Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

The Dog Days Of Global Warming

July 25, 2012 by  

The Dog Days Of Global Warming
UPI
Scientists and Federal officials say climate change is ultimately to blame for recent forest fires.

There have been massive forest fires and record temperatures across North America this summer. With this heat wave impacting so many millions of people, it must be definitive proof of global warming — or so the Big Green Machine would like us to believe.

I will admit that it has gotten so hot where I live that I had to go buy a couple of fans.

On July 1, even The Washington Post declared that Colorado’s destructive wildfires are global warming’s “smoking” gun: “Lightning and suspected arson ignited them four weeks ago, but scientists and federal officials say the table was set by a culprit that will probably contribute to bigger and more frequent wildfires for years to come: climate change.”

Remember The Coming Ice Age?

It all sounds familiar and for good reason.

In January 1971, my father decided my brothers and me were going to help him build a big reservoir that he could stock with fish. It was a natural gully filled with brush and trees. The spring runoff would provide the water after dirt was hauled in and one end was dammed.

I remember how cold that winter was. Between New Year’s Day and the end of February the thermometer rose above 0 degrees Fahrenheit only one day.

It had to be climate change right? That’s what the mainstream media were saying. Magazines like Time and Newsweek ran cover stories on the coming Ice Age, and climate experts predicted that humanity was on the brink of an environmental crisis.

The Big Chill was coming, said the scientists. It just so happened that it was a movie by that same title and it was released a decade later.

And Then Came Ozone

That was followed up in the 80s and 90s by fear over the depletion of the ozone layer. The ozone layer, scientists said, protects all DNA of all surface-dwelling life by absorbing Ultraviolet B from our sun.

Environmental scientists stated that the Earth’s future depended on people not using a certain version of Freon because it was eating away the lifesaving ozone layer. They made such a big deal about it that the Federal government got involved and forced all of us to pay more to replace the Freon in our cars and refrigerators. This pushed prices higher, plus the consumer had to pay for disposal fees.

These environmental idiots said they had proof that these things were damaging the environment — scientific proof.

Who Decided Scientists Know It All?

We all give so much credence to these experts that it shocks us when they are wrong or they admit that they may have been wrong.

That is what occurred a few months ago when James Lovelock — the man referred to as the “godfather of global warming” — recanted his catastrophic climate change predictions. The 92-year-old now says those predictions were “meaningless drivel.”

The implications were extraordinary because Lovelock is not some politician campaigning for votes or the latest pork barrel Green project. Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a major impact on the development of the global warming theory.

Lovelock, a former NASA scientist, invented the electron capture detector in the 1950s that allowed scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere. To some extent, Lovelock gave birth to the Greens.

Today isn’t like the Middle Ages. The Pope did not force Lovelock to recount. He did it on his own when he acknowledged:  “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.”

Lovelock gave an interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivered bombshells that must have angered environmentalists.

Lovelock blasted the Greens for their religious fervor.

“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock said. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use. The greens use guilt. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”

Lovelock also mocked something I have made fun of for 30 years (after I first saw them outside Palm Springs, Calif.): wind turbines.

Lovelock told The Guardian: “We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant.

“So-called sustainable development (like wind power)… is meaningless drivel.”

Lovelock admitted what most scientists will never confess: They are not all-knowing.

“One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it,” Lovelock told MSNBC.

If the men and women who practice science don’t know the truth, then neither do politicians, reporters or news anchors. This could just be one unusually hot summer.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers Energy & Gold Report

John Myers

is editor of Myers’ Energy and Gold Report. The son of C.V. Myers, the original publisher of Oilweek Magazine, John has worked with two of the world’s largest investment publishers, Phillips and Agora. He was the original editor for Outstanding Investments and has more than 20 years experience as an investment writer. John is a graduate of the University of Calgary. He has worked for Prudential Securities in Spokane, Wash., as a registered investment advisor. His office location in Calgary, Alberta, is just minutes away from the headquarters of some of the biggest players in today’s energy markets. This gives him personal access to everyone from oil CEOs to roughnecks, where he learns secrets from oil insiders he passes on to his subscribers. Plus, during his years in Spokane he cultivated a network of relationships with mining insiders in Idaho, Oregon and Washington.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “The Dog Days Of Global Warming”

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

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

  • DaveH

    Yeah, but don’t you just love them running your life anyway?

    • Warrior

      Absolutely! Especially the community activist variety.

      • Sean Steele

        It will all go away by buying carbon credits. They will magically change the bad stuff into good stuff and everything will be just fine. After all algorewhore says so.

        • Jeff

          And what is your solution?

          • George E

            My suggestion, and hope, is that we will put the global warming discussion on the back-burner for now, while continuing to study the problem, and sincerely hoping our scientists conclude man-made CO2 emissions is not causing the severe problem that many are currently suggesting it is. We really need to focus on fixing our economy and federal debt because we all know that it is really a big problem that has the potential of taking our country down within a few short years. If we can get the economy under control, then we might have the resources to address other issues, like man-made global warming if we have to. Allocating huge resources to reducing man-made CO2 emissions right now is the wrong priority, in my opinion.

    • Flashy

      LOL…deny reality as icebergs break off in record sizes and numbers, as heat waves roil across the land, as the North Pole is water for the first time in eons. The weather being unstable is part and parcel with predictions of the effects of climate change.

      Here’s the question…if climate change is not occurring, and we implement changes … we’ve done nothing but modernize industry and made the world a little cleaner for us to inhabit. If climate change is occurring, we’re taking the steps necessary to adapt to the effects and lessen the impact.

      Or…we deny the data and best sciences…and if climate change is not occurring, we’re still not cleaning the house and not bringing it up to modern standards. if it is occurring…we’ll be suffering for letting ignorance, greed and spite rule out.

      That’s the question…deny and ignore..what if you’re wrong? Gonna deny responsibility and instead blame it on the Liberals and Progressives?

      • DaveH

        Of course the Climate Changes. Note that the phrase “Climate Change” has been used since the earth quit cooperating with the “Global Warming” accusation of Government Science Hoaxters.
        But the question is — Does man affect that Change in a significant manner? The answer to that is a resounding NO. The Climate has been changing throughout the history of the Earth, the sun being the prime mover in that.
        For those who want to become better educated about the Global Warming Hoax:
        http://climatedepot.com/

        Or you could listen the dishonest words of an Administration Shill.

      • Mike

        I agree with you Flashy. The problem is that some Progressives and Liberals have purposely used the good data and science to promote personal agendas to make themselves rich and powerful, thus spoiling the virtues of that science and data.

        The data is valid and true. Global Warming is occuring, and like you said, even if it’s not, efforts to curtail it will make the planet a better place to live anyhow.

        The problem is some of the suggested remedies are too radical and seem bent on exploiting Global Warming for someone’s or some corporation’s benefit. This provokes an opposite reaction from the Conservatives that it must all be hocus pocus.

        Once again, the good people in the middle get squashed while the polar left and right battle it out on a political stage.

      • DaveH

        “Climate Change” is just one of numerous vehicles invented by Progressive Leaders to persuade ignorant people to allow them to grow their Power and Perks at the expense of the people.
        Some people are such fervent Big Government worshipers that they will happily swallow any Misinformation put out by Big Government and their Propagandists (like Flashman), and then suffer the inevitable poverty that results from Socialism. Flashman wants you to be one of them. Ignore him.

      • Michelle

        Flashy I was wondering if you could tell me how the dinasours created global warming? Or for that matter how did they manage to warm the planet up to end the ice age?

        I have no problem conserving I just don’t believe al gore and his paid scientists who have made millions off of their scare tactics.

      • http://Yahoomail Bob

        The liberals and progressives are the ones who are using fear of global warming with junk science in order to extort more and more tax money from everyone. If you have any doubt, look at the cost of everything that the EPA has become involved in. I am now letting my grass die because I cannot afford to water it. I amdoing everything I can do to conserve water and the bill is still over $100 (water and sewer) every month
        I am calling the liberal justifications junk science, because that is exactly what it is
        They are not using the Scientific Process and are manufacturing evidence in order to prove their point.
        The truth of the matter is that, without global warming, we would have never been her.
        The earth was once covered in ice a mile thick. If it hadn’t been for a hot core driving plate techtonics it would still be a an ice planet.
        The Earth revolves aroud the sun in an eliptical orbit, rotates on a wobbly axis, and moves closer and farther away from the sun. All this movement cycles through and repeats itself in approximately 100,000 years. We have about 130 years of weather records.
        The true scientific process says you must observe several cycles and the must repeat themselves flawlessy in order to become a law.
        Come back in a million years or so and discuss global warming with some INTELLIGENT data, and then I’ll talk with you.

      • TML

        LOL…. it has become a religion indeed. Flashy, you sound like the Christians that say, it’s better to believe than not believe. Ice burgs falling off and other such things are not “evidence” of any such climate change caused by humans. What makes you think that anything we do would be able to stop any natural climate change? Your premise lies in the notion that climate change is a direct result of human beings, but have no definitive evidence that shows this relationship.

        George Carlin says it best, lol
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

      • Marine72

        Thank you for your support of the obvious. Yes! without a doubt our climate does change every day. Some days are unseasonably warm and others tell me that this is not southern Kalifornia. Now that we have consensus on the fact that climate does change, I hope one and all will join together to end the daily dose of drivel that is being used by our wonderful Kalifornia Air Resource Board (CARB/KARB) to redistribute our hard earned $s to those countless Kalifornians standing (no, sitting is better) around with their hands out.

        So now the KARB/CARB is exempted from the open meeting’s law per our democrap legislatures and their “phony” budget bill (So much for voter initiatives – we tell them what we want and they spend all their time finding away around it). But then again the fools of Kalifornia elected them to office. Our only hope is for ultimate bankruptcy of Kalifornia to force constructive change on this delusional state population.

      • Steve

        Consider this Flash, It is quite clear that there is less particulate in the air now than there was when I was a kid. Look at all the old photos of the 20s and all you can ever see is haze in the air.

        The cleaner the air is the more the suns rays can reach the earth and heat it up. That is the basics of cloud cover and highs and lows.

        So, in fact by people making the air cleaner by removing particulate we may indeed actually be causing the negative changes our selves. The earth reacts by increasing heat and winds and adding particulate to cool it.

        Of course you can always blame it on cow farts. Give me a break dude. The earth takes care of its self, it was designed that way.

      • http://N/A Carly Harris

        Climate has been changing for hundreds of millions of years, even before people existed.
        To blame all this as a result of people activity is absolutely insane. Try to think responsibly on your own. Volcanic activity, forest fires, dust storms and many other natural events not connected to people activity affects much of the climate changes, not even mentioning the cyclic activity of the oceans and wind patterns. People need to try to reason this subject on their own without relying on idiots like Al Gore and his group of loonies. Thank you!

      • Phillip Maine

        It is not Global warming, the newest research studying tree rings says we are cooling. It is the Gulf BP oil accident and response that has our weather all messed up. no gulf loop, less gulf stream, Jet stream out of place.

      • http://www.facebook.com/dan.mancuso.56 Dan Mancuso

        To Flash in the bedpan;
        Everything that you post is a lie! Either that or you are a complete idiot and/or dupe. The real agenda of the greeny-weenies masters is Totalitarian Global Fascism. This comes from the Club of Rome – who are not enviromentalists. They organze things like the Rio Summit so they can stuff other things like Agenda 21 down our throats – which is not about sustainability, with the help of morons/liars like you. There is so much un-biased info out there to clearly show the greeny movement is BS and what the real agenda is, that if a pea brain like you doesn’t get it it means you don’t want to see it or you are stupid. Why don’t you just keep your illinformed two cents to yourself or better yet send your ‘comments’ to one of the socialists/liberal MSM outlets, where they lap up that drivel. I hope I was able to clearly express my utter contempt for ‘people’ like you!
        Sick of the Bu** **it…

        • Jeff

          Dan:

          I feel bad for you. All that anger. Where to aim it? I know, pick on some know-it-all on a blog. I’m sorry that reality has such a liberal bias.

      • http://www.amazingweightlossdrops.com Ahalyah

        I like your response Flashy. I don’t believe in global warming, per se. Climate change is definately going on though. Is it due to something people are doing – like breathing? Come on! Industry is causing the most damages to the invironment – not people. Industry should stop pulluting our water ways, stop making electronic devices, light bulbs and so forth. And guess what? Most people will just stop using those things that cause harm to the environment. Most people will not make their own plastic bottles. People are part of the natural world they can live here with mo problem. Corporations, on the other hand, are totally unnatural.

        As a earthling I say yes to windmills, the sun, water, and other natural means of energy. And no, to nuclear power, oil, coal, gas and everything that requires the blowing up, digging up, wasting and destroying of our lovely home.

        If we want to help the planet, we should get a grip on corporations and the greed they encourage and inspire. This planet and it’s resources belong to all of us earthlings, who are born and live here, not just a few humans who are willing to kill us all, just to abuse and use up all earthly resources. As earthlings we must treat eachother with love and respect. We should not eat meat, or GMOs, or chemicals. We see death, disrespect and distruction for what it is. And our resolve should be to show compassion, empathy, care, consideration and love to our fellow earthlings. Our world does not need to be sterile, but more abundant and alive as loving our babies will cause us to nurture a better world for them to live in. Families will develop the solutions to our current problems as they prepare the world for the young and those who are yet to be born. They will build the beautiful, all natural world, that those who are bent on nuking and sterilizing the planet don’t dare to see or even dream of.

      • Flashy

        Flashy I was wondering if you could tell me how the dinasours created global warming? Or for that matter how did they manage to warm the planet up to end the ice age? <–michelle

        That the earth goes through periodic changes is undeniable. As undeniable as evolution. What we have which wasn't true before this is our society, our culture, and..our impact. We do have an impact y'know. Significant.

        it's like this…living on a river, the river floods periodically. Sometimes big floods, sometimes little floods. Then some company comes in and strips a hillside of timber and brush. Now…the river floods big time, and more often. It has it's natural flooding exacerbated by the impact of a major hillside being stripped bare and runoff coming fast and furious adding to the waters.

        Now..the company will deny any responsibility…saying it replanted and the surface brush with shallow roots creates a better water retention than the natural emplaced vegetation and timber. You, of course, will see the reality and causal connection…and blame the impact of the activities for increasing flooding.

        Who is correct?

        Same with climate change. Sure, it's a natural process. But don't you think with the data showing the impact of the Industrial Age is pertinent? Or do you believe the company line?

        Had there been regulations and controls in place preventing the company from stripping that hillside..the impact would be minimalized. Even if it didn't have any impact being stripped…the river is still a better place. After it's stripped…nothing you can do about ti.

        Same with the nay sayers. If they are wrong, we're screwed. If the greenies are wrong, worse case..better place to live in any event.

      • SJJolly

        Temperature differences drive weather. Relative warmer air rises, relative cooler air sinks, generating winds. (Basic atmospheric physics) Change the pattern of relatively hotter and cooler air, and you change the wind patterns, thus the weather. Add megatons of green house gases to the atmosphere every year — one powerplant in the USA puts out 2 megatons of GHS CO2 all by itself — and you make the atmosphere warmer relative to the ground and seas, changing temperature patterns. Melt most of the Arctic icecap during summers, causing more solar energy to be absorbed by the Arctic ocean rather than being reflected back into space, and you also change temperature patterns.
        The present drout and heat wave in the USA Midwest isn’t so much a matter of global warming — though that is happening — as changing weather patterns. (Maybe next year, the American Midwest will get torrential rains.)

        As for climate change being a Liberal plot to make money, does anyone think that the big oil and coal companies are not funding such propaganda, as a means to keep selling their GHS-producing products?

      • duane

        Do some relevant research on the whole earth before you start believing the crap about global warming. There are a myriad of facts and information out there that give pause about what is going on. Part of the current weather events can be attributed to the fact that the earth’s axis has changed dramatically which in turn has created a whole new set of weather problems. But this is way beyond your comprehension, due to spouting the liberal spin of not verifying what you are saying.

      • Earthking

        Liberals talk about reality, when the reality is there is no manmade global warming. Never has been. Europe is experiencing a cooler than usual climate this year–not very global, you warming morons.

      • TML

        That the earth goes through periodic changes is undeniable. As undeniable as evolution. What we have which wasn’t true before this is our society, our culture, and..our impact. We do have an impact y’know. Significant.

        Flashy says, “it’s like this…living on a river, the river floods periodically. Sometimes big floods, sometimes little floods. Then some company comes in and strips a hillside of timber and brush. Now…the river floods big time, and more often. It has it’s natural flooding exacerbated by the impact of a major hillside being stripped bare and runoff coming fast and furious adding to the waters.”

        So not much different then the hapless beaver that floods areas by building dams. But I’d still like to hear how such actions affect climate change on a global scale.

        Flashy says, “Same with climate change. Sure, it’s a natural process. But don’t you think with the data showing the impact of the Industrial Age is pertinent?”

        No, because the data which seeks to target humans as being responsible for climate change, while not even considering the ultimate source of climate change (the Sun) is nothing more than pseudo-science.

        Flashy says, “Same with the nay sayers. If they are wrong, we’re screwed. If the greenies are wrong, worse case..better place to live in any event.”

        So its the same ‘better safe than sorry’ argument I hear from Christians on believing in God. Is that science, Flashy?

      • JeffH

        Falsy, no one denies that climates change…it just ain’t man made like the enviro-terrorists have been led to believe.

        The UN (Agenda 21) has been pushing the “climate change/global warming” hype for decades. In short, UN Agenda 21 is a way for the U.N. to take a stronger grip on world global and U.S. policy. It’s all about the money!

      • TERRY

        The climate is always changing, it’s called seasons. Apart from that, the planet goes thru climate shifts which has more to do with planet orbit, the moons distance ( the moon is slowly drifting away from earth, think this might have some effect?) sun activity but not one thing is caused by human activity, only those who have a huge ego could or would think “we” are causing any harm to our great planet. But I do believe that when good ole
        mother nature has enough of us, we will go the way of the dinos and the dodos, in very
        short order.

      • John Illinois

        Flashy:

        You are a moron. The Arctic ocean thaws annually. I have a little ribbon that says that I was under the North Pole in a submarine–we surfaced. That was back when the “scientists” were crying about the “coming ice age” Calving of ice from the glacial mass of ice in Antarctica happens all the time. It isn’t quite as predictable as the geyser of “Old Faithful”, but if you stick around for a while, you guaranteed to witness an “event”. Once upon a time, there were vineyards in Greenland. IF oil is the result of dead dinosaurs, then either what is known about dinosaurs is wrong, or the area of Europe and North Dakota were once much much warmer than they are now.

      • michaeljbeglinjr

        The man who started the global-climate-change-is-killing-us trend has just admitted it was meaningless drivel. Now you are saying he is wrong. You can not have it both ways.

        Earth’s climate always changes. We have been breaking heat records set a hundred years ago. What was the cause of the warming back then? In the 1970s, scientists were predicting global freezing. I remember it had almost the same hysteria going for it as global warming enjoys today.

        I would be much more worried about a weather system that never changed. Why should we expect the weather to remain the same throughout our lifetimes? That is wishful thinking at best.

        There is a good book about this subject you may find interesting. It is called “Cool It” by Bjorn Lomborg. If you are still open to debate, then you may enjoy the book. If your mind is already made up by what the media has to say about it, then you probably won’t want to waste your time on it.

        The truth is, global warming has NOT been proven. Just because we are in a hot trend does not mean we will not go back to a colder one. Earth’s temperatures have more to do with solar activity than anything else. You must have seen how many flares the sun has been giving off over the last few years. The media has been talking about it quietly for a while now. The bad news is that the worst cycles are not due to come until the end of the year. We may have another brutally hot summer again next year.

        If you care to check, there are some icebergs and snow-packs returning or gaining in size. The media doesn’t have much to say about them, though. Some mountains that had lost their year-round snow on top are gaining it back. Only 5 corporations own every media news outlet in this country. You are only told what they want you to hear. Every one of those corporations have something to gain by global warming. Mainly money. Check out the tons of material delivered by impartial scientists online.

        Even if we were to have a slight temperature rise, what we be so bad about it? We would save millions of lives every winter by people not freezing to death. We lose more people to freezing each year than we do to heat. We could probably grow two rounds of crops in one season, or one incredibly abundant one, thereby feeding more people.

        If we really want to cut down on CO2, that would simply be stupid. How are you going to stop every animal on Earth from breathing? It is a shame that the vast majority of the public are proud of their ignorance, and do not bother checking out what the media tells them. Never believe anyone without checking for yourself. As Penn and Teller would say,”Global warming is Bull$hit!”. Peace.

      • marcjeric32

        Let me summarize this morbid affair. It started with the global cooling catastrophe in the 1970; then it continued, when that catastrophic cooling failed too materialize, with the global warming; after 12 years of substantial cooling the affait transformed itself into the climate change. So, whatever happens, we need a UN-sponsored world socialist government to save the planet. About 31,000 independent US scientists, including 9,200 of them with PhD degrees, say all of that is a criminal hoax.
        Marc Jeric, MS and PhD in Engineering, UCLA

      • pweiters9

        7/26/12, God knows we need more energy…….So, drill that funky oil well, white boy. So BO the door in Nov.

      • http://www.facebook.com/cesar.gonzalezbetancourt César M González Betancourt

        We must get to the truth and take the correct steps…..Is global warming false ?? Is it real ?? However, the statements made here against wing energy are without base……Germany and Spain are making ENORMOUS strides towards a goal of at least half of their electricity in the next few years from wind and solar……( Notice I did not say half of their energy, as there is a difference. ) Spain now produces over 20 % of her electric power with ” green ” energy : Solar, wind, and even some geothermal power from their northern region of Asturias……That nation is now number one in solar tower electric generation in the Andalusia region…..Their high speed rail is also phenomenal……..Why is it that the United States has to be different ???? We fight about everything, and if that doesn’t work, we pull out a gun and shoot everybody…..Jeeeessssss………You freekin right wing WACKOS !

        • marcjeric32

          There is a moron here praising the Spanish wind power program. Every job created there cost $350,000; Unemployment rate in Spain is 26%; their party lost power (its name is Spanish Socialist Workers Party (Partido Socialista Obreros Espanol) – the same as Hitler’s party was known except it was Deutsche National-Sozialistische Arbeiter Partei). Those wind turbines are now in disrepair, abandoned, and silent.

          • George E

            I get the impression that folks who want wind and solar power don’t care what it cost, so long as everyone else pays for it. They just want what they want.

      • John

        Retired American living in the Philippines. It’s downright “cold” over here. Maybe another ice age is coming.

      • David A Deal

        That’s the bottom line. Taking steps to save the planet are a win/win. If we err to the side of caution the down side is we reduced pollution. Not a bad down side.

