distorted “has required no fewer than three name changes in four decades”.
    (Especially that last one—-tell us about those “required” name changes, Ben)

    Yes Ben, we must color you “anti-science”, because that’s what you are—-it’s an “inescapable truth” for all who read your stuff.

  • -Disabled American Patriot-

    It does not take a great egghead to realize that all material, from the smallest
    atom up is here and will always be here. It is what humans do with these gifts
    that matter. And consequently with our free will we can and just might
    destroy our own environment.

  • Jim S

    Your first “inescapable truth” is easily escaped. If the odds of something happening are a billion to one against, just throw the dice a few hundred billion times. More actually… since that’s just one galaxy alone.

  • Jlkitch

    There are reactions to every action it’s just the size of them that matters. Personally, I believe that deforestation of areas in the median belt of the planet, between the tropic lines will have more effect on our quality of life and climate than pollution, loss of the ozone layer, or increases in CO2 in the atmosphere. Though I actually am a scientist with a lot of letter after my name, I have no real proof just a good understanding of physics. Forest hold water, water has mass, rain forests have a lot of mass, some of which is held a a height above the forest floor. The earth revolves on a axis. If you place a globe, or something approximating a globe on an axis and spin it, it will spin easily so long as its mass is fairly uniform. If you unbalance it it will vibrate. The vibrations may be so minor as to be impossible for them to be measured; but, they happen. Really small changes will usually only effect the immediate area in which they occur. This is dependent on the elasticity, density, and nature of the materials from which the globe like body was made. It gets harder to understand from this point. Consider water a balancing element, let’s ignore the plants/trees for now. When you relocate the water or another fluid of significant mass and size to another area or remove them from that area there is an effect dependent on the degree of change. this theory can explain the idea and supposed “evidence” of pole switching that some propose; but, it’s really as simple as balancing a wheel. One thing that many don’t consider is that earth has never seemed to care about me, or the other billions of people, it just trucks along and will pretty much continue to do this long after I’m gone.
    When you remove a micro climate creating area from a planet, the climate changes. Rain forest create an area that perpetuates a sub-climate that has frequent rain. Note that rain forest contain water that without the rain forest has to go somewhere else. It probably isn’t going to go where the rain forest does not exist. In other words, the earth will create a new subclimate to contain this water. It may take thousands of years; but, I believe that it will. In my humble opinion this is a more immediate threat to humans that other effectors. If you think I like trees, you’re right, I make money off of them by growing lumber and pulp.

    • SkyHunter

      We have satellites that measure mass shifts in the earth by measuring minute changes in gravity.
      Your hypothesis fails the test by evidence.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        “I am a scientist with many letters after my name”, he says? I can believe that, and the letters are J-O-K-E-R, because he may be pulling our leg here. Or maybe the letters are D-R-O-P-O-U-T, as the level of science understanding displayed here would indicate?

        Suffice it to say that the water JKitch is so concerned about is NOT of any significance. He conveniently forgets that we have things called “the water cycle” and “weather” that do a very nice job of moving water around and “balancing” things, to say nothing of the fact that 80% of the earth’s surface is covered with water and it’s “self-leveling”.

        What’s going on with deforestation and the rain forests IS of concern and DOES contribute to AGW, but not in the ways that his crackpot theories suggest, particularly in his last paragraph, which is so “way out” that it rates a “Lord love a duck”.

        Skyhunter mentions the gravity-measuring satellites. They are comparatively new and are yielding much interesting data that supports AGW. They are so sensitive that they can detect the changes in gravity caused by the expansion of ocean water as it warms up, and have given us some disturbing new facts to look at. One being that the oceans are heating up to greater depths at a faster rate than we knew about—-MANY implications there.

  • Fred

    Kudos, Mr. Crystal, on, arguably, one of your best articles to date !

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Is it the “best” because of the science or the religion?

  • Right Brain Thinker

    To facebook Cappin Morgan · On my feet at In a (expletive deleted)
    You say, “there
    is not a single intelligent person alive that believes in the slightest
    that global warming is in any way/shape/form real—–did I get my point

    Yes, if your “point” was to prove to all of us that you are quite UNintelligent.

  • Right Brain Thinker

    Right Brain Thinker • a minute ago (reposted because of Cappins “indelicate” address being moderated)

    To facebook Cappin Morgan
    You say, “there is not a single intelligent person alive that believes in the slightest that global warming is in any way/shape/form real—–did I get my point across?”

    Yes, if your “point” was to prove to all of us that you are quite UNintelligent. You have succeeded admirably.

  • Right Brain Thinker

    TO Richard Fisher—facebook commenter, who says to Daniel
    “How so Daniel? Please support your argument…. first rule of discourse”.

    The first rule of deniers, skeptics, and obfuscators is to rather lazily say “support your argument”. Why don’t you “aspire” to become educated about AGW and other environmental issues so that you can write intelligently about them?.

    Daniel is an attorney, but his comments indicate that he HAS made the effort to become educated. He is spot on with his examples and is correct that “there are MULTITUDES of examples of man devastating and influencing the environment on a mass scale”. Those of us who are educated can write pages about them. Engage Daniel in some real discourse—-“how so?” is not it.

    To Lane Crystal

    You are one of the most scientifically illiterate posters we have seen on PLD.