        • George E

          David,

          Not a bad down side, UNLESS, we wreck the economy in the process. That unfortunately is a real possibility IF we do the things that are being proposed by the environmental left community. Sorry, but I’ll take my chances that the global warming theory is incorrect and therefore not necessary for me to surrender my liberties and money to the government to address this problem. If you disagree, please be my guest in doing whatever you think necessary, but please leave me out.

      • Sama

        And “global warming’ is the reason Bill Gates will be allowed to fund sending up a balloon full of poison over the heads of citizens “to see if has an effect on global warming”. Look up Balloon of carbon dioxide over New Mexico. See for yourself what this madness is leading to.

      • Chester

        John Illinois, does that ribbon say how many FEET of ice your sub had to break through to surface? I do know that for most of those surfacings, there was at least four feet of ice above before the sub punched through. Now you can go there in the summer and actually have clear water all around the sub when it surfaces. BIG change, don’t you think?

      • DEE

        YES!!! THE EARTH IS HEATING AND COOLING. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US BUT EVERYTHIN TO DO WITH WHERE THE EARTH IS POSITIONED IN THE UNIVERSE. WE ARE THE THIRD PLANET FROM THE SUN AND THE ONLY PLANET THAT HAS LIFE THAT WE KNOW OF. ALL OF OUR CHANGE HAVE TO DO WITH THE SUNS ACTIVITY. ALL OF THE ELEMENTS THAT EARTH IS MADE OF ARE ALL THE ELEMENTS LINKED TO THE SUN AND THE EARTH IS MAGNETICALLY DRAWN AND INFLUENCED BY IT’S ACTIVITIES. ALSO THE EVER CHANGING DISTANCES WE ARE POSITIONED IN WHEN WE ORBIT THE SUN YEARLY. JUST LIKE OUR BODY HAS THE ABILITY TO HEAL ITSELF AFTER SURGERY OR CUTS AND BRUISES THE EARTH ALSO REGENERATES OR RECYCLES ITSELF. ALL OF EARTH’S AVIVITIES ARE TRIGURED BY SOME TYPE OF COSMOS INFLUENCE.

        YES WE ARE THE BLAME FOR OUR POLUTANTS BUT NOT CLIMATE CHANGES. ICE CAPS MELT BUT THAT’S TO RECYCLE AND REPLACE DROUT ARES AND POLLUTED WATER WITH FRESH WATER. OUR MASSIVE HEAT WAVES THIS SUMMER IS CONTRIBUTED TO THE SOLAR STORMS AND EXTRA ACTIVITY HAPPENING ON THE SUN AT THIS TIME. SO LETS NOT PANIC PEOPLE WE’RE GONNA BE JUST FINE. WHAT WE NEED TO WORRY ABOUT IS THOSE CORRUPT POLITITIANS AND LYING LEADERS IN THIS WORLD.

        • Jeff

          I can see how certain you are by the AUTHORITY of your post. But, after due consideration, I’ll stick with scientists who have studied the matter and actually have some basis (other than political) for their opinions. Here is one former leading skeptic who, after receiving Koch money to study the issue, is a skeptic no more.

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

          • George E

            Just to keep the discussion balanced, here’s an opposing point of view:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE

          • Jeff

            The film, while it raises interesting points, clearly has an agenda. And that agenda is not objective science. This question about which comes first, the chicken or the egg, is not something recently discovered. You can tell when a piece is a hit job and not real science because the commentators act like the scientists on the other side, some of the most accomplished scientists in the world, don’t understand some fundamental point – like they’re bright Freshmen in some basic physics class. I don’t buy it. Take a look:

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

          • George E

            Jeff,

            Interesting article, but not compelling. A logical argument based on some good science and assumptions that seem reasonable, but may not be correct.

            The point I’ve been trying to make is that the proposed solutions to global warming are going to wreck our economy, so it looks like we’re headed for disaster whether there is man-made global warming or not, or whether we can actually do anything about it anyway. If CO2 emissions are a problem, and we do have to deal with them, it looks to me like the best solutions would involve converting CO2 emissions to something other than greenhouse gas or injecting it into oil fields to pressure them up so they produce more oil. The technology to do these things will likely be more economically available than generating all of our power from wind and solar cells and converting all of our engines to electric power. Ironically, I don’t see the government interested in developing technologies to clean up fossil fuels, but only those that replace them. This suggests to me an agenda, rather than trying to find the most economical solutions to this “problem” (if it really is one). Makes me all the more skeptical about whether there really is a problem or not.

          • Jeff

            It sounds like what we need is a great idea. Where’s Yogi Berra when we really need him? One response to the U-Boat problem was to drain the oceans. The practical side left a bit to be desired, but at least someone was thinking.

          • George E

            I agree. All of the “obvious” solutions have a severe downside. It’s going to be real tough getting though this one, especially if man-made global warming turns out to be a fact. That’s mainly the reason I really would like to disprove the theory. It makes our life a lot simpler.

          • Jeff

            We have to get off oil eventually. If we can do it sooner rather than later, it will be a bonus. And the country that can best innovate the world away from oil will be the leader. I just don’t know that that will be us if we continue to think in 19th century ways about 21st century problems. The solution is going to involve both industry and government working together.

          • George E

            Jeff,

            I don’t agree that we have to get off oil, at least not in the foreseeable future. That’s an assumption that helps support a logical argument for cutting CO2 emissions. If you are successful in selling the case that we’ve got to cut CO2 emissions by reducing/eliminating fossil fuels, the only “practical” answer to generating electricity in the short run will be via nuclear power. I hear that nuclear is not popular with the environmental crowd, so you should consider this possibility. There is just no way we can economically transition from coal to wind and solar in the next 50 years. If global warming is the pressing issue I keep hearing it is, then you’ll have to accept solutions that are “practical” or near practical right now. Basically, that means nuclear. Most other forms of energy, including bio-fuels, cannot be utilized because they release CO2. As I said before, going down the path of reducing CO2 emissions is going to be ugly for everyone. There is no pretty outcome. It’ll sure make life easier if we can forget about CO2 emissions and get back to developing our natural resources to help us dig our way out of our current financial mess. Otherwise, not only will the government be broke and financially disabled, but so will a great many American and global citizens as well.

          • Jeff

            I think the problem with nuclear has been more economic than environmental. Of course “Greens” have lots of reservations about the safety of nuclear power and the fact that the waste will be with us essentially forever. But considering that every Navy Base is full of nuclear reactors, the ship has somewhat sailed on those environmental concerns. Plus there may be ways to safely store the waste. The problem is the reactors are very expensive to build and are only good for 20 years. I think the limited number of reactors has more to do with that than with resistance from environmentalists.

          • George E

            Exactly. Since nuclear is probably our most economical alternative to fossil fuels, you can see that the cost will be huge. Thus problems for our economy and standard of living. This is not going to be easy, I’m afraid.

      • Jeff

        Dave, I hope you didn’t pay good MONEY for that movie because it’s nothing but a hit job. It’s thesis is that all the award-winning researchers missed the question of chicken-and-egg causation concerning CO2 and heat. Well, they didn’t and any honest attempt to get at the truth would have recognized that.

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

      • Susan

        Reason, with a neutral political agenda. Bravo to you!!!!!

    • eddie47d

      Now you are saying that freon and other CFCs didn’t exacerbate the hole in the ozone layer. Sure is strange that once those products were banned the ozone started to heal itself and close. I have seen nothing to refute the cause and effect from those CFCs.

      • Earthking

        CFCs had nothing to do with the ozone, idiot. Had anyone paid attention, they recognized that the hole closed each year for half the year. Suppose the CFCs were simply on vacation half the year in the ’80s and ’90s? Liberal idiots are the most uniformed, utopian nutjobs on the planet.

      • DaveH

        Why do you suppose, Eddie, that Governments across our country fight ozone pollution? If ozone pollution is a problem, why not just allow the Freon to fight it naturally at the ground level? Ozone layer depletion is a hoax, and as usual it was designed to help Crony Capitalists make money:
        http://rense.com/politics6/mythmnmade.htm

      • DaveH
      • Stan

        Yes Eddie , I’ll say that Freon has nothing to do with the ozone hole. While I am not a Scientist but an Auto Mechanic, and have repaired many air conditioners that used Freon 12 . Any time that I would check for leaks on a line I would run the sniffer along the bottom of the line . Same for a leak at the evaporator under the dash you would check for Freon on the floor . The reason that you check like this is that Freon weighs MORE than Air .Yes thats right pop a can of Freon and it will spray into the Air then it will settle down to ground level . So can all the “know it alls” please explain to Me how it gets 15 miles up to destroy the Ozone later ? Common Sence tells Me to follow the Money, Somebodys Patent expired (Dupont ?) and the Stuff was available everywhere for $1.00 a pound . So lets make up a (expletive deleted) story about the Ozone hole and get it outlawed and come up with a new Refrigerant with a fresh Patent and start making Money again.

      • Karolyn

        Welcome back, eddie!

      • eddie47d

        I didn’t go anywhere Karolyn I wasn’t allowed to post even though I tried for a month. Dave’s” proof “says that people in nuclear zones live longer and have more prosperous lives . (Such as the survivors of Nagasaki).Yes the wackos are still alive and well. That is why we can laugh at their credibility.

      • Phillip Maine

        CFCs have never had anything to do with Ozone. I had a prof in college run an experiment. He put oxygen and Ozone in a sealed container and introduced CFCs and the amount almost doubled. He then introduced sulfur monoxide that the industries put out and the Ozone disappeared. He then opened a valve and we saw the CFCs fall to the floor. Nothing heavier then Air can rise into the upper atmosphere. Look it up! you will find that CFCs are about 30% heavier then air. The Ozone hole healed because the planet had time to make the Ozone required to patch it after the volcano in the Philippines erupted. CFCs were outlawed because the patent that 3M had ran out and they could not make money. If you would do a little research instead of accepting the bull you could have discovered all of this.

      • eddie47d

        Thanks Phillips I will take that into consideration in why things are occurring.

      • Chester

        Earthking, when they talked about CFC’s destroying the ozone layer, they were NOT talking about the normal annual fluctuations, but major year after year changes. Please go back and re-read ALL the information on that instead of flapping your gums just to start a breeze the rest of us don’t really enjoy.

      • Chester

        Phil if everything heavier than air falls to the bottom, why,may I ask, are we not swimming in a sea of carbon dioxide? Seems it is even heavier than the ?CFC’s, yet it manages to find its way into the upper atmosphere. If CO2 can do that, the CFC’s can do it, so yes, they can and do find their way up to the ozone layer, along with the SO2 your professor released into that chamber. Incidentally, how did he mark the ozone so you could tell it from ordinary oxygen? One molecule of oxygen is awfully hard to see, especially when it is attached to two more.

        • George E

          Chester,

          I don’t know how the good professor analyzed the contents of the chamber, but one way would have been to take samples before and after the introduction of sulfur monoxide and analyzed them on an analytical instrument which I’m sure the chemistry lab had.

      • Dale left coast

        There are still holes in the ozone layer today . . . they tend to be above the poles . . . where solar radiation and cold seems to create them.
        The Freon thing was a ruse . . . the 25 year patent of freon was running out . . . so, to keep the deal going a substitute needed to be invented with a new patent . . . watch for R12 to become a problem in the near future. The largest producer of Flurocarbons on the planet is not man . . . it is Volcanoes.
        2000 years ago during the Roman period it was much warmer than today . . . 1000 years ago when the Vikings roamed it was much warmer than today. Were there folks driving SUV’s? Only the mentally challenged believe the Gorebull Warming schtick . . . Climate Change has gone on for MILLIONS OF YEARS . . . nothing happens that hasn’t happened before . . . They made up the data, fake computer models and even spokesman Al “the bore” Gore has now bought a mansion on the Calif. coast where he and Hansen told us 20 years ago the water would rise 30 feet.
        Anyone who thinks man can control the Klimate and by definition your local weather is on crack . . .

    • Gordon

      Horse hockey: YOUZ ain’t seen nothing yet…. This massive warming was predicted back in the 70s and it IS COMING to pass. Hey I am as fiscally and politically conservative as anyone, yet I have always been warning about the warming. Lots of people who rolled their eyes and disagreed with me 20-30-40 years ago are now singing another tune and asking for assistance. All the erratic weather is a consequence of the mild increase in the ocean and land temperatures totally altering the weather patterns. Facts are that NO ONE knows what and how much is too much. It is pretty much too late now to affect a slowing in the rate of increase that will be noticable in the next 50 years. Soon water will be a very very expensive commodity, as will everything that requires water for manufacture or use. (didnt you notice that the gov already controls all the water under and ON the continent??) 2012 marks the date that “life as we have known it” is coming to an end. politically and naturally. Keep your powder dry which shouldn’t be too difficult in the coming desert USA…… and hidden.

      • marcjeric32

        To put this whole conspiracy in terms of numbers, let me say that the projected world-threatening increase of carbon dioxide of 100 ppm (parts per million) by the end of this century would increase thermal absorptivity of the atmosphere by one-eighth of one percent; that is the definition of something totally negligible. On the other hand the sun cycles of cooling and heating are many thousands of times more powerful with regard to the carbon dioxide in the air; when the sun is in its cold cycle the oceans absorb billions of tons of it; and when the sun heats up the oceans release the carbon dioxide in quantities many thousands of times bigger than anything the mankind could produce. To illustrate this point in more accessible terms to somebody who is not a climatologist or a scientist or an engineer; the argument of catastrophic anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming issued by our panic driven socialist/marxist government-paid hacks is like saying that a burp of a lonely wolf in Alaska will transform Florida into a Sahara-like desert – tomorrow! Perhaps an even better example would be to argue that the Pissing Boy in Bruxelles will inundate the continents by the end of the week. As for that bloviating gasbag and “climatologist” Al Gore, Dr. James Hansen with his tirades designed to get him more taxpayers’ money and who started his career by the global cooling scam in the 1970’s, as well as for Dr. Mann who inverted cause and effect in his “studies”, for Phil Jones who destroyed faked data, and for the corrupt Maurice Strong who started the whole affair – they should be brought to the International Court in The Hague on charges of crimes against humanity.
        Marc Jeric (MS, PhD, Engineering, UCLA)”

      • Gordon

        well marc, that is impressive rhetoric.
        the fact remains that things ARE getting significantly warmer, and major earth changes are happening due to this warming. People arguing whose fault it is are just ridiculous.

        I have watched what has happened in the last 40 years, and climate wise it has been shocking. Socially it is unbelieveable.

        Facts are we don’t know what the climate report will be 20-30 years from now, but it doesn’t look promising. What are our grand children inheriting?

        Drought and dropping water tables are indicating a fearsome trend. Scarce water supplies and high water prices. Did you notice that our government owns all the water under the ground an on the ground. Even in the fish pond out in the pasture?

        Crops are dying, and this morning’s report says that half the US crops are dead, and another 35% grossly stunted. Food goes up, gas goes up. Inflation goes up.
        With an economic collapse comes the societal collapse which indicates starvation and massive criminal activity in every sector.

        Facts are that we humans must learn to turn out the lights, conserve where we can, and alter our preception that all will be fine as long as the sun keeps coming up. Fossil fuels are problems. Not necessarily directly in their burning, but the billions of tailings and ruination of the land where these natural resources are gotten.

        Our world’s failure to adjust will eventually cause the population to top out because the land and air will not sustain more. There won’t be food nor water for survival, and those hoping for air conditioning will find even stronger priorities in their lives.

        Marc if you are around 30 years from now you can argue that humans didn’t cause the problems but the socio-economic and climate/weather problems will still be there, staring you in the eye.

        Yep I am a right wing conservative tree hugger who sees reality as it is.

        • marcjeric32

          Hello Gordon – if you are a conservative. Have you observed when Washington DC is buried in snow it is only weather, but when temperatures 2 degrees higher than normal in Mid-America occur it is global warming?

      • Dale left coast

        Gordon . . . only getting warmer in your neighborhood and your mind . . . that’s called WEATHER ! ! !
        Not too warm in London these days . . . been watching the Olympics?
        Much of Europe just had a record cold winter . . . must be Gorebull Warming eh Gord?
        North western areas Washington, British Columbia had record snowfall last winter and long cool spring and Arctic Ice has been at NORMAL levels for many years now.
        The reality is there has been NO MEASURABLE WARMING SINCE 98 . . . .

    • Jeff

      It’s all just a plot to get your money. Nothing more.

      Keep believing that, Dave. Someday (maybe when the Limbaugh Mansion is under water), even the Republicans will accept the science behind global warming (even if they attribute it to Jesus having a fever). By then, it will, of course, be too late so they’ll blame the inaction on Al Gore or some other democrat. After all, we wouldn’t know the cause of all the flooding otherwise (like how the right likes to blame MLK for racial problems).

      If your kids see some of these posts in the future, it’ll be the equivalent of someone to day saying, “Look, Dad bought an Edsel.”

      • George E

        Jeff,

        The “science” behind global warming theory is terribly flawed. Beats me why anywone would want to turn over more money and more liberties to the government to solve a problem that probably doesn’t exist, and one they can’t solve anyway? This just isn’t rational thinking.

        • Jeff

          And we’re just to accept your “ruling” that the science is flawed? Maybe you need to look at the credentials of the deniers. I don’t mean the moronic bloggers, but actual scientists. How many of them work for, or get their grant money from, Exxon or other major oil companies? I’d be willing to bet it’s a healthy %.

          On the other hand, Conservatives want to attribute monetary motives to pure researchers. It’s the opposite. MIT doesn’t pay its professors and researchers based on political ideology. Can you say the same for Exxon or the Koch Brothers?

          • George E

            Jeff,

            If you’ll take the time to watch this video you may get a better idea why I’m skeptical that global warming is a man-made caused problem. I don’t want a dirty environment, but at the same time I don’t want an over-reaching government either. I think the pendulum has swung too far in that direction already and is seriously constraining our economy. I want to see more balance in the process. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE

          • Jeff

            How can it have swung too far when NOTHING has been done. There’s not been one piece of legislation passed restricting greenhouse gasses. There’s been discussion but no action.

          • George E

            Jeff,

            I understand, and glad we haven’t passed any green house gas reduction legislation. We don’t need it. It’s too expensive, and worse yet, CO2 emissions may not be causing a problem anyway. When I say the pendulum has swung too far, I’m referring to other legislation that’s already on the books. Our companies are struggling to deal with these regulations which is bad enough any time, but now is exactly the wrong time to add new regulations. We need to lighten the load on our companies to help them regain their confidence in the future.

          • Jeff

            Your opinion represents a legitimate point of view, I suppose. But you certainly can’t claim any pendulums have swung when we haven’t even begun to take action. I’m sure you’ll let us know when it is the right time for such regulations. How will you know?

          • George E

            Jeff,

            We’ll know it’s time to pass new legislation to limit green house gases when 1) we are certain that green house gases are causing a problem, 2) we know that there is a viable solution, and 3) we can afford the solution. In other words, the cost shouldn’t exceed the benefit. I don’t think we’re there yet.

          • shoppingsolution

            “Rob says: …if the pollution and the climate get to an unmanageable point,”. Good grief! So let me ask you Rob, when was the “climate” ever manageable at any point in recorded human history?

          • marcjeric32

            Typical name-calling and empty accusations by an enraged eco-nazi – I am talking about you, Jeff! I am just one of the 31,000 INDEPENDENT US scientists who have signed the statement that the anthropogenic global warming is a HOAX! And I never heard of “Koch brothers”, never recieved a penny from any oil company, never owned stock in them, and I have an MS and a PhD degree in Engineering from UCLA. I am also specialized in Heat & Mass Transfer and Thermodynamics. In that number cited above there are other 9,000 scientists with PhD’s in relevant disciplines. And now – what are your credentials, my dear Jeff, to accuse us of being paid agents of oil companies? Do you have a doctorate in anything – perhaps in Socialism, Marxism, Communism?

          • Jeff

            There was no name-calling until you got involved. Good night.

        • Jeff

          George:

          I don’t know what your background is, but I’m guessing you have less expertise than Richard Muller, noted physicist at UC Berkeley. Dr. Muller was originally a skeptic; he actually received funding from the Koch Brothers. He has studied the data and is no longer a skeptic.

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

          • George E

            Jeff,

            I’m not a scientist, but I have training in science and the scientific method. Probably like you, I consider myself a thinking individual that tries to make decisions based on my logical thinking with the data and information available to me.

            It’s interesting that Richard Muller finally decided that CO2 emissions from man-made processes is driving earth’s temperatures higher. It appears to me that he was always a skeptic of the theory, but after investing some time on a study funded by the Koch brothers, he finally came to the opinion that the theory is correct. As I say, that is interesting, but not enough to convince me. Call me a skeptic. I am open to new facts and opinions, but I will not change my mind based on guilt or intimidation from those who are convinced the theory is correct.

            Still, the bigger question may not be whether the earth is warming or not, or if it is, whether it is warming due to man-made CO2 emissions, but rather what could we do to slow or stop the trend toward even higher temperatures? Based on my study of this issue, there is little that we can practically do to contain temperatures, but we can do much to destroy the economy trying. Isn’t that pretty close to the bottom line?

      • Rob

        Since I don’t post here often, this is going to be a long post, but here it goes.

        George said:
        “Probably like you, I consider myself a thinking individual that tries to make decisions based on my logical thinking with the data and information available to me.”

        George:
        Good. I wish everyone used their brains and not let others make their decisions for them. We have to acknowledge that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to get everyone to agree on everything. Plus, we should try to be a little humble and not let our emotions get in the way of our critical thinking.

        George said:
        ” As I say, that is interesting, but not enough to convince me. Call me a skeptic. I am open to new facts and opinions, but I will not change my mind based on guilt or intimidation from those who are convinced the theory is correct.”

        George:
        You should not act on guilt, but, as you said before, use your thinking skills and make your own decisions. On the other hand, if your are really open to new facts and opinions, then you should be able to change your mind or at least question your ideas based on new evidence.

        George said:
        “Based on my study of this issue, there is little that we can practically do to contain temperatures, but we can do much to destroy the economy trying. Isn’t that pretty close to the bottom line?”

        George:
        You raise an interesting point, but I am skeptic that there is little we can do about containing temperatures. Though I am not a climate scientist, I am scientist and mathematician. I have rarely heard anyone saying that we cannot do anything about global warming.

        Global warming is not something new. It is something that has been talked about and studied for decades now. This is a VERY SERIOUS issue, and if we need to spend more money and time to understand it, so be it. We are not just talking about a few more hurricanes or storms or seas rising a little bit. The consequences could potentially be a lot more disastrous for humans and many other species.

        The status of our economy is a very serious issue too, and we have to deal with it as well. But, like I said on another post, we cannot just ignore the environment and keep polluting the air and waters, destroying ecosystems, letting species disappear… The economy is not going to fix itself, but the environment and the earth will not fix itself either. There may be a lot of things that are out of our reach, but there are certainly a lot of things that we can control to keep our environment clean and healthy for everyone, if we work together.

        Specifically in terms of global warming, because of the extent of its possible consequences, we humans need to continue to investigate the matter further and find out how much we can actually do, but not wait until is too late to start acting.

        Many people are trying to make the environment/climate a mainly political and economical issue. If you’re for the environment, you’re a liberal. If you’re not for environmental causes, oh you’re a conservative. Well, guess what? The earth does not give a rat’s ass what your political ideologies are. We all live in it, it is our only home, and we are all responsible for it.

        Here is a “funny” issue I think about sometimes. Suppose that everyone and everything turns out ok, and temperatures eventually go down and reach more normal levels. The global warming skeptics will probably say: “You see? We were right?! It was all a hoax!” or “We were worrying over nothing!” On the other hand, if this happens after strong measures are taken to protect and control climate, many will think that things got fixed because of those measures that were taken to reverse the process. Either way, there could still be debates about it. What I hope is that we never have to find out what the alternative situation is: that we find out we could have done something about the problem, but that it is too late to do anything about it.

        Some people are using the “argument” that global warming is like a religion. They use this in response to those who say that we should act and better be safe than sorry.
        The problem with this is that, in order to believe in a particular religion, all you need is faith. You cannot know for sure what happens after we die. Is there a heaven or a hell, etc.? On the other hand, when it comes, for instance, to global warming, you just need to look at the average temperature of the earth to see if it is true that the planet is getting warmer or not. Of course, this is not an easy (although possible) task, as it requires to look at long term temperature patterns. It also requires that you trust your sources and that you look at more than one piece of evidence. The problem is that many people form their own opinions before looking at the different types of evidence.

        I would challenge the global warming skeptics to try to convince themselves that global warming is real. The same way, those who are convinced that global warming is real should look at evidence against it and try to convince themselves that global warming is not real. If you understand my meaning, I think that this would be a good way to be able to see both points of view and understand the holes in each other’s arguments.

        • George E

          Rob,

          Thanks for the thoughtful response. I think you’ve made many good points. The bottom line for me is this. For the sake of argument, let’s say that the earth is warming due to man-made CO2 emissions (and as I said before, I think there’s a lot of room to be skeptical about that). The real problem getting people like me to sign-on to this theory, is the solution that’s proposed. If the solution wasn’t as bad as the problem, I wouldn’t care nearly as much. All of the solutions I’ve heard involve putting severe burdens on our economy which would end in economic disaster, in my opinion. I’m more convinced that the solution will harm us than I’m convinced global warming will harm us. If you can construct solutions which won’t harm the economy, then I think you’ll recruit many more skeptics to the cause. By the way, I don’t buy the notion that if the government sets up and heavily subsidizes clean energy companies that the economy will soar due to all of the folks that will get good paying jobs from this industry. I’ve seen the results of those kinds of actions, and I don’t like them. Come up with free market approaches that don’t involve anything more than tax relief on private capital investment or a few government loans that have a good chance of getting repaid, and you’ll get a lot more support from folks like me.

          • Jeff

            If you produce a product whose byproducts pollute the commons and you don’t pay for the clean-up, does that not amount to a public (ie Government) subsidy? It distorts the market because the producer profits from his failure, rendering the apparent cost of the product to be less than its actual cost (if the producer had to pay to clean the commons).

            Isn’t this exactly what’s gone on for the past century? I’m sure the same “it will destroy the economy” arguments were made against abolishing slavery. Some things are more important than the short-term economic fortunes of Exxon.

          • George E

            Rob,

            Sorry, but that line of thinking just doesn’t sway me. I’m not convinced that CO2 emissions are harmful to the environment, so I can’t support the government putting additional taxes and regulations on companies to reduce them. I do believe that would be harmful to the economy.

          • Jeff

            Then who should pay the cost of cleaning the commons or environment? I’m not talking about CO2 in particular but any pollutant. If we do it collectively through the EPA doesn;’t that amount to a government subsidy?

          • George E

            Jeff,

            You should first establish that CO2 is really harmful to the environment, and the degree of harm, before levying fees and taxes on companies for doing what civilizations have done for thousands of years; ie, burn fossil fuels to make heat. And, by that, I don’t mean just get a favorable decision in a court of law. The government has the power to make decisions like this and force companies to do whatever they want, regardless whether the decision will be looked upon in a hundred years as correct or not. Society should be convinced and understand the enormous cost to them for going down that path. When you get that, then you can levy all the fees and taxes you want because you have the support of the folks who will ultimately pay the bill. Short of this, you just push our society into a very unstable state and public confusion.

            Let me just say that this country is probably going to go into some sort of financial default in the next few years whether we pursue global warming solutions or not. Adding things like this to our burden is just going to make our financial problems all that much more difficult. One of the only things we’ve got going for us financially right now is our ability to extract more natural resources, especially natural gas and crude oil from our lands. This can bring a lot of revenue to us at a time we really need it. If we choose not to take advantage of this, and force our businesses to shut down or move to other countries (that don’t have such severe regulations) because they don’t use the correct power sources or can’t get the correct power sources, then we limit our options in managing this very difficult financial problem, and will indeed make our financial problem very much worse. So, please keep this in mind and be very, very careful in pushing a new program like this until we are absolutely sure we have no other better choices. I don’t think we’re there yet.

          • Rob

            George:

            I never mentioned CO2 explicitly, since I am not talking just about global warming but the environment in general. I do not support the idea that the economy comes first, above all else, and that if we need to pollute and even destroy our protected places (such as national parks, beaches, etc.) for the sake of extracting oil, natural gas, etc. that we should just go ahead and do it. If we need to be careful about the regulations that are imposed on companies in terms of environmental protection, then we also have to be careful in terms of how we allow companies to extract and use our natural resources. Both things go hand in hand. Lot’s of things would be good for the economy, but that doesn’t mean that everything we could do would be acceptable. We need to look at the consequences of each option.

            It is clear to me that, no matter how much evidence is out there about the things that we need to do to protect the environment and control climate change, there are always going to be those who are against regulations for the sake of money. I am not saying that everyone who denies global warming or is against environmental regulations cares mostly about money. But those who make millions in such industries that create pollution that harms our environment are the most likely to complain and find arguments against regulations.

            The bottom line is this We need to get everyone on the same page. We need to get everyone to understand that the environment is a critical issue, and it is just as, if not more important than the economy, because it affects everyone in the planet. Without a healthy environment, there would be no economy or any of us to worry about.

          • Jeff

            I agree. Do we serve the Economy or is the economy supposed to serve us?

          • George E

            Jeff,

            I agree, but let’s be careful not to drag down the economy in our efforts to do all these “good” things. Without a strong economy we don’t have the means to tackle the issues you feel so strongly about.

          • Jeff

            I think the “damage” to the economy has been grossly exaggerated. Yes, hydrocarbons might get more expensive, but that accurately reflects their true cost. Republicans don’t want to subsidize solar energy but they don’t have any problem with the current massive subsidies given the oil industry by not factoring into the price of oil the cost of cleanup of its byproducts. Robert Kennedy, Jr. wrote a book about this a few years ago.

            With the right incentives, you might find the advances in solar and other technologies will come much quicker. Plus, electric cars are available now. With economies of scale, they should come down in price, leaving their main detriment their limited range. A distribution network would need to be established for quick charges or for switching the battery (like propane exchanges). It is definitely doable but will take some effort. It appears to be the wave of the future.

          • George E

            Jeff,

            I think you’re dreaming. You know the answer you want, so you’re forcing the available information to fit the outcome you want…………

          • Jeff

            The problem is we, as a society, are living beyond our means. By paying $3.50 for a gallon of gas when the true cost is higher, we’re getting by every month without paying the environmental credit card bill. You can do that for a while, but eventually the bill comes due. And there’s no Chapter 13 when the Creditor is Mother Nature!

          • George E

            Jeff,

            I agree with the concept that sound classical economic principle would require us to acknowledge all real costs and have the generators of those costs pay them at competitive market rates. If we’re not doing that, then you are correct in your assertion that eventually the bill will come due. Without having all the facts, I’m sure we’re guilty of doing some of that. Every time politics gets involved in making laws, setting regulations, establishing taxes, or forcing us to do anything we wouldn’t otherwise choose to do, economics suffer to some extent. Can you cite any general examples of polluters who aren’t currently paying the bill for cleanup…………other than CO2 emissions? That is a much more difficult issue.

          • Jeff

            Well, I can’t cite chapter and verse, but I can say that where polluters are paying, it’s because of regulation, so it is the regulation that makes the market operate properly. As a general proposition, I think that’s true. If you want a truly free market, you’d better have some governmental regulation or there will be concentrations of wealth, information, influence etc. that will absolutely distort the market.

          • George E

            Jeff,

            I couldn’t either. That’s why I asked. I thought I might be overlooking something. Anyway, everyone and every company I can think of that’s caught polluting, is charged with cleaning up the mess. I also know that we are paying for many pollution avoidance devices that our suppliers are forced to provide, like emissions control devices on our cars, for example. In fact, when I think about it, I can’t think of any industry that hasn’t had to add something in their processes and/or products to comply with one or more EPA regulations. All of these have driven up the prices of just about everything we buy. I realize that some, or all of these, have indeed contributed to our clean air and water that we enjoy today, but I’m pretty sure some have not, or at least enough to justify their cost. These kind of costs constrain our economy, because if it wasn’t for them, that money could be deployed in more productive ways.

            As I stated in previous posts, I’m not a pure anti-government kind of guy. I don’t have any problem with “good” government regulations. I think they are necessary in a civilized society. I don’t like “bad” government regulations, however, and I do think we’ve got far too much of them today. These “bad” regulations cost us much in higher costs that are forced on our economy. Let’s clean those up and be very, very careful in deploying new regulations. As I said, some regulations are helpful, and some are not. Let’s not define this discussion as “liberals want regulations” and “conservatives don’t.” It’s not that simple. If we can agree that some regulations are helpful and some aren’t, and are willing to spend a considerable amount of our time and effort in cleaning up existing regulations while implementing new ones very carefully, I would guess we could get about 100% agreement from everyone (except those in government who benefit from all the laws and regulations). I can’t imagine anyone really disagreeing with this political philosophy.

          • Jeff

            Have you read some of the posts on this blog? Have you listened to the Republicans running for President? I have never heard a Republican say the word “regulation” when it wasn’t preceded by the word “unnecessary.” Likewise, “lawsuit” and “frivolous.” I know most of them can’t actually be as rigid and intransigent as they sound, but how do we know? Rick Perry wants to close down half the government; Grover Norquist wants to drown it in the bathtub, and Romney is running to the right of everyone who’s ever lived.

            You seem like a reasonable person. If you are a Republican, you are an endangered species in that party. They say at this rate the Republicans will cease to exist in a few years. I’ve heard it before. In 1972, I was a senior in high school. Pete McCloskey was a liberal Republican Congressman, probably the only Republican who opposed the Viet Nam War. He was begging some of us to become Republicans because otherwise the Party would die. Nixon was President and the idea of joining the enemy didn’t hold much sway. But the party bounced back quite nicely without us. It found new friends – south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

          • George E

            Jeff,

            Thank you for the compliment. I don’t see any reason we can’t talk to each other and share our opinions, even if we disagree. I’ve got a few liberal friends who I like and admire very much. We just don’t agree on all priorities, but we do typically share common values which is the most important thing. Since you asked, I’ll share some of my political thinking and background with you, so you’ll kknow who you’re talking to on this web site.

            I’m a long time conservative and Republican. I am very comfortable in the party. My first vote for President was for Richard Nixon. I’m not proud of some of the things he did, but considering the times, I still am not ashamed of that vote. I do recall arguing with my dad when I was in college, I think, about whether he should vote for Goldwater or not. I bought into Johnson’s big government ideas. I thought we should fight the communists in Viet Nam and everywhere else we needed to, and I also thought money was not a problem, so we should engage in all of the other social programs that Johnson wanted as well. Dad was for Goldwater, and at the time I thought that was crazy. Later on, I came to believe Goldwater had better ideas. Many of the big government programs we’re struggling with today came out of the Johnson-Nixon-Carter administrations. They’ve just continued growing and growing almost without bounds until we can no longer afford them, at least in their expanded forms.

            I believe in free markets, and small efficient government. I want equal justice under the law and equal opportunity for everyone, but not equal outcomes. In general, people should be rewarded based on the merits of their work, not anything else. I want to simplify our laws, regulations, and tax code. I’m not generally in favor of giving government subsidies (other than tax credits) to any company or industry. I’m also not in favor of protecting certain industries or companies from competition, even global competition. I think we ought to keep tax rates as low as possible and government as efficient and small as possible. We need to let the private sector drive our economy, not government programs.

            My thinking is very libertarian in many ways, especially as relates to economics. When you get into social issues, I have mixed opinions. For instance, I don’t like the government interfering too much in our private lives and businesses, but I don’t abide with abortion as birth control, especially late term, nor do I want to exactly legalize drugs. I can imagine a way of providing drugs free of charge to persons who come to a government controlled clinic and also participate in reabilatation programs to try to get them off the drugs. This would document the drug users, take a lot of the cost out of drugs, thereby reducing drug related crimes, I think.

            My favorite economists are Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and Art Laffer. I believe these guys understand the secrets of what makes the economy work. I trust their writings and opinions almost as much as I trust the Bible. I attended one Tea Party event, and came away convinced this is a good group with a worthy cause; ie, lower taxes and smaller government. These were mostly middle aged folks, some holding signs that they had made at home. No two signs were the same and weren’t professionally printed. They did not yell, hollar, nor litter. At the same time, I saw liberal supporters at this event. They arrived on a chartered bus, and as they got off the bus were handed pre-printed signs. They were told where to march in a circle and what to chant as they marched. When they left, some yelled insulting things at us and some gave us the one-fingered hand signal. This simply validated my opinion that I was aligned with the right side.

            I am Christian, and convinced our national culture is going down the drain. This can be evidenced by the number of single mothers raising children, among other things. I also don’t particularly like the way our culture has been sexualized. While you and I may be able to handle this OK, I think it has a harmful effect on our children. I don’t dislike gays and lesbians, but I don’t like the way our media and culture have endorsed their lifestyle. I don’t talk about my sexual preferences in public, and I don’t want to hear anyone else’s. I don’t like the way liberals want to control our guns. I’ve been in the military and lived with hunters all of my life, and I’ve never seen any of them commit a crime with their guns. I have seen a couple of instances where their guns and training might have avoided a criminal act, however. I also don’t like the way liberals have endorsed the athiest cause of removing all references to God and religion, especially Christian religions, from public places. This country has a long history of being Christian, and much of our laws are based on Christian teachings. It is a terrible mistake to remove these teachings, especially if they are not replaced with other universal moral and ethical teachings.

            I will enthusiastically vote for Mitt Romney in November. While he is not everything I would like in a politician, I do believe he shares my values and priorities. Frankly, I find very little in common with President Obama. It is clear to me that he has a definite basic leaning toward socialist/big government solutions and really doesn’t understand free market economics nor what businesses need to grow and prosper. He seems to believe it is more important to achieve social justice (by redistribution of our money and giving unequal justice to certain minorities and political allies). Mitt has, however, come from a business background and has a track record of being successful. In summary, I believe Romney is more likely to get our country back on a solid financial footing than Obama who has shown no serious interest, so far as I can tell, in balancing the federal budget short or long term. To me, I think this is probably our most important priority right now. I can’t even think about starting a new social program until we clean up the messes we already have to deal with. As some will say, I think this election could be the most important election in our lifetime, and if we get it wrong, this country may very well cease to exist as we know it. I believe this is true…….

            I appreciate your civility, and hope we might be able to continue these discussions.

            Thanks.

          • Rob

            This is Rob.
            It seems that you have very strong reasons for your opinions.

            I consider myself a Christian as well, although I do not belong to any particular denomination. As Jesus, I stand with the marginalized, the discriminated against, the poor, the abandoned, the ill, those who suffer, etc. I hate to say it, but it seems that most of our society, especially most of those who consider themselves conservatives and religious people, stand with the powerful and the rich. They use arguments about merit and reward to justify their attitudes toward the poor and others like them, without considering that many of those who are wealthy and have power have committed and are committing injustices themselves and/or are playing the system and/or have stepped over others to get to where they are. Not only that, but they have a lot and want even more. They tend to be arrogant, they accuse those who have little for their own disgrace (something that Jesus hardly if ever did). It is a reality that, in our country, to succeed we need some luck and money. Brains and enthusiasm alone don’t always do it. We also need good health, education, and the means to move forward. It is a reality also that if you have money it becomes easier to make money. Those who invest and play the market can do it because they can afford. In the meantime, there are lots and lots of people who struggle to just get by one more day. Many people take advantage of the system, that is true. A lot of people just expect everything to be handed to them, collect unemployment and/or other types of coupons and aid (I know a few people like this). At the same time, with the economy as it is, and with the lack of opportunities and jobs, it is not right to expect that everyone who is not working can just go and get a job, because they may just not be able to find it (I knew several cases like this too). It is also not right at all to disregard to needy, the ill, etc. Jesus never said anything like “if you’re poor or sick that’s your problem”. He stressed out the need and responsibility of everyone to love and help each other. Even his mother, Mary, said “He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty”. In complete opposition to this, the rich in this country want even more benefits: more tax breaks to supposedly create jobs, more opportunities to invest; at the same time, many of them want to actually increase the burden on the (disappearing) middle class and the poor. This is unacceptable, and many in our society have become desensitized and blinded to this situation by their distorted priorities.

            I agree with you when it comes to abortion and really any life and death issue. I consider myself liberal on social issues but more “conservative” life or death issues. I am against abortion, death penalty (which somehow most supposedly religious Republicans support), war, etc. I am not saying those things are never merited. I think there might be some extreme circumstances where war, for instance, is justified. Any of this things, in my point of view, could be merited if there are no other options. But war, abortion, death penalty, and others happen way too often, way more than actually justified.

            I can see your position in terms of the gays. I am a gay person and I believe in equality. I know this is a very controversial and hot issue, especially in present times. But history has taught us that it was not very different when blacks and women started fighting for their rights, and many religious people used the Bible against them (many still do). In terms of the Bible, I believe there are many things that in our days we do not follow: such as women speaking in the temple or always obeying their husbands or many other things (refer to Corinthians and other books of the New and especially the Old Testaments). I believe that the Bible has to be read carefully and we have to respect each other when it comes to its interpretation, as it was written over a long time span, a long time ago, by many different people. There in are also many translations of the Bible, many of which do not necessarily reflect the original texts (and we don’t even have original manuscripts of the books, only copies of them). Specifically when it comes to the gays, I think we need to follow our conscience and realize that a person does not choose their sexual orientation (a concept that, as we know it, did not exist in the times of Jesus or before). There is a lot that could be said in this respect, but there is one thing I do agree on. I think that the way the gays, bis, and others are portrayed by the media tends to stigmatize them. There are many gays that act in certain ways, especially at pride parades and fests, etc. that unfortunately do not represent how most of us really are, including many of the ones that participate in those festivities. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying I am against pride fest and parades. But, in my own opinion, some of them make it look to others, especially the ones who don’t understand us or are against us, that we are all sex addicts and perverts. In reality, most gay, bi, etc. people are just like anyone else, but I think many of them use those festivities and other means as ways to express their diversity and uniqueness, and at the same time their discontent with the way that traditional society treats them. Fortunately, even many Christians and Christian denominations are waking up to this truth: we are just people, like everyone else, and God should not be used as an excuse to discriminate against them or anyone else who is different. God loves everyone and accepts everyone. Yes, God hates the sin, but loves the sinner. I agree with this. The problem is that many people have different ideas on what’s right and right, even those who follow the same religion and read the same sacred book.

            As it is with the debate between economy vs environment, deniers vs supporters, I think everyone would do good in looking at the other side of the coin. We need to be humble and admit that we don’t know everything. There are things we know and things that we think we know but may change as we gather more information. There are things we can corroborate and things we just need to have faith on. Not everything is debatable, but not everything is absolute either.

            I’ve written too much now, so I’ll let my hands rest now :-) . Have a good day.

          • George E

            Rob,

            Wow. Very nice and thoughtful response. I really appreciate the time you took sharing with me. Sorry for calling you Jeff. I’ve been corresponding with both you guys and I guess I just got mixed up.

            I’m heterosexual. However, my wife and I have known a few gay people (that we were aware of) over the years. We were discussing this a few days ago, and both agreed that these were some of the nicest people we had ever associated with. So, I hope I haven’t said anything in my posts that offended you in that regard. If I have, I apologize.

            You made several comments about helping the poor that I would like to comment on. I don’t think there’s ever been a time in our country’s history that people haven’t wanted to help the truly needy, that is, people who really can’t help themselves. Traditionally, charity has been a pretty strong cultural value in this country. It used to be stronger, I think, when folks in the community helped other folks in their community. Now that the government has gotten involved, people are losing their charitable spirit. I will agree that government programs do give a bit more certainty to recipients and probably more uniformity across the nation than individual communities can provide. However, they are also taking the individual spirit out of charity. People don’t get a good feeling helping their neighbors anymore like they did before the government got so involved. Today, we just give the government our money and they distribute as they see fit. We’ve lost that human involvement like we used to have. Also, the recipients of this “charity” no longer think of it as “charity” from their neighbors, but rather an entitlement from our government, so the recipients are losing their reluctance in asking for and receiving payments from the government. This is not good for the human spirit. Finally, the government has, and continues to expand these social programs to cover all Americans, not just the needy. This is really where “the train really jumped the track,” in my opinion, because once these programs are expanded to that level everyone takes advantage of them without regard to how much they cost or where the money comes from, and costs cannot be contained.

            Regarding the wealthy getting richer while the poor gets poorer, I cannot deny that this does tend to happen. The caveat to that is that the wealthy, especially in this country, often come out of the middle class, and just as often fall back into the middle class when they lose their wealth. There are some, I will admit, that are born into wealth, and they remain there over time through their own efforts and often with the help of good professional councilors. Let’s face it, that’s playing the game smart, even if they have advantages the rest of us don’t have, and probably will never get. In general though, people tend to get wealthy through their good luck and their hard work. I know a number of people that fit into that category. I also know that for most it’s usually not easy attaining great amounts of wealth. You often start by being a good student in school, getting a good education, selling yourself to a corporation, working long hours to get promotions (often sacrificing family life in the process), gaining as much experience and networking with as many people as you can, then going into business for yourself at some point, and working even harder, often for less pay for years while you reinvest everything you make back into the business, living off the few bucks you were able to scrape together while you worked for the corporation, until finally business picks up to a point where you can finally start taking a salary, and then setting aside some in savings. Most people I know that have come into money have gone down a path similar to this. Most are small business owners. They feel they are entitled to the earnings they have achieved, and don’t appreciate it when others say they don’t deserve the wealth they’ve gotten. In general, I agree with them.