    You say, “Real” scientists begin
    by trying to DISPROVE their theory, not by trying to prove it.”—-we must assume that you are talking about the use of the null hypothesis, something you probably read about in “Science Theory and Experimentation for Dummies. Irrelevant—-scientists can set about to prove OR disprove hypotheses—-it doesn’t matter which direction you start from—-to say that something “is so” or “is not so”—-what matters is the data (facts) you gather and the analyses you perform that lead to supportable conclusions. The climate scientists HAVE done it right and AGW IS a reality. You don’t have to like it and you are free to carry on with all your politically motivated anti-AGW horsepucky—-just don’t expect anyone with any scientific literacy at all to do more than laugh at you.

    ANTI-climate-change fanatics are the ones who go about looking
    for any small nit to pick and refuse to accept ANYTHING but 100% certainty as they demand more “proof” of AGW. They are running out of steam as the evidence for AGW piles up and their feeble attempts to deny the truth are shot down one after the other.

    NO ONE claimed in the 70’s that we were going to be covered in a
    layer of ice in 20 years. In the 90s, NO ONE said that we were all going to fry
    because of global warming by 2013. And NO ONE is back to global cooling again except the deniers who are grasping at some small straw in the data. It’s the old “Yes, but….” gambit and it’s a losing proposition for the deniers.

    You further display your ignorance by saying “Go look at old Popular
    Science-type magazine covers for the last 40 years at the library.” How cute! How dumb! Instead go check out Nature, Science, Scientific American, or some real BOOKS (particularly those by James Hansen) if you even know where your library is.

    • GALT

      I don’t know if you have noticed but we seem to have become a “democracy”
      as a determinant factor in “post” order?

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Yes, so be it, and I DO like the way replies come out right below the comment they are directed to.

  • an old seabee

    In case you haven’t noticed, everything in the universe has a cycle, and as far as I’m concerned this “global warming” thing is just the natural cycle of of this thing called Earth. but what do I know? I’m just an old retired Navy Seabee high school dropout.


    Thanks Ben, I notice the those who still think the world is going to burn to a crisp are still whining about “Globl Warming” and it’s so-called effect on the world. It’s been proven that what is causing most of the melting of the polar ice, is a combination of soot and a larger content of salt in the water. I clicked on your link Galt, and those folks are totally wrong when they say that the sea water absorbs most of the carbon dioxide. It is absorbed by the plants, which keeps the carbon and puts the oxygen back into the atmosphere. That is something a first year biology student learns in highschool, or if you had intelligent parents like my sister and I did, we learned it from them before ever getting to highschool. You people who keep pushing “Global Warming/Climate Change” remind me of the guy who got the football and ran it in for a touchdown on the other teams goal. Even though everyone was telling him he was going the wrong way, he ignored them and kept on running. He just couldn’t believe he was wrong, even when he was told he was.
    You keep talking about all the scientific proof, yet there are more scientists who have shown you the error of your ways, than those Global Warming scientists who keep telling you the sky is falling. Actual facts prove you wrong, computer models only show what the programmer wants them to show.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      More ignorance and self-delusion piled on top of the ignorance and self-delusion in the previous comment?. Soot and salt in the water? BwaHaHaHaHaHaHa! I see it now—-VET is playing with us!—-he’s a jokester! And a good one—-Soot and salt in the water are causing MOST of the melting? BwaHaHaHaHaHaHa!

      And the folks at skeptical science are “totally wrong”? And “most of the CO2 is absorbed by the plants”? Doesn’t he understand that the buildup of CO2 that is causing AGW is BEYOND what the plants can absorb, and that’s the problem? And that the oceans have been a “sink” for the excess CO2?

      And he cites his PARENTS as sources?. We have a new WIFI on PLD, folks—-say hello to USAFVET—-he is going to the top of the batting order for the WIFI’s—-Babe Ruth reincarnate!.

      Here’s a challenge for you, VET. Google “Youtube Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral” and view the 2 minute video. This graph was developed from 30+ years of data gathered from a number of satellites that measure arctic sea ice extent, thickness, and albedo. No computer models involved—-just actual data plotted via computer (it could have been done on a blackboard with chalk instead). Then tell us what this video PROVES.

      While you’re at it, how about giving us some sources for these “more scientists who have shown you the error of your ways”. Or do you expect us to accept your crackpot OPINIONS just because you seem to want to believe them so much?


    After reading Right Brain Stinkers rant, all you have to do it turn it around and you will have the facts straight. Those emails were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be what it was claimed they were, but of course Stinker just can’t help run around yelling “The sky is falling, the sky is falling”.
    In the words of a great man, Fred Thompson: “Why do they call it common sense when it is soooooo uncommon?”
    Hey Stinker, Galt, and Sky Hunter, there are 3 times as many scientists that say there isn’t any “Global Warming/Climate Change”. The only reason those of you who support is are getting any recognition is the fact that you protesteth too much, and you yell louder. All of your science has been debunked yet you keep yelling louder and louder that it is still true.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      USAFVET says, “Those emails were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be what it was claimed they were”. (and calls me childish names to establish his credibility as a “serious” person—-LOL)

      I won’t call VET any names, but WILL say that he is a WIFI, self-deluded, ignorant of the truth, and perhaps even a flatout liar when he makes this statement.

      Anyone who wants to see the TRUTH need only google “climategate debunked”. They can then spend hours looking at the many hits that prove “beyond a shadow of a doubt” that what I said was true. If VET has any “sources” at all that feed his delusions, they must be from the circular firing squad of deniers that keep repeating lies until the mindless accept them as truth “beyond a shadow of a doubt”.

      I am beginning to think that VET IS deliberately lying to us when he talks about “3 times as many scientists” and “all of your science has been debunked”. No one can be that ignorant of science—-he must have a “political agenda” here—-that’s the only “common sense” conclusion.