            I would also like to say that in Adam Smith’s book, Wealth of Nations, he talks about the invisible hand. He uses this symbolism to describe how capitalist free markets works. That is, there are a few enterprising soles out there that are willing to work hard, invest money and take the risk of losing it or not making any money while paying employees a steady salary for helping him/her build the business. Even though these entrepreneurs are in business to make money, primarily for themselves, they hire employees and pay them salaries and benefits to help in the business. They may be greedy by nature, but the employees still benefit from these businesses. This is the invisible hand at work. This just recognizes that human nature being what it is, everyone looks out for their own interests first, but that has the side benefit of helping others as well. This is why the profit motive is a good thing, and everyone benefits from it, not just the “greedy” business owner. In contrast, other forms of government that try to remove the “greedy” factor in favor of each person working for the common good, more often than not fail to achieve the same level of prosperity that capitalist economies do. By the way, there is, and probably will always be a separation of wealth between the wealthy and others. This occurs in all forms of governments and economies, not just capitalist economies. At least in capitalist economies, the wealthy should have gotten that wealth by serving the needs of others (customers, bosses, etc.), not through the political system by being well connected in the government.

            That’s about all I have to say for now. Take care, and thanks again.

          • Rob

            The way I see it, we need both roles: businesses and government. Small and large businesses can provide jobs to many (although the government does to a smaller scale), and should provide opportunities for people to grow and become successful. That, said, one cannot always equate success with money. That’s one of the problems. Tax cuts, for instance, may reward those with a high income, but do not necessarily account for success and contribution to society in general. A regular “Joe” does not have the means to hire people to take advantage of loopholes in the system to avoid taxes. That’s where the rich and powerful become even more powerful. Then the burden falls on everyone else. I think the government needs to be there to step in and, one would hope, make sure that excesses are avoided. If everything were in hands of the free market and competition, a lot of people would get screwed (much more than they are already). Only a few would succeed. We need the government to regulate so that the excesses, discrimination, injustice, etc. are minimized. For instance, if there was no minimum salary, many businesses would take advantage of this and pay people next to nothing. I’ve even heard people say: “They should be glad they have a job. Little is better than nothing.” That is not a valid excuse at all! That is slavery and it is disgusting and inhumane, to say the least. There is no place for such attitudes in a truly civilized country.

            The unfortunate reality is that the government has become too influenced by corporations themselves. Money decides pretty much everything, even the outcome of elections. Whoever has the most money to advertise and attack the other party has the advantage. That to me is shameful. It makes a mockery of the concept of democracy.

            In terms of the environment (since that’s what this thread is about), a lot of effort and time is being spent also trying to find holes and arguments to attack the “tree huggers” and “global warming fanatics”, as some people put it. I hate that matters like this, in particular, are made MAINLY political and economical by some instead of looking at them as a scientific issue, which is what it is. The economics and politics relating to it are inherently associated to the environment and the climate, but do not define those issues, not matter what some people say. True scientists are and should be unbiased, and do not let special interests or their own preconceptions decide what the true outcome will be…

          • George E

            Rob,

            My thoughts to some of your comments:
            - Our tax system rewards the wealthy: There is no doubt that there are more tax credits (loopholes) for wealthy taxpayers than others. Actually, that doesn’t bother me because wealthy taxpayers pay more in taxes than others, so they should get greater credits. Our lawmakers wrote these credits in the tax law because they were convinced they were necessary to incentivize investment in certain areas and/or bring more fairness to the law. On the surface, I don’t have a problem with this, but it is true that these credits almost never expire, and the lobbying process appears to be corrupt at some level especially as it has affected campaign contributions and other support from companies and other organizations that lobby for these credits. Having said that, our tax system is very progressive. That is, the wealthiest taxpayers pay the highest tax rates and the most tax revenue disproportionately to their total income. The poorest taxpayers pay very little or nothing in federal income tax, and many even get a check because their income falls below a prescribed level. If I had my preference, I would create a tax system that is simple with a lower, flatter tax rate, with few, if any, tax credits (loopholes). I also think everyone should pay something in income tax, and no one should get a check back. If people don’t have any skin in the game, then they have no compulsion to voting for other people’s tax rates to go up so theirs won’t. This is just wrong thinking, and may lead to financial disaster at some point. I think I would be OK with a consumption tax because it would seem to be the simpliest method of collecting taxes, and couldn’t discriminate between people or companies or industries, except by tax rates for certain types of products.
            - Minimum wage: Classical economics tell us that labor in a free market should be paid according to supply and demand, not according to price controls established by the government or anything else that would affect supply or demand. This is he way products and services should also be treated in a true free market. That is, those with the rarest (most in demand compared to supply) products/services (including labor skills) should be paid more than those with the most available (and least in demand) products/services/labor. Basically, this is how job pay rates are determined up and down the job ladder, except at the very bottom. While it seems compassionate to set a minimum wage, in a competitive market, it is not. I will grant that a minimum wage makes “some” sense in a monopolistic market, especially one the government has created, because this is not a free market. However, even here when politicans start manipulating prices and costs in the market, they invaribly will screw it up worse than if they just left it alone and let the market work. In the free market, people will sell their time for a rate that they think their time is worth, and employers will pay a rate that they think they have to pay to get and keep good labor for the kind of job being done. The lowest paid workers are usually the least skilled workers where the number of workers may exceed the number of jobs available. Naturally, you shouldn’t expect companies to offer these workers top pay. However, at low pay rates many workers, especially those just getting into the market, get an opportunity to get some business experience and start building their work skills which can help them to work their way up the pay ladder over time. It also gives them an incentive to work hard and improve their skills. Government’s involvement in this process distorts the free market which overpays some workers and shuts out many new entrants into the job market. It also encourages many young people, especially those in some minority communities, to drop out of school to go to work when they can get a job and the pay, even though low, seems like a lot to them at the time. This is one example how the minimum wage distorts the market and causes more long term suffering among the poor than it should.
            - Government has become too influenced by corporations: This may be true, but if it is, you can probably extend that to unions, political parties, political action groups, and just about every other group in this country that has an agenda and wants government money and/or regulations to help them achieve their objectives. I don’t see the corporations as the problem, but rather the money that we give our government to dole out as they see fit. If the money weren’t there, you would see a whole lot less lobbying and corruption, in my opinion. So, for me the solution is not to limit free speech, but to reduce the amount of money we allow the government to take from us in taxes, etc. to pay for all that corruption we don’t like.
            - Science shouldn’t be affected by politics: I agree. However, when politicians take a stand for one cause or the other down party lines, you can bet the subject is politicized and no longer a pure scientific endeavor. At that point, the scientists have lost control of the subject. Everything they say is cheered by one side and jeered by the other according to the outcome supporters want, not facts alone. So, I think if politicians would keep their noses out of these matters and scientists wouldn’t join or support political action groups to get politicians involved, you might have more confidence that the science wasn’t corrupted. Likewise, scientists should make a supreme effort to remain as objective as possible, not stating political opinions or joining/supporting political parties, always open to new information, and not so committed to one outcome or the other if they are to be taken seriously as scientists. Let’s face it, very few can pass this test today.
            - Effort spent trying to find “holes” in environmental theories: Actually, this is a good process. If the situation was reversed where conservatives were proposing a new theory, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t have any problem with liberals challenging the theory. This is democracy, and good so long as everyone is working with the same “facts” and only arguing interpretations and solutions. When one side lies or distorts the facts, then that’s a problem, I think. As far as name calling is concerned, liberals have many derogatory names they often call conservatives, like “stupid”, “flat earth proponents”, “racists”, “bigots”, “crackers”, “right-wing radicals”, and many more. We all take offense to these names, so everyone should stop denegrating others because we have different opinions.

          • Rob

            “Wealthy taxpayers pay more…”

            This is true mostly as a total dollar amount, but not as a proportion of their salary, which makes a huge difference. For a fixed average cost of living, a person earning a lot more than they need is not be affected as badly by tax than someone who earns exactly as much as they need or maybe a little more to survive. That’s why the tax system, as it is now, is unfair. I agree with you that the tax system should be a flat tax rate for everyone. This would be the ideal setting, in my opinion. That’s why giving a bunch of tax cuts to the super wealthy (who don’t really need them), plus the very poor not paying taxes, leaves the rest of us in the middle class with worst of the burden. It’s not fair to ask less of those who can do more, and to ask more of those who can do less.

            In terms of minimum wage, I agree with what you stated, but that only works in a fair system, where businesses are not looking to exploit their workers. Even with a minimum wage, a lot of people are still struggling to survive on what they make, so I find it extremely hard to believe that things would be any better without minimum wage. Those with the money and power will look to hold on to what they have even tighter, that is just how things are. Look at the tax cuts. They have been there for years and the wealth has not been “trickling down” as supposedly it would. So those who defend the tax cuts for the super wealthy seem to be confused or overlooking these facts or are simply being hypocrites. The cuts are not doing what they should be. I am not going to say that the government spending should not be reduced. Of course the government is also spending too much, but the economy cannot be fixed only by reducing spending. It is just very unlikely to happen at this point.

            In terms of the other points, government plus corporation, corruption, and science, my biggest problem is “corporate personhood” in the way it is used to manipulate the system. A group of people is not a person. Most regular people do not have the money, resources, and power to achieve their goals as group of people or corporation have. (Also, to clarify. When I talk about the government, I also mean politics, parties, elections, etc.) I think, as I believe you do too, that money should be kept out of politics as much as possible. That’s where most of the corruption comes from. Otherwise, the system is basically controlled by those with the most money and their interests, so not the people’s interests, but a particular group of people’s interests are going to be served. I think any reasonable person can agree that that is the case.

            In terms of name calling, I agree with you. All sides should try to refrain from using derogatory terms. Unfortunately, people get emotional, and I understand that perfectly, because it happens to all of use, especially when it has to do with things that we feel strongly about.

            Gotta go back to work now…

          • George E

            Rob,

            One of the primary reasons some wealthy people pay a lower percent of their income in federal income taxes than middle income people is that most of a wealthy person’s income comes from his/her investments, not wages. Long term investment income is taxed at 15% (capital gains) while wages are taxed at higher rates, up to about 35%. Plus there is no doubt that wealthy people usually have more deductions than middle income people. It has been determined that taxing investment income at 15% is fair because 1) the money is at risk of being lost, and 2) we want to incent investors to invest their money to stimulate the economy. Liberals have been arguing that the capital gains tax rate should be higher for a long time. Now they are doing it again “through the back door” by telling us the ultra wealthy don’t pay their fair share. This is a complicated issue and if the capital gains tax rate is increased it will fundamentally affect a shift in capital investments in this country. One of the ways the wealthy will respond to a higher capital gains tax rate will be to invest in offshore accounts where their returns are not automatically reported to the IRS. I don’t think this argument by the liberals is what it appears on the surface and won’t produce the results claimed. Besides, what is “fair” to one person is “unfair” to another.

            It might be instructive to look at low wage workers in emerging countries where they don’t have a minimum wage. Employers have no problem filling every job they open up. The reason people will clamor to take these jobs and work hard to keep them is that they are trying to better their lives. If there was a minimum wage, employers wouldn’t be able to hire as many employees. Everyone wants a higher wage, but the way to get it is to get on the ladder at whatever level you can and work your way up the ladder.

            Ask yourself why companies spend the time and money that they do to lobby our politicians? They want favors. These come in terms of money and regulations, including tax credits (that favor their business). Sometimes we would agree with what some of these companies are trying to get, but sometimes we don’t. Just depends on your perspective. In any case, they are required to go to Washington to lobby because the government holds a heavy hand over them. So, again I will say that if regulations and the tax code were simplified and we didn’t give the government as much money (and credit) to distribute to companies, organizations, causes, etc. as they see fit, then there wouldn’t be nearly as much lobbying going on. Even if campaign contributions are further restricted as they have been in the past, there would be nothing done to limit lobbying.

            Take care.

          • Rob

            I do not believe that many companies would not try to take advantage of their employees and pay them as little as possible (and their employees would be willing to take, especially if they are desperate) if there was not minimum wage. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this topic.

            In terms of tax cuts, I believe I mentioned before that I am ok with companies (small and large) getting incentives, just as tax cuts, so they can invest, as long as they create well paid jobs here at home and they contribute to the community. My issue is with individual taxpayers. If an individual wants to invest their own personal money, that’s a different issue. I believe that individual people, at least ideally, should pay the same percentage in taxes.

          • marcjeric32

            Minimum wage is good? what is it now – $7.50/hr? How about $12 or $40 or even $100? Why is the unemployment rate among inner city young black males 50%? A typical such male has a GED given to him by a politically correct unionized teacher who does not want to be accused of racism. The young man’s vocabulary consists of two words – f…k and b…ch; instead of showing up for work at 7:30AM he lumbers in at 11AM, slightly vague from a small snort, sporting several rings in his nose and ears. Do you want him to change tyres on your car? And of course it is not $7.50/hr – add health care, property taxes, income taxes, Social Security and Medicare contributions, disposal taxes, license taxes, etc., etc. – it is close to $20/hr. That black male was much better off in high school where he was “diagnosed” with “Attention Deficit Disorder” paying his mother $500/month.

          • Jeff

            Are you a policy advisor for the Romney campaign?

          • George E

            Rob,

            In a free and open market, companies can’t make you work for any amount you aren’t willing to accept. If you accept it, then that must be your best option at that time. If it’s your best option, then taking the job has improved your situation from where you were, regardless what the pay and benefits are. That’s a good thing. The fact that we don’t always get paid what we thing we’re worth, is another. In the long run, the market decides what you’re worth, not the company, not the government, and not us. The company only pays market rates for its employees as it does for everything else it buys. The market isn’t right or wrong, it’s just what it is, but it is fair because it doesn’t discriminate and it balances supply against demand when a price is determined. Sometimes the price goes up and sometimes it goes down. That just a fact of life in free markets…………….which have been proven over time to yield more wealth to society and any other type of economy.

            As to individual versus corporate tax cuts, you may know that any individual can create a corporation if they want to, and claim their income under that entity. Also, companies such as sole proprietorships, partnerships, and most LLC’s aren’t taxed at the company level, but at the individual level. So it’s not all that straight forward to separate investment income for big corporations from individuals, or at least hasn’t been. I guess if tax law was amended to add a surcharge to corporations, like some individuals already have to pay under the alternative minimum tax, then maybe that would be OK, but I’d still be concerned that even this would have some negative effects on the economy that would come back to bite us. Just about anytime the goverment takes money out of the economy, it tends to have a slowing effect on economic growth. Whenever you get into the issue of fairness, you open a can of worms because everyone has a different standard of what fair is. I don’t think the tax code is fair either, but for me it has more to do with the fact that too many people aren’t paying income taxes but are enjoying the fruits of the taxes others are paying. In the end, I think we’re smart if we do whatever makes the economy grow most because in one way or another we all benefit from a growing economy.

          • Rob

            Again, all of that would be nice if it actually worked. If every company actually paid what people are worth. But who is going to make sure that that is the case. You might say the market, but if that were the case, lots of people would not have to have several jobs to try to keep up, because even with a minimum pay they are still not earning enough to survive. Not everyone who has a job wants to grow in that job. A lot of people take temporary jobs while they study or to be able to support themselves until they find the job where they will make their career. I think that this argument you are using, which is not new to me, by the way, would make more sense when people work towards growth in their positions. I could never trust that a lot of businesses would not pay as little as possible to their employees. Already, even with a minimum wage in place, people are asked to do way more for what they get paid and the situation only gets worse as time goes on.

            In terms of the taxes, again, I think we are at sort of an agreement here, but yes, the distinction between corporation and individual needs to be clear. I don’t subscribe to the belief that a corporation is a person, as I mentioned in other posts. A group of people or institution has way more resources, way more power in general than an individual…

            We’ve digressed a lot from the environment discussion :-)

          • George E

            Rob,

            You’re right that we’ve gotten off subject, so I won’t belabor these points much longer. I would, however, like to ask if you pay more for the products and services you buy because you feel sorry that the seller isn’t making a good enough living? I doubt it, especially if you’re living on a budget like most of us. We generally pay the going market price for the things we buy. Likewise, why should the owner of a company pay his employees more than he has to for the quality and consistency of labor that he needs in his business? Having said that, there is no excuse for anyone treating others disrespectfully or without concern and compassion regardless whether they’re the employer or employee, buyer or seller.

          • Rob

            Good question, but the analogy doesn’t seem entire fitting to me. We’re are all consumers and we are all employees if we have a job, at least from a certain point of view for someone who owns a company, but not everyone is an employer. What I mean is that I would not trust every employer to be fair and not try to exploit their employees or to give back to the community. That’s why I believe it cannot be all up to the market, and the government needs to step in and make sure things are fair. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to give the impression that I am against companies. I have good friends who own businesses and they treat their employees well. I just don’t trust people who are high in power (and this also includes politicians, of course), because more often than not it seems that people high up there become blinded to reality and disconnected from the regular world. There is corruption in both private and public arenas, but at least the government, in theory, is supposed to represent the will of the people and can be changed by the people, again, at least in theory.

            I doubt we’ll see eye to eye on this issue, and I have tried to believe the arguments that many have posed, believe me. Call me a skeptic, if you will. :-) Peace.

          • George E

            Rob,

            Environment or economy, which is more important? Actually, we need both, don’t we? Without a healthy environment, the economy can’t thrive very well. Without a healthy economy we won’t have the means to improve our environment without setting our standard of living back many, many years. The answer is we need to design processes where we protect and support both so they can work together, not compete for the few diminishing resources available from a dying economy.

            I know that our economy is faced with some dire circumstances in the next few years which will take all of our imagination, courage, and initiative to get through without catastrophic changes and damages to our society, and that doesn’t even figure in the challenges some want us to address in fighting global warming. Who knows what other challenges may be out there that we don’t even know about yet, like war, for example. Also, we know right now that we can’t afford all of the entitlements that have already been promised to those who are in the process of retiring or getting ready to retire. We have trillions in national debt which will have to paid down, while the government is borrowing (or printing) money at a rate of $0.40/$1.00 collected in taxes. In other words, we’ll be lucky if we can get through this in “one piece” without the additional financial challenges required to address global warming.

            Regarding pollution, there is little debate over the need to clean toxins, ash, and other chemicals from our air and water. We all agree that these are pollutants and should be removed. But, when you add CO2 to that list and add the additional regulations, taxes, and fees to control CO2 emissions, that’s just too much for some of us to agree to with all of the other financial challenges before us. This is a very complicated optimization problem, so every variable/cost factor will have to be constrained all possible to get through this. Nothing, including environmental funding, will get all the money supporters will want and think justified. Another thing I also know is that we need a vibrant economy to generate as much wealth and tax revenue as possible to help get us through this period. We are very unlikely to make it with a weak economy.

      • Sean Steele

        What about the billions gone in obumbles green jobs? how many birds inc endangerd are wiped off the wind turbines? How are carbon credits going to help fix the problem ? Look into using wave motion and drilling rigs in the north atlantic and ask why its not developed.This global warming is a part of agenda 21 so a bunch of scabs can profit. If you think algorewhore is the answer look at his carbon footprint.

    • Sama

      http://www.westernjournalism.com/an-interesting-experiment-over-new-mexico/#comment-118828
      read this–from one who has spoken worldwide for de-population measures.

    • http://n/a Jerrold

      If one goes to the Evergreen Aviation . com, you will see this:

      “How much does the Evergreen Supertanker drop?
      The Supertanker has 20,500 gallons of tank space onboard. This represents more than eight times the drop capability of the commonly used large airtanker, the P3. The Evergreen Supertanker also has the capability of performing segmented drops in quantities greater than or equal to the P3.”

      The company was not hired for the Co. fires, after hundreds of phone calls, they finally posted a statement as to why they were not putting out the fires. Why hasn’t Matt Drudge covered the OK wildfires? Just maybe because the presstitutes do not cover the important news, only fluff, but hype the stuff their handlers make them report.

      Also, the massive geoengineering worldwide campaign is effecting all life. Go to an Aussie at bluenomore . com – his links are informative. aircrap .org is U.S. site.

      Ain’t it grand?

  • Vicki

    After Climategate the AGW crowds credibility is just about the same as NBC or Flashy.

    • Jeff

      “Climategate” means NOTHING to anyone who follows the issue and certainly means nothing to the actual scientists who study it. It means something to right-wing deniers eager for anything they can point to other than the actual science.

      Like Holocaust or Evolution Deniers, these deniers will cling to anything that casts any doubt on the accepted Theory or Truth. People who have studied the issue for years don’t get excited by a single strand of data because they know which way the overwhelming evidence points. You can point to a hole in the Theory of Evolution. Does that mean biologists will suddenly abandon the theory? Hardly.

      • marcjeric32

        “Global Warming Petition” (see Internet) where 31,487 independent US scientists (including 9,029 of them with PhD degrees) dispute decisively the findings of the UN-sponsored panel; also ignored is the “Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change” (see also Internet) where a smaller number of competent world scientists, about 712, including 142 pure climatologists, state the same – i.e., that the man-caused catastrophic global warming is a farce. The books by Christopher Horner, Robert Carter, Patrick Michaels, Lawrence Solomon, John Berlau, Steven Milloy, Ian Murray, Christopher Booker, R. C. Balling, D. Avery, S. F. Singer, Brian Sussman, and AW Montford describing the lies, fakes, phony data, opposite conclusions, redacting by UN political hacks, reverse graphs, etc., have exposed this far-left propaganda in painful detail. In the case of the above mentioned Petition, several “environmentalists” had submitted phony names with phony credentials in order to sabotage that effort. It took several years of painstaking and expensive effort (that effort cost us more private money, no oil money there) to clean up the list from those saboteurs and verify all academic and professional data of the signatories.
        To put this whole conspiracy in terms of numbers, let me say that the projected world-threatening increase of carbon dioxide of 100 ppm (parts per million) by the end of this century would increase thermal absorptivity of the atmosphere by one-eighth of one percent; that is the definition of something totally negligible. On the other hand the sun cycles of cooling and heating are many thousands of times more powerful with regard to the carbon dioxide in the air; when the sun is in its cold cycle the oceans absorb billions of tons of it; and when the sun heats up the oceans release the carbon dioxide in quantities many thousands of times bigger than anything the mankind could produce. To illustrate this point in more accessible terms to somebody who is not a climatologist or a scientist or an engineer; the argument of catastrophic anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming issued by our panic driven socialist/marxist government-paid hacks is like saying that a burp of a lonely wolf in Alaska will transform Florida into a Sahara-like desert – tomorrow! Perhaps an even better example would be to argue that the Pissing Boy in Bruxelles will inundate the continents by the end of the week. As for that bloviating gasbag and “climatologist” Al Gore, Dr. James Hansen with his tirades designed to get him more taxpayers’ money and who started his career by the global cooling scam in the 1970’s, as well as for Dr. Mann who inverted cause and effect in his “studies”, for Phil Jones who destroyed faked data, and for the corrupt Maurice Strong who started the whole affair – they should be brought to the International Court in The Hague on charges of crimes against humanity.
        Marc Jeric (MS, PhD, Engineering, UCLA)
        So Jeff – you are calling me an ignorant denier. Let me remind you that Marxism was treated as the highest peak of science for 80 years – until it collapsed in the sea of mass murders, utter poverty, and terror. So it will be the end of this new attack on manking called “Man-made global warming” hoax. Please Jeff – do not try to join these mass criminals one day in that Hague Court. Or is it Haigue?

        • Jeff

          Marxism was never science. It is a theory of history, economics, and politics.

          As to science, the majority of scientists who study the subject and who aren’t paid to say otherwise believe warming is happening and humans are the cause. One very prominent physicist who used to be a skeptic (and whose research was even funded by the Koch Brothers) has now studied the data is no longer a skeptic.

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

          • marcjeric32

            “Marxism is not a science”? Well, I was taught so from the age of 12 to 24 when I escaped from that communist hell. The science of society development – a new socialist citizen – from conflict of opposites comes new progress – etc. What got me was the Marx’s Manifesto cry “Expropriate the expropriators!” According to this act of faith, the poor used to have all the money until the capitalists came and stole it from them. Logical, right?

          • Jeff

            That someone in Eastern Europe may have referred to Marxism as a science does not make it one. I think it is one way to analyze historical trends, though not the only one. As economic and political theory, I believe it is deeply flawed and in the countries where “applied” was totally misapplied, resembling fascism more than anything envisioned by Marx himself. But it is clearly not science based on observation, hypothesis, and conclusion.

  • the uglydog

    Even Mr. Global Warming himself, the “inventor” of the internet, bought an oceanfront estate! This is after ranting for years that by 2010 ocean levels would have risen so much that coastal cities would be inundated!

    • Blueviolets

      That’s because he knew he was feeding gullible people lies so he could make buckets of money.

      • JTB

        That’s right someone has to pay for that oceanside home. Just another liberal idiot!

      • http://www.facebook.com/jerry.pettibone Jerry Pettibone

        You are so right, Blueviolet, and too bad many more don’t see through this liar and arrogant parasite.

      • californiasailor

        I just wait to see when I may use libs for target practice….ah…what joy!!!!

        • Jeff

          Do you really think the world needs to know every idiotic thought that comes to you? Why don’t you let us know every time a pretty girl crosses your path and what you imagine doing to her?

      • DaveH

        Why not, Jeff? We’ve been putting up with your ignorant comments for quite some time now.

      • Phillip Maine

        It is not Global Warming but the Passover Star (brown dwarf) It will not just cause local coastal flooding, but will drive water inland to Tennessee and the lower Arkansas Ozarks. Water will be 200 feet deep and 100 miles wide up the Mississippi, with flooding to Fort Smith, AR and Chicago, IL. And according to the Continuity of Government people it will not happen in the 2050s but August 17, 2012 (its nearest in coming approach to earth and nearest approach exiting the system on Sept 26, 2012. To verify this a soldier involved in the illegal confiscation of food and guns in Saint Lewis said,” might as well take them (food and guns) she won’t need them after September.” To verify go to July 19, 2012 2nd hour 10:20 minutes in, then to July 20, 2012 third hour, all at http://www.gcnlive.com/programs/nutrimedical/archives.php. Then Youtube John Moore, the truth behind global warming (does not believe in global warming) PS John is a CSI for the state of MO so he knows how to find what people and governments are trying to hide and lie about. I hope it is disinformation, but am almost absolutely sure it is not. If you live on the coasts and are not prepared to and going to bug out, enjoy the long swim.

      • Jeff

        DaveH:

        Hide your MONEY. I saw a revenooooooer behind that blog!

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Al Gore was the perpetrator of one of the biggest scams ever. But because he said so the majority of people will continue to believe him. The whole global warming thing was a scam. The government through the EPA, passed all kinds of legislation that required individuals and companies to spend a fortune. Not only did Al Gore get rich but so did his cronies. The governments of the world used global warming to scare their people. Fear is a great motivator and governments always use it to control the people. I highly suggest that you read a book called “State of Fear” by Michael Chrichton. He did a lot of research and exposed global warming for the scam that it is. It really doesn’t matter that this scientist has come out and admitted that it isn’t true, that they were wrong. The greenies will never let go of it. They will continue to swear that it’s true, despite the evidence and admissions that it’s not. They will never admit that they were gullible. Several months ago, scientists from all over the world met in CERN to study it. They concluded that global warming was caused by the sun and nothing more. As soon as they announced it they were pressured to back down so they got wishy washy and said “maybe” it was caused by the sun. I read their original announcement. It was unequivocal. The whole thing is a scam and it always has been. There have been many scientists who have said all along that it was a scam. But they were smeared by the media and the greenies.
      http://wakeup-world.com/2011/09/02/c-e-r-n-scientific-study-concludes-global-warming-is-caused-by-the-sun/

      • Sirian

        Nancy,
        Well isn’t that a hoot. I’ve mentioned the solar activity before, well before CERN’s conclusion, but of course these loyal environmentalist/global warming freaks always dismiss it. LOL!!! Such fools!! What link you’ve provided is proof by all means but still they won’t accept it no matter what. Never, Never will they ever use that that they are truly lacking, common sense. Check this one out, it will give you another sense of how frightening they can be.

        http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/48236

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Excellent article, Sirian! I recommend that everyone read it to get a sense of who these people are and what they want for us. I especially like this one:
        “They pubicly stated that their philosophy and purpose is to “destroy civilization and technology and eliminate the need for the world “wilderness” because everything will be wilderness.”

      • mark

        “The governments of the world used global warming to scare their people” Right Nancy, and the conservatives, libertarians, and the NRA don’t use the UN Small Arms Treaty, the secret FEMA camps, and the dreaded “Plan 21″ to scare their people for increased political mobilization and massive FUND RAISING? You mean politically-minded people actually distort the truth and people’s fears in order to gin up their base for more money? Gee whiz, next you’ll be telling me that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. Duh. How about telling us all something WE DON’T KNOW.

      • DaveH

        The difference, Mark, is that Man-made Global Warming is conjecture unsupported by sound science.
        The UN Small Arms Treaty is real.
        And According to this report, so are the FEMA camps:
        site:www.infowars.com/bombshell-fema-camps-confirmed/

      • DaveH

        In light of the proclivity of Leaders to grow their Power and Perks, the obvious UnConstitutional growth of the Federal Government, and the growing Power of the Unelected (by the people) UN, it would take a naive person indeed to believe that our Government isn’t a huge threat to our Freedom.
        It amazes me how the same people who rail about the Big Bad Businessmen (excluding Crony Capitalists who are indeed), somehow turn a blind eye to the people who have the real Power to Force their way on us — those in Big Government. But then, I have never accused a Progressive Follower of having great cognitive powers.

      • DaveH

        I screwed up the posting of the FEMA article, so I’ll try again:
        http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-fema-camps-confirmed/

      • GIVEMEFREEDOM

        Thanks for the honest assessment Nancy. Keep those darn liberals honest.

    • eddie47d

      There are many people who build in areas that are not compatible to common sense including fire prone areas,flood plains and low lying ocean areas. Al Gore’s home in California is in the Santa Barbara area which has rolling hills. So he may have an ocean view yet he is not directly on the beach. He is high enough to avoid almost any rising tides or 20 ft. glacier melting if that would occur. Considering that some folks have property right on the beach and their back door leads out to the sand I would say that make Al Gore way ahead of those who are mocking him on this issue. I doubt if his home would flood even under extreme circumstances.

      • DaveH

        And considering the fact that I lived by the beach for 13 years, right in the middle of the claimed Warming spike, and the shoreline didn’t change a bit, I pronounce the rising sea level as a load of Progressive Fear-Mongering Propaganda.

      • Phillip Maine

        He needs to be 800 ft above sea level to avoid the flood not caused by global warming but by brown dwarf star gravity.

      • Sean Steele

        And algorwhore paid for it by conning you greenies into thinking that buying carbon credits will change it. By the way try building a home there now that the agenda 21 is in effect. Better yet whats his cabon footprint?

    • Jeff

      Ugly:

      Try to get your facts right. It’s an ocean view villa in Montecito near Santa Barbara. The California coast can be quite rocky with cliffs unlike other areas much more vulnerable to rising sea levels like New York and Florida. Plus, I don’t think Al expects the worst effects of global warming to hit within his lifetime. He’s concerned about his kids and grandkids (and yours) – unlike, say, you.

      • DaveH

        Yeah, the Progressives are concerned about our children and our grandchildren. That’s why they’re leaving them with this nice little present:
        http://www.usdebtclock.org/
        That’s over $50,000 per citizen, and considering the average household size is 3.1 people it’s over $155,000 per household.

    • Jeff

      Fox News Ugly:

      I can tell where you get your information. Al Gore NEVER claimed he invented the internet. That came from Fox News.

      • marcjeric32

        Yes he did: that bloviating gasbag Gore claimed not only that he invented the Internet but also that he re-invented the government. I’ll bet you forgot the latter!

        • Jeff

          He said he helped put in place the legislation that authorized the creation of the internet by the Government.

      • Vicki

        What Al Gore said was “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”

        Now he may not have meant to say he invented the Internet and when you listen to the whole of the context we find that he may have meant something else. BUT liberals are famous for taking conservative or republican statements out of context. Like all of the mis-statements of President Bush.

        Or, more recently, “This guy looks like he’s up to no good…. He looks black,”

        Not only out of context but chopped up and out of context. Thanks NBC.

    • momo

      Seems everything is melting except Al Gore’s icecream!

  • http://personalliberty.com Rhonda

    All those idiots think about Global warming every time there are fires all over the many states. They need to stop and think with all the fires that this would remind them of hail and what it would be like when whoever doesn’t accept the Lord as their savior and confess their sins will go straight to Hell. This is what they need to think of instead of thinking Global Warming has taken over, no the Lord is trying to make all those evil corrupt people see what Hell is going to be like, so I advise all of these Global Warming loons what it will be like if they went to Hell. Eternal fire forever for all who are evil corrupt loons.

    • JTB

      Your post is right on Rhonda!

    • mark

      So let me get this straight, Rhonda. The Global Warming Nonsense which at least has some basis of scientific research is all a crock. But the God Nonsense, that there is this old guy with a white beard up in the sky who created everything and controls everything, and will send all bad people to hell and good people to heaven, a theory that is based on zero scientific proof, but only on human faith and fairy tales, this is all true and dandy. How convenient that all the born-again types on this site are suddenly worried about the scientific basis of Global warming.

      • Jeff

        When I read the comments on these sites, I feel like John Cleese in “A Fish Called Wanda,” looking at Kevin Kline after a particularly idiotic comment and saying, “You are a true barbarian, aren’t you?”

        I don’t pretend to be a chemist so I have no expertise in global warming or climate change, but I do know that most people who study the issue have a view that’s different from Joe the Plumber’s (who is neither, by the way). I also know that people who oppose reducing the levels of CO2 in the air have a large economic stake in doing so while the rest of us have only a theoretical stake in maintaining the planet in somewhat the same condition as when we evolved.

        I don’t think you need a Ph.D. in chemistry to figure out that dumping greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere sufficient to alter the atmosphere’s CO2 levels is probably not a good idea.

      • DaveH

        If you’d do some studying, Mark, you’d know that the science of man-made Global Warming is purely that of computer models which are never successful in predicting next years Temperatures. And when they fail, the “scientists” just add adjustments to make them compliant with the temperatures of past years. Some Science.
        As far as religion goes, Mark, at least they’re trying to learn morality in an effort to treat their fellow man respectfully, unlike you Progressives who think somebody resisting your hands in their pockets makes them bad people.
        What do you care what they believe?
        I would take a naive Christian over a thieving controlling Liberal any day of the week.

      • DaveH

        Jeff says — “I don’t think you need a Ph.D. in chemistry to figure out that dumping greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere sufficient to alter the atmosphere’s CO2 levels is probably not a good idea”.
        You don’t need a PhD in economics to know that following the same path as failed Socialist Countries throughout history will not work for our country, yet you keep following it.

      • Vicki

        Jeff writes:
        “I don’t pretend to be a chemist so I have no expertise in global warming or climate change,”

        It is good that you don’t pretend to be a chemist. Global warming is in the purview of climatology which has roots in physics and biology with chemistry attached thru biology. Physics is the primary controlling scientific discipline for the study of climate.

    • eddie47d

      Rhonda attacks all those who say there is global warming and uses God as her crutch. I really don’t think God wants his earth destroyed by human incompetence,do you Rhonda? Now time will tell who wins this rush to ignorance and my money is on those doing the damages.

      • cawmun cents

        The tragic thing is your view of God.It fits in the tiny part of your skull where the brain is hiding.Buried under all the garbage that you have put there to replace God.
        You have no problem trying to work out how you can blame God for your less than prefect condition.But you wont realize what a wonderful and loving God would do for you to end that suffering on a more permanent level.
        This woman isnt using God as a crutch,you are.
        You try to prop up what you think you know about the universe around you,by uttering words of deceit and trickery like the one who put you in the condition you are in today.
        But it is not you who I am giving this message to eddie47d.
        It is all those who refute the truth that is God.
        You cant ignore God and get away with it.
        That is why your money changing ways will never amount to fixing any of your malaise.
        That is why spending more time trying to learn about nothing,will always be fruitless.
        That is why relying on human wisdom results in scratching your head after careful deliberation.
        It is by your ignorance that you suffer,not through the circumstances that you find yourself in at the present time.There will always be good times and hard times.But you choose to deliberately ignore where those things originate,which ends in the tragic inability for you to cope with them.
        Cheers!
        -CC.

      • eddie47d

        Hate to burst your bubble and long rant CC but I have been going to church for over 60 years. I believe in God but he also gave me a mind to think. Something you ought to try before inserting foot. Now have a great rest of the day which God would approve of.

      • Dale left coast

        eddie . . . why do you suppose the Gorebull Warming types do not attend gatherings of scientists and debate with real scientists that do not share their “Beliefs”?
        A few months ago . . . a gathering in Chicago was attended by hundreds of scientists that do not share your “belief” in All the Goricle. Many scientist “Believers” were invited to attend . . . none did. Why do you suppose that is eddie?
        I will tell you . . . they are unable to defend their positions . . . their fake computer models . . . and the so-called science from Phil Jones and East Anglia U.

  • Sun Tzu

    It’s all about money, power and control. The overwhelming catalyst for the world’s problems is money,……….follow the money and you’ll reach the truth.

    • Jane

      You are absolutely correct. Money and power are the movers.

      • mark

        This is of course exactly what Karl Marx beleived in – economic determinism. I didn’t realize there were so many Marxists on this site. But of course if money is the key determiner then this also clouds all the evidence from Right-wing scientific think tanks funded by US and transnational industries that consistently debunk global warming. You can’t criticize those on the left for wanting economic pay-offs from promoting Global Warming and then totally ignore all those scientists on the right paid off by corporations who want to increase their profits by ignoring environmental concerns. This cuts both ways, guys.

      • DaveH

        Everybody is biased. That’s a fact. But few people have the brain-power to figure out when they’re being taken advantage of by Big Government.

    • Sirian

      Sun Tzu,
      You’re right, without question. But how many can see something so obvious? Unfortunately not enough.

      • eddie47d

        So true especially considering that the Koch’s spent 23 million trying to debunk global warming and failed.The facts they were looking for didn’t happen and actually blew up in their faces.

      • Sirian

        Since you agree that it is “So true” then why is it that you are amongst those that I mentioned? You always manage to lay blame on someone that doesn’t fit into your mindset. Now that too, without question, is True as True can be! Agreed? Probably not.

      • eddie47d

        Doesn’t everyone blame Al Gore ( or insert any name) because it suits their thinking Mr Sirian.

  • Jonathan

    I’m wondering if that oil spill doesn’t have something to do with it, you know they did that on purpose. It let a lot of methane gas in the air and from my understanding it has caused this extra warm summer just so you and I would think this heat was the cause of “climate change.” Now days they’ll do anything to push their agenda.

    • Neil

      Jonathan, do not put very much stock into your hypothesis.

      The oil spill was purely economic – specifically someone cutting corners to save costs. There was nothing malacious about it. The cut-corners were unfortunately the verification and safety fallback. If nothing goes wrong, you save money. We saw what happened when they lost the gample.

      The environmental impact of the spill was primarily biological and economic. Neither of which was intentional.

      Methane is a naturally occuring gas. If the Green agenda is to create a world cleaner than what occurs naturally, they are wasting effort.

      The climate change people always neglect to disclose the reflective characteristics of the “green-house” gases. The methane emissions were not high enough to have a lasting impact.

      • Jonathan

        Who do you work for Neil, the oil company’s. You either heard about what happened with that oil spill and are closing your eyes to it or you are one of them out to hide the whole thing. That was no accident caused from cutting corners, it was deliberate.

      • eddie47d

        The Gulf oil spill had a major economic impact on the region. Now they are finding hundreds of miles of Dead Zones along the coast where they weren’t before. That kills fish which is one of their main staples. Heed the warning signs of man’s reckless behavior or pay the consequences.

        • George E

          Eddie,

          One of the things I look at when judging how bad the oil spill was on the economy of the Gulf Coast is whether the folks who live there want oil and gas companies to continue drilling and producing off their coast. You can hear anything you want by listening to the “experts” who don’t live there. Do you have any doubt that most of these people want these companies in their region? I don’t, and I live pretty close to the Gulf Coast so I think I’d hear from local folks if there was a problem. From what I hear, they want more drilling, not less.

      • eddie47d

        Those dead zones have been in the paper for several days now. I’m not against drilling in the Gulf but want it done with more caution.

    • Jeff

      What? Who is the “they” in your post – BP? And if the release of methane in the atmosphere caused hot summers so quickly, wouldn’t that conclusively prove the thesis of the global warming theory? After all, methane is a greenhouse gas.

      • Jonathan

        No, BP isn’t the they… If you would read something other than the mainstream media you would know who I’m referring too.

        • Jeff

          Oh, so it’s code. Like a dog whistle. Are you saying Obama did it? Regardless who did it (Halliburton comes to mind.), what was the purpose? To prove a release of methane gas could trigger warmer summers? Doesn’t that support Global Warming Theory?

          And Jonathan, no, I don’t generally read the paranoid media of black helicopters, re-education camps, and Glenn Beck. This blog is about as close as I come.

  • Deerinwater

    So? how do “they” run your life anymore then anything else that you have all around you everyday David?

    My lawn runs my life, my children run my life. All the varmints that I feed, run my life. My cars, my trucks, my employs, my customers, my bookkeeper, the IRS, all the women in my life, run my life. My suppliers, my support systems, at any given time, runs my life.

    Now I can say “No” at anytime and sometimes I do, but please explain to me how that people that elect to focus on keeping our planet clean in some effort to leave future generations clean air and water and just maybe the soil will not be so depleted that it might still grow something, is running your life David?

    Are you afraid that someone is going to make some money? Coming from a self proclaimed Capitalism, I certainly hope not.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/nasa-strange-sudden-massive-melt-greenland-16846858#.UA_nxWHY-Q1

    • DaveH

      You can spew your illogical comments all day long, Deer, but the fact is that the richer countries have the cleanest environments. The poor countries can’t afford them.
      Another fact is that the Bigger Government gets, the worse the economy gets. Yet, you Progressives can’t seem to grasp those facts and continue to be hell-bent on redistributing other peoples’ money which always has and always will result in the same thing — Impoverishment of the country.

    • justin

      Deerinwater, as always, the Federal Government has created a problem and is now wanting to fix it. Up where I am, the beetle kill on pine trees is about 90%. Its only a matter of time before it goes up in smoke. Its all national parks too. Can’t log it and they won’t let anyone use it for firewood. Had it been farmed for lumber 20 years ago, there would be only a fraction of the beetle kill. So what exactly are we saving for our kids? Charred timber, smoke filled air and a mountain of ineptitude? Had a fire up in Pony MT, and a rancher friend of mine was going to build fire line on his land bordering the national forest fire. He was stopped by private fire fighting companies and told if he continued that they would sue him because they had the government contract to build the fire line and their union would see that they were the ONLY ones doing it. I don’t mind when some one wants to make money, but I do have a problem when they use the federal government to demand that we buy their product. And before you answer, find out what a catalitic converter does on your car. Go buy one, cut it open and find out how, exactly, talc and cement are supposed to help the environment. It really doesn’t do anything but occasionally plug up and most time reduce your mileage. But they make it manditory that it be there. Do your own testing, don’t just let some government paid stooge lull you into stupidity.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000929742691 Eugene Sevene

        Regardless of who is running the show it will always be spurred and fueled by the love of the almighty dollar. I challenge all to look at any aspect of life and you will see that any and all problems arise from the love of money.and the lack there of that fuels the GREED. Don’t take this the wrong way, we all need to live and money is the means by which we attain the things we need to survive. This in it self is not the problem. It is the love of this exchange called money, the greed of people to attain more than they need to survive that is the problem. I fear that all your discussions are for naught for this nation will fall. Someone said learn from history, so let us take a look.. In all of the history of man kind there has never been a Democracy that survived. Let us look further into the reason for this . I believe that if you truly do the research you will find that a Democracy has one flaw that stands out. It is the reason the Roman Empire fell. A Democracy allows for GREED. It allows the people to lie, cheat, steal, even commit murder to attain this thing we call MONEY. When we had to barter for our needs people helped one-another. Now it is I HAVE MINE, YOU TRY TO GET YOURS, and I will try to take it from you any way I can. PEOPLE JUST DON’T CARE ABOUT PEOPLE ANY MORE. They fight and argue over slightest things. Look back at these blogs and think, is there any reason I should put a person down because they don’t agree with me? Are they not entitled to there opinion? Can’t we just give our view and invite them to look at our reason for our stand with out criticizing. This,,if you do your research, is the reason for all the turmoil in the world. Am I living in a dream world thinking that man is capable of disagreeing with out all the hate, I believe I am. Is there global warning? I don’t know. If there is, can man fix it? I don’t know. Is there a GOD watching over everything? This I do know, for me yes there is. Will HE fix it? Personally I don’t think HE wants to fix it like so many other things in our lives. In the end you will believe as you will,I am not trying to convince you of anything, I only hope that I have given you something to think about other that arguing about things that you have no control over. There are more important thing that we need to address that we can change and should fight to change like the decline of morality in our country, and the waist of our natural resources. Have nice day and think before you speak. .

      • DaveH

        Eugene says — “This, [greed],if you do your research, is the reason for all the turmoil in the world.”
        The reason for the turmoil, Eugene, is that Government has assumed the right to make our personal choices and help themselves to our money. By virtue of not respecting peoples’ Freedom and ownership of their property, the Government has often put themselves in the position of determining which half of the population they will please, and which half they will piss-off. When in fact, most of time, it is none of their business. So, as the Government grows (to the betterment of the Leaders, their Crony Capitalists, and the Bureaucrats, but to the detriment of the rest of us) and assumes more power over our lives, a large portion of the population is going to be pissed-off, no matter which political group is in office, because one size does not fit all, and NEVER will.
        Take education for an example. The Progressives want to do away with prayer in school, and the Religious people object vehemently. But we have that turmoil only because Government Leaders have interjected themselves in what is really personal or familial choices. The simple solution would be to give each family with children a voucher to send their kids wherever they please for their education with the Government butting completely out of curriculum, etc. That way the Liberals could send their kids to atheist school or whatever, and the Religious people could send their kids to religious schools. The battle would be over.
        For Free Markets, Limited Government, Personal Responsibility, Individual Freedom, and the PEACE that accompanies those — Vote Libertarian!

      • DaveH
    • DaveH

      Deer says — “please explain to me how that people that elect to focus on keeping our planet clean in some effort to leave future generations clean air and water”.
      Clean is a personal thing, Deer. The cleanliness that you desire may come nowhere near that which I desire. If you want to have your personal choice of clean, then pay for it with your own money. Keep your thieving hands out of my pockets.
      And it’s not just a moral issue. The fact is that the money taken from people (usually directly the “rich”, but always ultimately from the people) is used by Big Government to feather their own nests and those of their Cronies, or they distribute just enough to buy peoples’ votes. That money if left in the original owners’ pockets would have been largely invested in Capital Goods (plants and machinery) which result in more, cheaper products to make our lives better (including paying for cleaner environments). The more that money is taken from the private sector for Consumption by Big Government, the less that money is available for private investment that grows economies. This isn’t just lip-service. It has been proved time and again that the Bigger Government gets, the smaller economies get.
      For those who want to break free of the Ignorance promoted by Progressives — Please read this book:
      http://mises.org/books/capitalism_kelly.pdf

      Particularly, in this case, read the section “Economic Freedom in Various Countries” (page 285).

      • Deerinwater

        “Clean is a personal thing, Deer.” I beg your pardon? Not when it’s air, water and land David.

        I understand what you are attempting to defend but let me foul your water up stream and let us see how personal it gets.

        And NO Sir! who ever it was that made the statement that Government has created this problem. The unchecked activities of man’s pursuits to aspire deserves the Lions portion of responsibility.

        And David , you speak of the riches nations being the cleanest nations. If these riches nations were ran by people like yourself , they surely wouldn’t be.

        Why do you think Corporate goes to these dirty poor nations to set up their factories? Willing to employ people that live in grass huts and wear no shoes? They are so hungry, that taking 15 years to dying of liver damage or a few thousand deformed children is a small problem to pay compared to a hungry belly!

        You don’t have a strong argument to defend your position David, regardless how hard to try. And I know you are like minds have many.

        What is it about ~ an industry focused on good house keeping that you disapprove of ?

        Don’t you like money and capitalism and profits? Where do you like profits come from? The Tooth Fairy ?

        As a HVAC contractor since 1986, I was not an advocated of energy conservation or clean air, I wanted to keep on doing what I always did. I did not want to learn new ways, invest in new equipment, educated myself to the new products or be informed.

        But government gave me no choice! I had to change or quit contracting. I find all of you as abstruse as I once was. Educate in these matters~ helps. I see the difference, I accept that I’m not the center of the universe and must conform and comply for a greater good. In so doing, I advise and council people how to invest their money wisely with a 20 year view of their options and what serves them best. We now have equipment that will pay for itself ” If the customer has the time to enjoy the returns on their investment.

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

        The reasoning is good, sound and logical. Air, water and earth is not unlimited. This is a global transitional in process as earth’s peoples move from agriculture to industrial to the information age, while not all of us are addressing the same issues at the same time.
        This is referred to as phasing “in” to avoid major displacement or a whiplash effect and will be met with some resistance every step of the way. ( like we see here on this forum)

        http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/1215roberts1215.html

      • GALT

        Imagine you are on a desert island, and you catch two fish a day, at six hours a fish…..

        Imagine Mr Myer’s is not the idiot ( old i.q. designate ) he has shown himself to be?

        Imagine DavidH. had a brain, could actually reason and had some productive talent that would be useful in the real world…….other than NOT being able to fire his current sattellite provider…..because he has a contract…….

        Imagine this site actually offered “solutions” to problems which are clearly visible and that Mr. Livingston had some allegiance to the “truth” rather than continuing to place his own personal freedom and it’s “profit” ( because he is in business before he is anything else )
        before any sort of integrity or regard for the “common good” or general welfare?

        Imagine if he, or his staph writers, or fellow…..”rationally self interested” producer’s…..actually could or would answer the question…….

        Where are the ( common ) law and equity courts?

        Which is the only question that needs to be answered IF you seek to restore the “constitution” to it’s former state, where YOU actually had RIGHTS………..instead of living under the “admiralty and maritime” authority, for which you unwittingly granted your implied consent to, in exchange of the “benefits and privileges” which are slowly being
        “altered” and “removed” in the “interests” of GLOBAL CORPORATIONS……

        How the common law and equity jurisdictions were removed and the fact of their removal
        needs to be “asked” of every one elected to, seeking to be elected to, and /or employed by any government agency at any level of government, city, state, local, county or federal?

        Mr. Livingston and his staph writers, and YOU have been given any number of opportunities to answer this question……….( no attempt has been made by L and staph )
        and most of YOU that have made the attempt simply confirm your “willful ignorance” on this question……. as you do with most other things…..

        So you waste your time, every day……..responding to “daily incitements” of the irrelevant
        whose end result….is the continuation of your “victimization”………until you will have nothing left……….you CAN NOT profit from the coming collapse…….and while you may not be able to “love your neighbor”……you damn well better get to know them……

        “To conquer, first DIVIDE!”……….War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength.

        Malthus is your REALITY…..NOW……..and there are any number of “solutions” to this problem………the simplest one of which is……to eliminate the problem………

        which pretty much makes this…….If you aren’t part of the solution…..( and unless you are
        is a position of POWER you are not ) then you are part of the “problem” and will be viewed
        as such…………..with the expected result……

        You have a CHOICE and it is to expand your understanding of “rational self interest” to
        a time frame which extends a little bit further than what you have managed so far…..
        failure to do so……..means you have no future……and neither will any one else……

        The end is NIGHER………willful ignorance will make it happen sooner……..enjoy!

      • DaveH

        As usual, Galt, the Progressive, must resort to personal attacks in lieu of facts. Take your meds, Galt.

      • GALT

        “This is business, not personal”………it’s called SURVIVAL………in its most MORAL sense.

        What part did you take personally? The FACT that YOU CAN”T FIRE your current satellite provider? That you are clueless as to the significance of the question? That Bob has yet to answer it or even made reference to it?

        Sometimes the TRUTH “isn’t” good for business……….and you appear less intelligent every time your respond to me………..or anyone else for that matter………

        You all need “adult supervision”………..rather than the daily diaper changes you come here for everyday…………….

        Go fish at von mises………..at least you don’t have a contract……..free at last, free at last…
        the joy of being an unpaid stooge?

        DavidH…..you are a wonder of the world…….trying to die with a few more toys than everyone else……….what a goal?

    • GIVEMEFREEDOM

      Wanna know how they control your life???? Wait till Obamacare keeps one of your sick kids outta the hospital.

      • eddie47d

        Now that is a wild and unproven assumption. Private insurance companies are the ones who jacked up the price of health care and has kept “children” out of the hospitals.

      • Opal the Gem

        ” Private insurance companies are the ones who jacked up the price of health care and has kept “children” out of the hospitals.”

        No eddie it is people like you who demanded ever smaller co-pays and deductables so you could take your kids to the Dr. every time they went sniff or got a little scrape on their knee. It is people like you who through their willingness to sue over every little thing forced the Dr.s to order multiple un-needed medical tests instead of just the one or two indicated by the symptoms to cover their azz in case of a lawsuit.

        • George E

          Opal and Eddie,

          Medical costs are also rising because our medical providers only practice the latest version of medical technology which is constantly getting more and more expensive. This is also what we want, but at the same price of the older version we used to get. On top of the things already mentioned, now we’ve got to pay to “insure” an additional 30 million people under Obama Care, about half of which are here illegally. All of these things, and more, drive the cost of health care up in this country.

      • angelwannabe

        eddie, no one keeps anyone out of the hospital, EVERYONE IS TREATED REGUARDLESS OF ABILITY TO PAY__Your telling a flat out lie!__The one that is regulated right now and that is the length of hospital stays post-procedure, lord knows what we’ll get when Bam Bam Care is fully implemented, should be a real picnic!

      • eddie47d

        Lots of people are kept out of the hospitals. Some by insurance policies and some by financial choice.

      • eddie47d

        Poor Opal you are clueless in what I “demand”! I have 3 grown children and the only time they spent in the hospital is when they were born. Knock on wood! I have never sued anyone and don’t plan on it so so go take your rubber hose and beat on someone else.

      • angelwannabe

        eddie, there is only two reasons preventing people from hospital care, lack of knowledge and lack of transportation….

      • Karolyn

        Angel – have heard of people being turned awaya t hospitals. The other thing is the insurance companies denying people going to the hospital for treatments they do not deem “necessary.”

      • eddie47d

        George E, Illegals may get some healthcare but not because of “Obamacare”.

      • angelwannabe

        Karolyn, because people insist on using the ER for the treatment of a hangnail. __In other words, they’re going to the ER for none ER issues, instead of calling the doctors.

      • George E

        Eddie,

        You may be right. All I know at this time is what I’ve heard and read. I do recall claims by the administration and the Democratic Party leaders in Congress that passing the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) would give health insurance to 30 million people who didn’t currently have insurance, of which approximately 12 million of these would be illegal immigrants. I also read the following article which lends some support to this notion: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/39442. I will admit, however, that this law has been misunderstood by many from the very start since it was not vetted well in Congress before being passed, and is still largely not understood because of its length and complexity. Further, it is well known, especially by conservatives, that this administration will do just about anything they want by executive order regardless what the law says. So, if you believe Obama wants to provide free health care insurance to illegal immigrants, that’s enough to base an opinion on, even if wrong.

  • John Woodbury

    Wow, betcha don’t see this in the mainstream media. I remember two winters ago when it was really cold the AGW people said a cold winter is proof of nothing. But let it be a hot summer, different story. Also are all those wildfires caused by guns? Of course of the million or so rounds I have fired in 50 years before coming here, I did not set one fire, just lucky I guess.

  • greg

    Greg,
    When I was in middle school in the early 60′s, the experts were all predicting the coming Ice Age.These people all have an agenda and truth be damned.

    • Jeff

      It’s the nature of science. New data, new theories, new projections. When a consensus develops, it’s not infallible but is certainly worth listening to. Certainly of more value than the opinions of people who distrust science (a) because scientists are smarter than they are and (b) because they think science contradicts the Bible.

      • George E

        Jeff,

        I don’t distrust scientists. I do distrust politicians, their motives, and their manipulation of the business and scientific communities with our tax money. I say that we should continue to support climate research as well as alternative energy research, but don’t jump the gun in deploying any of these until the known benefits out weigh the known costs. That hasn’t happened yet, so we need to keep these technologies in the lab and in the classroom until then.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        We have had windmills specificaly for electricity generation since what the 1970s or 80s and they are still not efficient enough to use without massive government support. Solar has been around that long or longer and it still is so inefficient that to power Chicago with solar power you would have to carpet the rest of the Illinois with solar cells.

        Climate changes it gets hotter and cooler it gets wetter and drier and mans influence, while probably there, is negligable compared to the effect of sunspots, the variations in the earths orbit around the sun, etc.

  • James Zajac

    James says:
    I can’t believe the trash I hear from all the nay sayers about global warming. Maybe many of you ought to pick up a dictionary and use it to learn how to spell science and then maybe you might try reading a book on it. All I hear from you nay sayers is graet distortions about what is going on with the climate and nothing factual. This isn’t the first hot summer, the increase in temperatures during the summer months and the whole year for that fact became note worthy as far back as 1990. There is much I could say about this idiotic article that I have just read but I feel why bother wasting my time. All of you nay
    sayers can’t even spell science let alone understand anything about it.

    • Neil

      James, consider the authors and their motives. There is no doubt that you will find “experts” to support the hypothesis. Just exactly what qualifies them to be an “expert” other than self-proclamation or the desire to acquire another government grant.

      You are much better served if you listen to and read the works of John Coleman. John is the man that created “The Weather Channel”. There is no question he has an understanding of the climate and has data to measure trends.

      You may poo-poo his credentials as an “applied meteorologist” and not a “scientist”. The “scientists” that purport climate change are taking a hypothesis and using correlation as causation for “proof”. John’s world is very much based on observation, monitoring variables, and making reasonably accurate predictions. Specifically, John’s world is real.

      Correlation as causation is like saying, “You are getting older and the world is getting hotter. Therefore if you stop getting older, the world will stop getting hotter.” To save the world, you must die.

      Please note that “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” are 4 and 3 syllables, invoke an emotional response, and are devoid of detail. This is actually an industrial psychology design to cause people to do things they would not if they actually took time to understand. An adjunct professor in Nashville, a former US VP, taught a political science class for this very purpose. “Make a simple, emotional slogan to get the people to resonate. Then the masses are resonating, you can get them to do things they would not do if they gave it clear thought.”

      • Jeff

        John Coleman? The weatherman? He used to have a rightwing radio talk show. I’d sooner believe the collected writings of Gary Coleman.

        By the way, some form of warming is definitely happening, even if John Coleman’s ambient temperature hasn’t changed:

        Rare Burst of Melting Seen in Greenland’s Ice Sheet
        By KELLY SLIVKA
        In a scant four days this month, the surface of Greenland’s ice sheet melted to an extent not witnessed in 30 years of satellite observations, NASA reported on Tuesday.

        On average, about half of the surface of the ice sheet melts during the summer. But from July 8 to July 12, the ice melt expanded from 40 percent of the ice sheet to 97 percent, according to scientists who analyzed the data from satellites deployed by NASA and India’s space research institute.

        “I started looking at the satellite imagery and saw something that was really unprecedented” since the advent of satellite imaging of the earth’s frozen surface, or cryosphere, said Thomas L. Mote, a climate scientist at the University of Georgia who for 20 years has been studying ice changes on Greenland detected by satellite.

        While scientists described it as an “extreme event” not previously recorded from space, they hastened to add that it was normal in a broader historical context.

        Ice core samples taken from the summit of Greenland’s ice sheet that shed light on 10,000 years of its history show that a similar large-scale melting event has happened roughly every 150 years, said Lora Koenig, a glaciologist with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center who has also studied the satellite imagery. Because the previous vast melt occurred in 1889, this year’s is more or less on schedule, she said.

        During the event, the surface ice on the sheet’s summit was always within a degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) or so of refreezing, Dr. Koenig added. Around July 14, the ice loss began to reverse, she said.

        Nonetheless, the scientists said, the melt was significant because Greenland’s ice sheet is unequivocally shrinking as a result of the warming of the world’s oceans, and the event could help broaden their insights into climate change and earth systems.

        “Even though this one event might be part of normal variation, it’s still a fantastic experiment for us so we can try to understand how the ice sheets are going to change,” Thomas P. Wagner, head of NASA’s cryosphere program, said in an interview. He said he and other scientists would continue to sort through ocean, weather and surface data from the melt to seek a deeper understanding of why it happened and what it means in the context of the global climate system and other events.

        Just last week, for example, a chunk of ice about two times as large as Manhattan broke free from the remote Petermann Glacier in northwestern Greenland, Dr. Wagner noted. Two years ago, the glacier lost a chunk of ice four times as big as Manhattan.

        Normally, ice “calving” of this magnitude is seen only every 10 or 20 years, scientists pointed out last week.

        Dr. Mote said the unusual surface melt in Greenland’s ice sheet this month coincided with a series of “ridges” of warm weather — areas of high pressure that range from the earth’s surface up to the jet stream — that had been moving across Greenland since the end of May.

        “Normally during the month of July, on any given day we’ll see about a quarter of the ice sheet covered in melt,” he added.

        Dr. Mote said that although he typically studied satellite images that were a few months old, he had taken a look at the current pictures after a colleague conducting research in Greenland notified him that there seemed to be an unusually high amount of melting.

      • JeffH

        The melting edges of the Greenland ice sheet don’t prove your point. Melting around the edges is exactly what the Vikings saw on Greenland 1000 years ago when they named the island for its green coastal meadows. They moved in with their cattle, and thrived for 300 years, during what we now call the Medieval Warming.

        The Vikings’ mistake was thinking that Greenland would stay warm, that the Earth’s climate was stable. Greenland was then warmer than today, and the summers were longer. There was ample grass and hay for the Vikings’ dairy cows. The Norse settlement grew to 3000 people.

        Then Greenland’s climate suddenly got colder. The Little Ice Age had begun. Sea ice moved south, and the Vikings’ sailing ships could no longer get through to trade wood for seal furs. Shorter summers produced less hay to feed the Viking cows through longer, colder winters. The last written record found in the abandoned Viking colonies was dated 1408.

        Our panic-prone scientists seem to have forgotten their own ice cores, drilled deep into the Greenland ice sheet in the 1980s. These ice cores document a natural, sudden-but-moderate 1500-year global warming cycle. This natural 1500-year climate cycle raises temperatures about 2 degrees C above the mean for 750 years or so�and then abruptly drops the temperatures 2 degrees C below the mean (at the latitude of northern Europe).

        Man’s climate impacts are puny compared to the million-degree heat of the sun. There’s no evidence that human-emitted CO2 has added much to the current temperatures. Our moderate warming to date 0.8 degree C virtually all occurred before 1940, and thus before much industrial development.

        If you want to talk about sudden, ice cores from the Freemont Glacier in Wyoming show it went from Little Ice Age cold to Modern Warming warm in the ten years between 1845 and 1855. Naturally.

        The Vikings can be forgiven for missing the 1500-year climate cycle. They didn’t have thermometers, written records or the ice core histories. NASA’s Dr. Hansen cannot be let off the hook so easily.

        http://www.cfact.org/a/886/Melting-the-facts-about-Greenlands-ice-sheet

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      You want something factual?!? I’ll give you something factual!!! The government of our country and a few others have been controlling and changing the weather. Look up in the sky! You see those streaks of white, criss crossing the sky? Those are “chem trails”. The government is spraying a combination of chemicals which usually include barium salts and aluminum. They use this to alter the weather. They admit to it but don’t make it known to the people. There are some tv stations that have done stories on it (on you tube) but very few will touch the subject. You can go on the governments website and find the congressional bill that provided funding for “chem trails”. In addition to the chem trail spraying they are using HAARP to control the weather. They can cause it to rain or not rain. They can cause or move hurricanes. They can cause earthquakes. They have been doing this for years. These programs were developed to use in warfare, weather warfare. Our country has now turned on us. They are using these weather weapons against us to cause food shortages and fear. It fits right into everything else they are doing. Destroy the economy, create food shortages, get the people on their knees. There getting ready for martial law. They’ve got the FEMA camps ready. It’s all a plot to reduce the population and enslave the rest. They’re not satisfied with the trillions that they’ve got. They want it all! If you think this sounds crazy you’re right, it does. I’ve done countless hours of research. I’m not easily convinced but when you find proof from the governments own website or you find speeches where government officials discuss it, you will continue to search. When you see with your own eyes, officials from the CDC talking about the massive amounts of aluminum and barium falling from the skies, you will continue to search. It is my own personal belief that satan is working through these people to destroy the earth and everything that GOD created. I believe that these are the times spoken of in the bible. Is the end near? I don’t know. It found be hundreds of years from now. But these are the times. For me, I believe that the time is near. Things are happening very quickly. Many things are happening all at once. I will pray and I hope that many others will do the same.

      • Karolyn

        Askeptic’s view of contrails/chemtrails.
        http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4027

      • Karolyn
      • eddie47d

        They over blow HAARP yet insist that global warming isn’t real. Maybe they should pay attention to all the falsehoods that they spread to regain their credibility. No earthquakes have been caused by HAARP. Fracking,yes but not HAARP.

      • JeffH

        eddie, if you had half a brain you might just understand that “we” keep saying that “man made” global warming is just a hoax. Being that you don’t use your brain you would rather distort and misrepresent what has been repeated time and time again here.

      • eddie47d

        You are no longer believable Jeff because you always side with the right wing conspiracy nuts. Remember you agreed with Kate 8 that Israel agents were going to take out Obama at the NATO conference in Chicago. Besides Global Warming is real. Now it may be exploited by those on the left and the right for political purposes but it is real.

      • JeffH

        eddie says “Remember you agreed with Kate 8 that Israel agents were going to take out Obama at the NATO conference in Chicago.”

        JeffH says eddie is a liar! That’s a lie and you know it. Never happened.

        As for global warming, I have always said “man made” global warming is a hoax and a scam…I have always maintained that global warming is a natural occurance. You can lie and twist anything you want because you are a proven liar…I don’t have to lie ’cause I can always prove what I say and always enjoy exposing your own twisted lies.

    • DaveH

      James says — “All I hear from you nay sayers is graet distortions about what is going on with the climate and nothing factual”.
      And we’re hearing facts from you, James?
      All I see is conjecture and name-calling — the hallmarks of Liberalism.
      What is the predominant “greenhouse” gas, James? If you can’t answer that, you obviously don’t have a clue.

      • Jeff

        Dave, cut the crap. I’ve seen more name-calling and ad hominem attacks from you than any other participant on any of these blogs.

      • DaveH

        Cut the Crap, Jeff? You mean that which you are full of?
        I treat people disrespectfully if they treat others disrespectfully. I know you Liberals want us to bring knives to your gun fights, but I, for one, will not comply.
        If you want an atmosphere free of manipulative name-calling, I suggest you start with yourself and your fellow Liberals.
        Here’s just one example of your hypocrisy from a recent column:
        Jeff says — “Your analogy makes no sense and you’re a very angry person for such a “happy” wingnut”.
        So, Mr. Wonderful has made two ad hominem attacks on me in one sentence. What a colossal hypocrite you are, Jeff.

        • Jeff

          I agree the “wingnut” thing was unnecessary, but the rest was legitimate analysis. Your analogy totally missed the point and I pointed it out. I even asked you to explain how the analogy made sense and offered a more apt analogy. You ignored all that to focus on “typical liberal, etc., etc.”

      • DaveH

        My analogy made no sense to you, Jeff, because you’re too caught up in the Liberal paradigm to do any thinking.
        It made perfect sense. I try to make things simple for ignorant people, but apparently it wasn’t simple enough.
        I should have been able to just say that you have no right to demand something in return for an unsolicited gift (free medical care in this case), especially when that gift is bestowed with other peoples’ unwilling money. But that’s apparently too esoteric for Liberal zealots who don’t even recognize that it is immoral to spend other unwilling peoples’ money. And even if it was a moral thing to do — It doesn’t work. People give up working and thinking hard when their money is just taken by others. Their work incentive is deflated. The economy dwindles. More of those people, that you claim to care for, suffer. We see that in Socialistic country after Socialistic country.
        Just how much reality does it take to sink those things through your Liberal brains?

        • Jeff

          My God you’re a condescending Creep. Keep your precious money and squeeze it real tight!

  • Ken

    All about a redistribution of our wealth (stolen and given) to the rest of the world.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Not “to the rest of the world”, but right into the pockets of the “elite”.

      • DaveH

        Spot on, Nancy.

  • http://www.sai-hr.com Robert S. House

    Anybody hear from Al Gore lately? Guess it was all about money.

    • Jeff

      And what would you say if he were on TV a couple of times a week, something positive?

    • Deerinwater

      http://facts.randomhistory.com/2009/01/29_global-warming.html

      Dichlorodifluoromethane, also known as Freon-12, a refrigerant and aerosol spray propellant used before 1995 Life span 102 years. Freon -22 Monochlorodifluromethane , 75 years still in use today while equipment is manufactured to use it stop in 2010 and “new” production of this CFC was stopped this year

      01) R12(dichlorodifluoromethane): was the standard in refrigeration for a long time with a boiling point of slightly under -40C was used widely in automobiles, refrigerators,
      window air conditioners, just about everything.

      ~~~
      Environmental Problems:
      Dichlorodifluoromethane, that we’ve all come to depend on, unfortunately is associated with some gigantic environmental problems. One of the main selling points of Freon in the 1930’s was that it didn’t kill people because it was inert. The reason Freon is inert is because its C-F bonds are hard to break and thus very stable. Freon is so stable in fact, that it cannot be removed from the atmosphere by earth’s normal processing system involving rain and hydroxyl radicals [3,13,17]. CFC-12 has a life of 102 years [6,21] and that lifespan gives the gas plenty of time to make it into the upper stratosphere where it is decomposed by solar radiation. After CFC-12 decomposes, free chlorine radical can destroy ozone. Ozone is responsible for stopping harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun, the kind that causes skin cancer, yet it is only present in small amounts, 3 parts in 107 parts atmosphere are ozone [17], in the stratosphere.
      Ozone is naturally produced and destroyed in the atmosphere at high altitude ~30 km by reaction of oxygen and solar radiation though the Chapman reactions21:

      The new replacement refrigerants are very unstable compounds and break down in a matter of a few years return to their original elements when by doing much less harm.

      Don’t get lost is all the “Talk” it’s not just about climate change, or climate warming ~ we are getting holes in our roof! We don’t need big holes the size of Greenland and growing in our roof.

      • Dale left coast

        It was all about the Patent about to expire . . . largest producer of Flurocarbons on the planet is . . . . what? Why volcanoes . . . maybe Al the Goricle can figure out a way to turn them off . . . at much expense to taxpayers of course ! ! !

  • Randy131

    About three months ago, NASA and the Russian Space Agency both reported that the instruments they had landed on both Venus and Mars have shown temperature increases in the atmospheres of both those planets that correlate exactly to the increases in the atmosphere tempertures here on Earth. What they didn’t say is that it was caused by humans increasing carbon dioxide gasses in those atmospheres, as they say is the cause here on earth. They said that the recent (last 20 years) cycle of an abnormally high amounts of Sun Spots on the Sun’s surface had caused those atmospheres to heat up, probably the same reason the Earth’s has also. Atmospheric scientists in the late 1980′s did ice borings on glaciers in Greenland and Antartica, to determine the atmosphere’s make-up of the Earth during the last two ‘Great Ice Ages’, and they found there was ten times the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of both those ‘Ice Ages’ as there was in the atmosphere when they did the ice borings. Both of the afore-mentioned data and facts prove, as 81% of atmospheric scientist claim, that the Earth’s temperature is determined by only the Sun, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has no effect on it, except as an airborne fertilizer that has caused greater plant growth, that has increased farmers yield per acre, and has no affect on humans or animals of the world.

    • Doc

      Randy,
      You missed it, you said they sent in probes, right…well, there ya go! PROBES cause global warming, see, it really is people, and probes, maybe the probes had carbon molecules on them and that raised the carbon dioxide levels of those planets. See, it IS people! I’m just saying…

    • eddie47d

      Too much carbon dioxide falling into the oceans choke off oxygen levels and create dead zones. Hardly beneficial to mankind.

      • Opal the Gem

        So do your part to help reduce the CO2 and quit breathing eddie.

      • eddie47d

        No wonder Opal never learns anything with that closed mind of a simpleton.

      • JeffH

        Heeee’s back and heee’s still wrong!

        More Sea Acidification Studies Debunk Fantasy Fears: Sea Urchins Even Thrive With 5,000 PPM CO2 Levels

        The green organizations that rely on donations from those individuals frightened by “ocean acidification” may have to get a new gig or find new gullible patsies. Study after study keeps being produced showing the impact of CO2 on marine life to range from minimal to nada.

        “In studies of sea urchins, for example, statistically significant reductions in egg fertilization rates did not occur in Echinometra mathaei until the atmospheric CO2 concentration was raised a full 5,000 ppm above that of the ambient air; and in Hemicentrotus pulcherrimus, even a 10,000 ppm increase in the air’s CO2 concentration was insufficient to elicit a statistically significant decline in egg fertilization rate…..In doing so, they say that over the ranges of seawater pH and temperature they studied, there was “no effect of pH” and “no interaction between temperature and pH” on sea urchin egg fertilization…..the five Australian researchers found that “across all treatments there was a highly significant effect of sperm density, but no significant effect of temperature or interaction between factors.” In fact, they state that “low pH did not reduce the percentage of fertilization even at the lowest sperm densities used, and increased temperature did not enhance fertilization at any sperm density.” In addition, they remark that “a number of ecotoxicology and climate change studies, where pH was manipulated with CO2 gas, show that sea urchin fertilization is robust to a broad pH range with impairment only at extreme levels well below projections for ocean acidification by 2100.”

        Ocean Acidification (Effects on Marine Animals: Sea Urchins) — Summary
        http://www.co2science.org/subject/o/summaries/acidurchins.php

        • Jeff

          Nice design. Why don’t you add the pictures of the Aurora victims to make your point complete. Far superior to your older designs.

      • eddie47d

        I was censored Jeff H but that ought to please you. When are you going to wake up and be concerned by those increasing dead zones where ocean life can’t survive and we humans do depend on fish for food or haven’t you noticed.

      • JeffH

        Eddie, again you’re lying. You weren’t censored, you were suspended for a month for being stupid. You’ve been warned so many time you should be permanently banned, and yeah, that would suit me just fine. It would certainly improve the dialog around here.

      • Dale left coast

        eddie . . . CO2 is 1/36 thousandth of the atmosphere . . . it is a rare trace gas that helps plants to grow. Falling into the ocean causing dead zone . . .THAT IS MORONIC ! ! !
        Oceans Acidifying . . . another laim comment . . . the ocean is alkaline . . . in some areas it has droppin from 8.6 to 8.3 . . . and they call it acidification. Any thinking individual with a swimming pool knows this is not true.

  • Bob

    Well put James…….but……..if you don’t mind me pointing out…………that……..you spelled the word “great” (wrong)…..graet?………….lol………….no biggy…:)

    • bigchas40

      You beat me to it Bob…lol!

    • Larry

      U people that fret about typo’s need a life. Stick to topic and quit worrying about misspelled words.Don’t u think we have more to worry about? Like whether our government continues to give our tax money to these green companies only to have them suck out all that money then file for bankrupcy.Not everyone can spell perfectly at all times or they are typiny their thoughts as fast as their mind thinks and don’t get it all right.We’re good with u on our side but stop being petty.

      • Larry

        Apoligize,,,,Had to return to James post and now know what u mean……Sorry guys and gals. Good point

  • http://liberty Tony

    To Everyone: It’s true,earth does go through some natural cycles that might make it hotter or colder from time to time. However, half of the temp./climate is man made. we, as a species, need to protect our environment and be good stewarts of the planet the good Lord gave us. If not, we will face an ecological disaster of biblical proportions. Think about that for awhile. Thanks!!

    • George E

      Tony,

      Yes, we do need to take care of Mother Earth by not polluting it. However, carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring substance, and therefore, should not be classified as a pollutant. While the green house theory is based on good science, it is unknown whether it is actually affecting the earth’s temperatures at current levels of carbon dioxide emissions. Therefore, it is not established fact that half of the earth’s temperature/climate change is man-made. Watch out for people making that claim. They want something from you, like your money and freedoms.

      • Jeff

        Yes, CO2 is natural; so is arsenic! We evolved in an atmosphere containing CO2 in trace amounts. Do you think it wise to dramatically increase that amount?

        • George E

          Jeff,

          Any “dramatic” change could cause an unbalance situation in the environment which is not good. We know that small amounts of CO2 are actually good for the environment as it supports plant life. What we don’t know is how much is too much. We simply don’t know the answer to that question, and I don’t think we can afford the “dramatic” changes to our economy that are being proposed to solve this “problem” that we still don’t understand very well.

          • Jeff

            Yes, let’s wait. For every problem identified by a “liberal” there’s a conservative remedy that involves waiting for something to happen. There’s wisdom in caution, but you don’t need to know every detail before you take action. Preventing pollution is a good thing to do in itself. It does not need to depend on scientists mapping out the precise consequences of inaction

          • George E

            Jeff,

            I only want to wait to deploy wind and solar when the market is actually ready for them. I’m all for going “balls to the wall” in doing research including pilot plants to test the economics, but that’s all we should do for now. These technologies are not ready for prime time………….unless you constrain fossil fuels, which we shouldn’t do. If you’re bent on having wind and solar at any price, then you can count me out. That’s terrible economics and bad business practice in my opinion.

          • Jeff

            The problem with a purely market approach is you’re waiting for the price of oil to make alternative energy, in its current state, economically viable. As an infant technology, it may need some help to develop. The automobile had help in becoming the dominant means of transportation when, for example, GM was able to have the train tracks removed in Southern California. All I’m saying is don’t be naive. There is no such thing as a pure market. Governments always skew the direction. The automobile wouldn’t have done well without our system of roads – all built by government following a political decision to build them.

          • George E

            Jeff,

            I’m not an absolute purist regarding government intervention in private industry. However, I really, really don’t like the “war on fossil fuels” that this administration is conducting. If they had really been an “all of the above” supporter like they occasionally like to say, then they would have supported wind, solar, nuclear, oil, gas, etc., etc. That’s absolutely not what they’ve done. They want to shut down the production of fossil fuels to drive up their price so the alternatives they like will look more attractive. That’s bogus economics and harmful to our economy. We’ll support the development of alternative energy within reason so long as the left stops their war on fossil fuels. Isn’t that reasonable? It sure makes a lot more economic sense than shutting down a very productive segment of our economy, especially now that the economy is struggling like it is.

          • Jeff

            I don’t think there’s much likelihood of any alternative energy sources replacing fossil fuels for a very long time. But I see nothing wrong with government subsidizing the development of these technologies to speed their development. And we may need to do more than R&D. One of the reasons a company like Solyndra can’t compete is the Chinese government partners with or susidizes its own solar manufacturers. If we want a good chunk of that developing business, we may have to do something similar and not worry that some blogger will scream “socialist.”

          • Dr Parnassus

            Mankind’s contribution to the CO2 levels is less than 2% of the total per year. A natural occurrence such as a volcanic eruption could exceed that. CO2 is not a toxin nor a pollutant, it is the food of life. Scientists have yet to find a direct correlation between rising CO2 levels and global warming. As a matter of fact global warming increases as CO2 levels decrease…………go figure.

      • Alex

        George E, you sound like Nazi Ronald Reagan claiming “tress cause pollution”!

      • Alex

        Sorry–should read “trees” and not “tress”.

      • George E

        Alex,

        I didn’t remember Ronald Reagan being a Nazi, nor do I recall him saying trees cause pollution. Maybe you can enlighten me.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      The scientists are now admitting that it’s not true, yet you still believe it! It’s amazing how they can twist things and make people believe whatever they want. It’s time to wake up now.

    • DaveH

      Think about what, Tony? Surely not your conjecture that — “half of the temp./climate is man made”?

  • Kerry

    Ahh,James,Talk of spelling ?? Try GREAT !! You gotta be more careful !!!

    • Larry

      Again with the pettiness,,,,,,

      • Larry

        Understand now,,,never mind…

  • http://aol malcoolmX

    these environmental zealots can take cows pooping into a political campaign.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Oh no, don’t you remember? It’s the cows farting that’s causing global warming. No more beef for any of us. We have to be vegetarians.

      • DaveH

        You must be having a veritable heat wave there in Nebraska, Nancy.

      • eddie47d

        Cow flatulence and methane gas are not beneficial to mankind unless you can capture it and burn it for energy. Put your head in a septic tank filled with methane gas and you won’t be around long to see another day. Cows obviously are mostly out in the open so you never see the effects but its there.

      • angelwannabe

        Well we live near Amish Country Nancy, driving through there in the summer its the metropolis of cow farts!___LOL

      • angelwannabe

        eddie, who in they’re right mind would be stoopid enough to put their head in a tin can and sniff methane all day unless they were trying to commit suicide? What a way to try an make a point, which by the way didn’t work…..you act as if our universe is enclosed in a bubble._-You do-gooders just don’t get it do ya….Your Liberal acts of enviromental regulation has regulated us to the point of NO JOBS!__There is nothing wrong with “Some” regulation not to poison what we have, but you nutjobs have gone waaaay over the edge___You idiots have won, don’t ya get it__ there is no industry or job manufacturing anymore, we are a consumer economy and still you continue to b*tch…..and wonder why we call you libs wackjobs!!!!

      • eddie47d

        You must not read much dear Angel. There are several cases of methane deaths from old grass in closed up barns and such. Think like a liberal before you speak or I may have to call you a whack job LOL.

      • angelwannabe

        eddie, forget that, only several cases happening throughout the whole world doesn’t constitute massive changes on a grand scale that your suggesting, thats riducilous!__You can LOL all you want__That’s like banning EVERYONE from owning a gun because a hand full of lunatics went off the head and shot and killed people! While Its tragic, but the everyday law abiding person aren’t the ones you have to worry about, is it….
        so keep LOLing eddie!!!!

      • eddie47d

        Not sure what gun deaths have to do with this subject except to blow hot air. I also never said methane gas was a major factor.You are becoming as mixed up as Kate 8.

  • Kenny

    The biggest lie of the AGW crowd is that CO2 is a “pollutant.” No, it is the food of life on earth. Yet, the Obamanation’s entire environmental policy and the waste of billions is based on this unfounded LIE. The “global warming crisis” is the greatest scientific hoax in history.

  • http://aol malcoolmX

    methane gas is a dangerous thing;; tape obimbo’s mouth shut;; save the planet.

    • Neil

      You need to seal the other end for methane.

      • Agape

        no with obummer… one end is as bad as the other

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Ahahahahahahahahahahaha. Good one!!!

  • Doc Sarvis

    So it looks like you can’t dispute that freon was harming the ozone layer.
    The term “scientific proof” is a layman’s term. Real scientists are, as I understand it, always aware that they are working with samples as opposed to the whole story. They extrapolate meaning from their experiments, not necessarily truth.
    We do give credence to experts since they have put more focused thought and effort into answering certain questions. Of course some are better at it than others and that is why there is peer review of results to assess methods and results of scientific experiments.
    From what I understand of Lovelock’s work, it was little accepted by the scientific community but appealing to the media and therefore got some traction from that. It would appear the media is still enamored with Lovelock, at least when it gives them a good headline.
    True, scientists don’t “know” the truth but the good ones are working toward it.

    • Patriot1776

      A question that remains for me, Doc, is; How does freon as an inert gas cause damage to the ozone? Being that the density of freon is around 1200 Kg/cu. mm and air has a density of around 1 Kg/cu.mm, how is it that the freon rises to the top of the atmosphere to “damage” the ozone layer?

      • GALT

        Brownian Motion…….Look it up!

      • Deerinwater

        Patriot1776 , please refer to my posting above for your answer.

  • Agape

    Hallelujah!!! Someone tells the truth!! but the mainstream media will never cover it or report it honestly…

  • dan

    grate…my spell check seems to be totally accurate …. but as a scientist I would warn that
    your spelling results may vary

  • dannyboy

    Sorry but this time the scientists got it right.There is a certain book that predicts that the earth”s temperature will rise and will be scorched with great heat such as has never been experienced .Not just the normal cycles earth has gone through.

    • Paul B.

      I’m guessing you are referring to the Bible… written by men. See, once again, we are the problem. Kill all humans, and cows, and all wildlife so the Earth can heal.

      When the big man upstairs decides it’s time for us to go, he has a myriad of ways to accomplish that. One decent piece of space debris would be simple enough.

      Yes we are that fragile. We should appreciate what we have, quit trying to control everything. Take the power from DC to affect that elitist control. Be humans and live, love and respect what we have.

  • Denis Rondeau

    Although I do agree that there has been changes before, that may explain the present situation, one has to be quite stubborn to ignore some obvious facts. In the past, we did not have millions of cars on the highways, thousand of planes in the air at all hours, nuclear power plants (thinks that steam coming out of those towers don’t produce heat?) are all things that produce enormous amount of heat that has never been seen on Earth before. If you look at the weather anywhere in the world using the site “Weather Underground”, it shows actual temperature which all shows more heat coming out of the Cities then around the Cities. These are all man made events, not Mother Nature, so keep your blinders on, keep your eyes and mind commun sense on the shut-off mode, I do believe we are fairly safe in our generation, but as far as our childrens, worry, worry a lot.
    Denis Rondeau

    • George E

      Denis,

      Keep in mind that logic is not always truth, but truth is always logical. So the fact that we may be putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere today than we did 200 years ago does not mean the earth’s temperatures are rising as a result. No one knows how much carbon dioxide the earth can consume naturally, nor how much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is necessary to increase earth’s temperatures. So, proclamations of impending climate disaster is unwise and unwarranted. On the other hand, we do know for sure that our economy will suffer great harm if we allow politicians to continue loading on the many regulations and taxes that have been proposed in the name of environmental stewardship.

  • Allan Willis

    This article itself is meaningless drivel as it does not include one piece of scientific evidence that dispels the theory of global warming. Give me proof and I’ll listen. The problem is that if we ignore G.W. and it turns out to be true it will destroy this planet as we know it. – it’s a world-wide el nino. Unprecedented forest fires, troical storms and drought is not proof, but is evidence we have to pay attention to. Take a minute to contemplate the human and economic hardships that these natural disasters have caused.

    • George E

      Allan,

      The question is how much of a burden are you willing to put on our economy and our society today to try to avoid a possible environmental problem that may or may not happen at some point in the future? I’d rather put my money and efforts on avoiding the economic problem that will happen now than the environmental problem that might happen in the future. Having said that, I’m all for continuing research into this issue to understand it as best we can, and take the limited measures that we know will do some measureable good, but nothing draconian like has been, and is being proposed by the far left environmental crowd.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      You said it yourself, “the THEORY of global warming”. You will accept THEORY as fact but you demand PROOF that the THEORY is incorrect. How about you prove the THEORY first!!!

    • Larry

      It really wouldn’t matter how much truth you get to dispute your beliefs.You will only believe your side and don’t care about anothers findings no matter how right it is.Your only one of many with the blinders on.I’m wondering what kind of cars they drove to cause the first ice age to melt?

  • http://survivingurbancrisis.wordpress.com Silas Longshot

    The ‘global warming’ entire project is about power and control, as is all activity involving the government. Also, the gain of massive money and power by individuals such as our poster boy for global warming, Al Gore. If his scheme had worked, he would have become uber-rich, as CEO of the company that all ‘carbon credit’ transactions world wide would have had to go through. Brilliant scheme though. Making billions from a non-existant idea / scam that every manufacturer or energy company that uses or creates energy or any product would have had to buy ‘carbon crediits’ from the ‘good’ companies like ‘solar power’.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000607110622 Michael Hertel

    While it is wonderful to claim scientists do not know what is happening because some where wrong in the past that does not make it so. We are into some sort of global climate change, argue if you want to only about the cause of that change.

    • George E

      Michael,

      So, what are you willing to do about it? Are you willing to give the government a couple hundred dollars a month to try to avoid this problem? I doubt it. Most of us aren’t, but we are willing for the government to take money from our companies and rich people to address the problem. Then we will suffer from loss of jobs and economic distress rather than having to write a check directly to the government. One way or the other we’ll all pay the price for this. All I ask is let’s be responsible about handing our politicians a blank check to “fix” this problem when it is not established science, and no measures known will measurably improve it.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        No George, he wants the government to use “somebody else’s money”. You know….the government’s money!

      • George E

        Nancy,

        Many of us are willing for our government to undertake these huge projects until we have to start paying for them directly. That’s when the “rubber meets the road,” and really is a very sound way of testing just how committed we are to these causes. Paying for these projects though round about methods is dishonest and usually guarantees that the public will support them not understanding what these projects will really cost us.

  • Homer

    Global warming is as about as scientific as catching the noon train to Mars tommorrow morning and getting on the noon train to 4th and main street! Science itself PROVES beyond a shaodaw of doubt that the earth is young and the world was CREATED, not evolved! Problem is this: you have a bunch of godless morans who refuse the truth when the TRUTH is in front of them! This situation of the fires and tornadoes and famines and hurricanes and earthquakes and pestilences etc have NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do w/global warming…BUT Global SIN! This is NOTHING more than God’s Judgement upon the earth, NOW! NO GOD, BNO PEACE! KNOW GOD, KNOW PEACE!! 1 Peter 3:18 KJV See P.S. this is all happening because man has separated himself from God, and God has given him over to a reprobate mind!!

    • Doc Sarvis

      It sounds like you agree with the scientists that the earth’s climate is warming. You just don’t agree with them on the cause. I guess that is a step in the right direction.

    • nc

      Homer, how “young” is the earth and what does age have to do with an earth that was “created”?

    • DEE

      GO AHEAD AND PREACH HOMER, I JUST FINISHED PUTTING STAN IN HIS PLACE FOR TWO COMMENTS I READ IN HIS THREADS. BUT YOU KNOW THE WORD SAYS BROAD AND WIDE IS THE ROAD TO DESTRUCTION AND MANY WALK THERE IN; BUT NARROW IS THE ROAD TO ETERNAL LIFE AND FEW WALK UPON IT. GOD BLESS

      • Jeff

        Whoa. Now that’s some crazy (expletive deleted)!

  • Norm

    It is a known fact that the polar ice caps are melting. If they continue to do so, ocean levels will rise. This will substantially alter the way we live. What are the dangers of working to prevent global warming? Even if the consequences of global warming are minimal, the worst that could happen is that we create a better, cleaner world for future generations. I don’t see why people are fighting for pollution and contamination of the planet. It’s ridiculous.

    • George E

      Norm,

      We’re not fighting for pollution and contamination, we’re fighting for our economy, property, and liberties. The measures proposed to “fight” global warming are very, very expensive, but not very effective. I think it is ridiculous to wreck our economy and surrender our property and liberties for no measureable gain.

    • Larry

      I live in Wa state.Very close to oceon an pretty close to Alaska and North pole.Seems to me that everytime I go to the water it remains the same.Where oh where is all that melting go!!!!You believers are fools.The fact that you are so willing to make all of these people wealthy beyond their means is unbelievable. You only watch the portions of ice caps melting that they wish for you to see and not the ones that are growing.

      • Larry

        Pardon me on my spelling,,,,I ment ocean to u that didn’t know what I meant.

      • eddie47d

        You are not going to see every change and hardly not by looking out your back door. There is still more melting going on than the growing of glaciers.

  • http://www.facebook.com/gary.mcaleer.10 Gary McAleer

    Thank you for this post! Betrayal of people’s trust is thematic these days simply due to those who impose opinions that are void of humility and careful scrutiny. It seems man is always swinging the pendulum from one extreme to the other while never finding the center ground where the TRUE solutions lay. So, what is the source of all of our troubles? “The love of money is the root of ALL evil.” I Timothy 6:10. Laws never come forbidding this indulgence of politicians, corporations, scientists, educators, and religionists.

    • stan

      I get really sick and tired of all this religious B.S. This has nothing to do with a GOD or any other devine intervention. That’s all just B.S.
      I don’t know if the warming is man made or a natural occurrence but it is a fact that it is getting warmer for some or no reason at all, but it is happening it seems to me.

      I don’t see a problem with improving or protecting the environment, nor do I necessarily think that someone making money on it is a SIN, for pete’s sake. We are capitalist and this country is built upon people trying to get ahead, just some are better than it than others. Good for them as long as they don’t destroy our way of life and the overall economy getting there. That’s is what government is supposed to protect us from. So, the problem as I see it is our greedy government leaders, Democrap or Republican makes no difference. If they don’t protect our country and the U.S.Constitution, then they should be voted out and replaced and if the replacement doesn’t do the job, then rinse and repeat.

      As far as a vengeful GOD. GIVE ME A BREAK. Let’s see, there is this “all forgiving” being out there somewhere that so loved the world… and a loving father of all mankind that made us in his own image, but if you don’t do exactly what he wishes, when he wishes, as he wishes, then he will condemn his “children” to somewhere so his “loved” children will burn for eternity. If that’s what you call a loving GOD then there is something wrong with you. Sounds like a completely insane ASS to me. You can have him, I’ll just die and decompose, sounds preferable to me.

      • http://www.facebook.com/gary.mcaleer.10 Gary McAleer

        Only the spirit of arrogant ignorance surpasses your blind passion. Have you ever witnessed witchcraft or anything paranormal? If you had you would have held your tongue. I have, many times in both the evil and righteous realms. And the evidence was tangible, beyond coincidence or any random stroke of luck. You think Sylvia Browne is a hoax, who Montel Williams has repeatedly on his show? The principle is simple: There are controlling forces outside of our ability to control our destiny. Who you choose determines your fate. And I’m not talking about the rubbish Catholic/Protestant doctrine of eternal hellfire. The Bible is clear on that issue: our religious leaders are liars and stand unrepentant in sin. I’m talking about life and death, whether you live forever or cease to exist forever. There is no middle ground between these two. The evil of this world can only be explained by the presence of evil prodding men to do things their good conscience would have never allowed had not the evil been present. (Just look at the Colorado gunman). But any genuine heart who inquires to know if Christ is true will receive an answer (without exception). And once He is discovered, learn His ways, not the church’s.

      • Steve

        Consider this! It is quite clear that there is less particulate in the air now than there was when I was a kid. Look at all the old photos of the 20s and all you can ever see is haze in the air.

        The cleaner the air is the more the suns rays can reach the earth and heat it up. That is the basics of cloud cover and highs and lows.

        So, in fact by people making the air cleaner by removing particulate we may indeed actually be causing the negative changes our selves. The earth reacts by increasing heat and winds and adding particulate to cool it.

        Of course you can always blame it on cow farts. Give me a break dude. The earth takes care of its self, it was designed that way.

        As far s the religious thing is concerned. Burning in hell does not necessarily mean on this planet. However, the last time we pissed the big guy off he only left one family on the earth. But, then again he did promise not to do it that way again. We will see.

      • Karolyn

        This is why I don’t believe in the Christian concept of God. To me God is Universal Intelligence. Everything and everybody is God. We are all parts of a whole. That’s why everything is so screwed up – because we each think we are so individual and so important. A God that they believe in would have no use for jealousy, anger, revenge or any of those particularly human emotions. instead of man being created in God’s image, God is created in man’s image. God is pure love.

      • DEE

        STAN, STAN, STAN, THIS IS THE SECOND COMMENT FROM YOU ATTACKING PEOPLES COMMENTS ABOUT GOD IN THIER POSTS. YOU SEEM TO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT GOD. WELL LET ME ENLIGHTEN YOU. “DON’T WORRY THIS WON’T HURT.”
        GOD IS REAL!! WHETHER YOU AGREE OR NOT IS YOUR RIGHT. ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE GIVEN THIER LIFE TO CHRIST, CONFESSED THIER SINS, BELIEVED GOD IN THIER HEARTS, BEEN ENDOWED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, SPEND TIME IN READING THE BILBLE, PRAYER AND WORSHIP WILL BE ENLIGHTENED TO THE MYSTERIES OF WHO HE WAS IN THE PAST, IS NOW; AND WILL ALWAYS BE.

        SO FOR YOU TO COMMENT ON SOMETHING YOU KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT SHOWS YOUR IGNORANCE. IT’S NOT JUST KNOWING ABOUT GOD; IT’S ABOUT A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD AND A WAY OF LIFE. IF YOU KNEW GOD YOU WOULD AT LEAST KNOW THAT MUCH. THIS UNIVERSE STARTED WITH GOD AND WILL END WITH GOD!!! ALL THAT MAN DOES IN BETWEEN WILL ANSWER TO AND BE JUDGED BY THAT SAME GOD.

        WHEN YOU LOOK IN THE MIRROR THAT’S NOT STAN YOU SEE; THAT’S THE BODY THAT YOUR PARENTS NAMED STAN THAT HOUSES YOUR SOUL. YOUR SOUL; THAT BELONGS TO GOD; IS WHO YOU ARE!! AFTER DEATH; COMES JUDGEMENT. THE ONLY THING THAT DIES IS THE BODY, THE SOUL LIVES ON AND WILL BE JUDGED!! MIGHT WANNA THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU MUST DO TO BE SAVED FROM THE WRATH OF GOD. I SENSE YOU ARE A NON BELIEVER. IF YOU HAVE OR CAN GET HOLD OF A BIBLE; PLEASE READ ST. JOHN 3rd ch: 16-21st vs. AND ROMANS 10th chapter.

  • Dave67

    Why is it that the conservatives are the ones who hate to conserve? I would love to understand it.

    The earth has gone through cooling phases and warming phases throughout history. It is a naturally occurring phenomenon. The variable that we deal with today is human behavior (Corp sized farming, industry, over population) So wouldn’t the conservative thing to do would be to conserve?

    See I watched the movie of Gore, and nowhere does he say that humans are responsible for the warming trend but they are a contributing factor. I believe Al Gore to be a tool but that doesn’t mean he is wrong on this.

    Now I know this is hard for some to fathom here but Oil, Coal is FINITE. Not Infinite The rest of the world is moving to different forms of energy including renewables. The United States can either lead or follow. I’d like to see us lead. But it takes effort.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Dave67, you said “the rest of the world is moving toward different forms of energy”.
      NOT TRUE!!!

      • Dave67

        Nancy, other countries are doing the research, putting in the money… China is investing billions in new energy sources due to their tremendous energy needs along with building many fossil fuel plants that are helping to make China the giant cesspool it is today.

        We could be leading in the clean energy arena but we would rather go the path of least resistance.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Dave67, China is HARDLY “the rest of the world”!!! Good grief! What a liar you are!!!

      • Dave67

        Nancy, put your thinking cap on… who is our #1 economic rival today? Its China…

        China is one example. Europe is diversifying, coastal areas are utilizing more wind power today than they ever have.

        We know its a slow transition from one energy source to another, we can either lead or not… its just that simple and your name calling exposes your fear and misinformation on this subject.

        • George E

          Dave67,

          If you really want the US to lead in clean energy, then get behind natural gas. We’ve got lots of it and it’s affordable now. We don’t have to wait 20-50 years for technology to catch up.

          In the meantime, please spend your environmental efforts on trying to get the Chinese to convert all of their coal-fired electric generating plants to solar and wind power plants. You’ll do more for the environment and won’t wreck havoc on our economy if you’ll do that. This is a compromise I think most of us conservatives can get behind. Just leave our economy and liberties in this country alone, please.

      • eddie47d

        Although China is still a cesspool of pollution they are also the world’s leading manufacturer of solar panels and alternative technology. Obama and G Bush tried to reverse that but the Republicans in Congress stalled and blocked those efforts. So China wins again.

        • George E

          Eddie,

          This is a contest I don’t mind “losing” because it has not net benefit at this point. I don’t mind funding research, but it needs to stay in the lab until it can be released to the private sector without government subsidies.

      • Dave67

        George E,

        Back to the old attack lines I see… Yes China needs to do their part but I don’t live in China, do you? I don’t have a vote in China.

        I do have a vote here… for what all good its going to do after the corporatists like the Koch Brothers get finished destroying the unions while making sure unlimited money in the political arena so they are the only ones able to buy the Gov’s policies… but I digress…

        What is so wrong with making solar, wind more affordable and viable? Natural Gas is great… Fracking to get the Natural gas, not so much

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/07/25/professor-behind-pro-fracking-study-slammed-for-oil-industry-connections/

        http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593#slide-4

      • George E

        Dave67,

        Nothing is wrong with making solar and wind more affordable……so long as it can be done without massive government subsidies. Keep these technologies in the lab or in their niche markets until they can be demonstrated to be economical in the private sector without never ending government subsidies.

        I live in an area where companies are drilling and producing natural gas from shale formations, and I have never heard of any problem from fracturing. All of the supposed problems I have heard about have been based on supposition, not actual data. On the other hand, I have seen these areas come to life with economic activity due to all of this drilling and production. We like it, and want much, much more of it. We would, however, like the government to get the hell out of the way and let these companies do their business without all the interference. We’re sick and tired of the left’s war on fossil fuels. We’ll tolerate your beloved wind and solar so long as you don’t ask us to pay outrageous sums to fund it if you’ll just back off and let the fossil fuels industry do what they do best…………create real energy in economic volumes without wrecking the environment. If the small amounts of “tax credits” these industries gets bothers you so much, we’ll throw that in as well. Deal? Thank you.

    • Larry

      And u know oil is finate and not infinate how?????? Nobody truly knows this answer.

      • Dave67

        How is oil and coal created Larry? Is the earth an infinite body in the cosmos or a finite body?

      • eddie47d

        There is still plenty of dirty coal but more oil and coal are being taken out than being replenished. The demand is outstripping the supply at least with oil.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Nature has been transmuting dead life into black gold for millions of years using little more than heat, pressure and time, scientists tell us.

        A so-called fossil fuel, petroleum is believed by most scientists to be the transformed remains of long dead organisms. The majority of petroleum is thought to come from the fossils of plants and tiny marine organisms. Larger animals might contribute to the mix as well.

        “Even some of the dinosaurs may have gotten involved in some of this,” says William Thomas, a geologists at the University of Kentucky. “[Although] I think it would be quite rare and a very small and insignificant contribution.”

        But another theory holds that more oil was in Earth from the beginning than what’s been produced by dead animals, but that we’ve yet to tap it.

        In the leading theory, dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps, mixing with mud and sand. Over time, more sediment piles on top and the resulting heat and pressure transforms the organic layer into a dark and waxy substance known as kerogen.

        Left alone, the kerogen molecules eventually crack, breaking up into shorter and lighter molecules composed almost solely of carbon and hydrogen atoms. Depending on how liquid or gaseous this mixture is, it will turn into either petroleum or natural gas.

        How long does it take?

        Scientists aren’t really sure, but they figure it’s probably on the order of hundreds of thousands of years.

        The idea that petroleum is formed from dead organic matter is known as the “biogenic theory” of petroleum formation and was first proposed by a Russian scientist almost 250 years ago.

        In the 1950′s, however, a few Russian scientists began questioning this traditional view and proposed instead that petroleum could form naturally deep inside the Earth.

        This so-called “abiogenic” petroleum might seep upward through cracks formed by asteroid impacts to form underground pools, according to one hypothesis. Some geologists have suggested probing ancient impact craters in the search for oil.

        Abiogenic sources of oil have been found, but never in commercially profitable amounts. The controversy isn’t over whether naturally forming oil reserves exist, said Larry Nation of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. It’s over how much they contribute to Earth’s overall reserves and how much time and effort geologists should devote to seeking them out.

        If abiogenic petroleum sources are indeed found to be abundant, it would mean Earth contains vast reserves of untapped petroleum and, since other rocky objects formed from the same raw material as Earth, that crude oil might exist on other planets or moons in the solar system, scientists say.

        Both processes for making petroleum likely require thousands of years.

        http://www.articlesbase.com/nature-articles/how-oil-and-natural-gas-form-167527.html

    • Dave67

      George E,

      When you say subsidies, you mean like the oil companies continue to get?

      Now you mention the Gov getting “out of the way”… Well they did in the Gulf of Mexico and we got the Deepwater Horizon because the Gov was in bed with the oil and logistics firms involved.

      The Gov is doing its job and they should be all up in your business making sure your business does the right things. Without Gov “interference” then the only way to get firms to do the right thing is through bad publicity and that only happens after a disaster.

      Its the Gov job to use all sound scientific info at their disposal to make sure business is being conducted safely and that energy companies are meeting our energy needs in the safest way possible. You will forgive me if I do not believe that an Energy company, if there are no Governmental rules to follow will do the right thing BEFORE disaster strikes.

      Business should do what it does… make money.
      Gov should do what it does, protect the people and the land it governs…

      If rules are outdated, then they should be dis guarded…But I believe any energy company involved in this business should be tightly regulated to avert disaster.

      • George E

        Dave67,

        Keep in mind that our government did have regulations and regulators in place before, during, and after the BP oil spill. They didn’t keep the spill from happening. Further, if you recall, the administration would not accept help containing the oil spill from several offshore companies, so the spill may have been worse than it had to be. I’ll also point out that it’s been reported that BP had a special relationship with the Obama administration, which causes me to wonder if that’s not why they were careless in their oversight. Nevertheless, I’ll bet the loss of several million barrels of crude oil did more to teach BP management the error of their ways than a crowd of government regulators and reams of new regulations. The government always takes credit for regulating us into good health and prosperity, but more often than not, the facts bring that conclusion into question.

      • Dave67

        George E,

        They did have regs but they were not enforced. I have not heard of a “special” relationship between Obama and BP. Can you elaborate?

        Hailburton also hid certain failures they discovered in the faulty cement used in the safety cover as well as no tests were performed in water that deep with the technology. Business will almost always cut costs above doing the right thing. There are too many examples of this.

        Gov is only as good or as bad as the people we let run it. The people overseeing the safety the MMS have been a bad joke in the regulatory realm for years.

        • George E

          Dave67,

          I have to agree with a lot of what you say. Obviously, we need regulations to protect our national lands from undue harm, but we also need to balance that with our need to find and produce the natural resources under these lands. Here’s a pretty good article I found in a surprising place that you may also find interesting. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/may2010/gulf-m06.shtml

      • Dave67

        George E, thanks for that article, very illuminating. Just goes to show with the right connections and money, Corp America gets what it wants no matter who is in the WH.

        This is another reason why big money needs to be out of politics.

        • George E

          Dave67,

          I don’t know if I agree with that, but transparency should be helpful……………if we’re paying attention. Also, this experience suggests to me that poor regulation could be no better than no regulation, so why pay the price for poor regulation and dilute ourselves that we’re safe? This sort of thing apparently goes on a lot under most all administrations, it seems. It’s obvious to me that this needs to be cleaned up without political motives involved.

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

      Dave67 says: Why is it that the conservatives are the ones who hate to conserve? I would love to understand it.

      Where did you get the idea that Conservatives hate to conserve? I would love to know how you arrived at such a conclusion.

      Dave67 says: The earth has gone through cooling phases and warming phases throughout history. It is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

      Agreed, YAHOOO!!!!

      Dave67 says: The variable that we deal with today is human behavior (Corp sized farming, industry, over population) So wouldn’t the conservative thing to do would be to conserve?

      Conjecture. Cannot be proven, therefore, inconclusive.

      Dave67 says: See I watched the movie of Gore, and nowhere does he say that humans are responsible for the warming trend but they are a contributing factor. I believe Al Gore to be a tool but that doesn’t mean he is wrong on this.

      Why not? Al Gore is most certainly not, a climatoligist. Al Gore is a politician, and the first carbon-credit millionaire. After all, it was he who devised the carbon-credit scheme. Speaking of tools…

      Dave67 says:Now I know this is hard for some to fathom here but Oil, Coal is FINITE. Not Infinite.

      Wrong! Nature has been transmuting dead life into oil for millions of years using little more than heat, pressure and time; therefore, infinite!

      Dave67 says: The rest of the world is moving to different forms of energy including renewables.

      Interesting word, “moving”. Did you know that there are people who can appear to be working, yet produce nothing?

      Dave67 says: The United States can either lead or follow. I’d like to see us lead. But it takes effort.

      Personally, i’d like to see you leave. Wishful thinking?

  • Rymond Trinidad

    People of the world, konw this!! every planet in our solar system is heating up. The ice caps on Mars and our own moon are melting. Are there cars emiting polution on these planets? NO ! The powers that want to take our wealth are hiding this fact from you. The sun is expanding ( Growing ) just try and look at it sometime, you can’t ! so, what is happening? Go to You Tube and look under ” what is happening to our sun” The answer is there for all of you. If you think 2012 is hot you haven’t seen anything yet!!

    • Doc Sarvis

      I think most climatologists are saying that human activities are exacerbaing the warming effects.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Nooooooo, they’ve been saying for years that WE were causing it!!!

      • Doc Sarvis

        Human caused global warming is seperate from natural global warming but they can co-occur, and therefore the human global warming exacerbates any natural warming that may be occurring.

      • George E

        Doc,

        Even though scientists agree that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases “could” potentially cause global warming to occur, they absolutely don’t know if it is causing global warming. Further, they don’t know whether human emissions of carbon dioxide are having any effect on temperatures whatsoever because even if carbon dioxide emissions in total are having an effect on global temperatures, it is not known what percent of the total emissions are human induced. There are simply too many unknowns to factually make the statement that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide are causing the earth’s temperatures to rise. On the other hand, we do have a pretty good handle on the cost to control human emissions of carbon dioxide. These costs are enormous in terms of impact on our economy and personal liberties.

      • Doc Sarvis

        George E.
        Please see my first post on this thread. Scientists do not provide us with these sort of factual conclusions. They gather evidence through experimentation, data, analysis, and provide theories based on the conclusions they make of all of that. They can make the correlation between cause and affect but they don’t make a factual conclusion.

      • George E

        Doc,

        I don’t take issue with that. My issue is the cost of trying to rectify a problem that may not really be a problem.

      • eddie47d

        As populations grow and demand more energy the problems we are now facing will only exacerbate. Global warming may not be the major issue right now but how can it not get worse if the population trend continues. That will mean we will have to find solutions much faster and those costs could become too expensive to even implement. The larger the population grows the more liberties are taken away unless your wealth can build you an isolated compound far away from everyone else. The world is much different now where in the past a nation could take from another country and grow their wealth. Back then (50 years or more) they could also ignore the consequences of their environmental actions. Not so anymore.

      • George E

        Eddie,

        The only thing I can say is that there may be compensating processes to consume the carbon dioxide or shield the earth from excessive heat from the sun as the earth heats up. One theory I read which seems logical to me is that as the earth warms more water evaporates creating rain clouds which shield the sun’s rays from the earth preventing further heating from occurring. I don’t know if this really happens, but it does seem likely to me, so I still think we need to understand these processes better before jumping over the cliff like is being proposed by the environmental left crowd.

    • http://peresonallibertydigest.. gottaplenty

      Ice caps on our moon???

  • http://www.CampMatecumbeVeterans.com Manny Gutierrez

    Thanks for “clearing the air”. LOL
    The greens will continue to shiver and sweat at the appropriate times in order to be politically correct. They can not be taught Truth for it is anathema to their minds.

  • jim

    When I was a kid back in the 60s they were telling us of the coming ice age. By this time, all the glaciers would be covering most of North America and you would not be able to get a rowboat out of NY Harbor because of the ice. Now these so called experts of that day were as sincere and passionate about it as the ones today are. Once again they are being proven wrong. If you want the truth of about what is going to happen to the world and the changes coming, then turn to the Bible and read the Book of Revelations. Trust GOD not man in these things.

    • Doc Sarvis

      I love all this talk about the 1960′s. We were just starting a space program back then, very few computers to crunch tons of numbers, and climatology was still in it’s stone age. With all the scientific data and advancements in scientific methods since the days of manual typerwriter, climatology has come a LONG way.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        And perhaps it still has a long way to go! Theory is just theory!

    • stan

      Great, another GOD freak.

      • angelwannabe

        Your as free to NOT believe, as he is to believe…or you can leave….

      • DEE

        STAN, YOU DON’T NECCESSARILY HAVE TO BE A FREAK TO BELIEVE IN GOD AND I AM SADENED BY YOUR COMMENT. IT’S PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT MAKE THE WORLD A PREDUDICE PLACE. I BELIEVE THIS THREAD IS FOR US TO COMMENT AND CHALLENGE OTHER COMMENTS ON GLOBAL WARMING. ATTACKING PEOPLES SPIRITUAL BELIEFS IS JUST IGNORANCE ON YOUR PART.

        • Jeff

          Dee, where does the Bible say, “pollute the Earth to thy heart’s content for I will come back and clean up the mess.”

  • Tony

    I used to be a weatherman. The earth does warm. But then it cools. Then it warms. Climate does change – it’s how Mother Nature balances her checkbook. Weather and the stock market travel in 7 to 10 year cycles and there are 7 to 10 of those in what I used to call a “Super Cycle” (think Dust Bowl and the Great Depression). The government can take all your money and rush out to buy the ideas they like regardless of the price, but, as is always the case, the government is the least effective and most expensive solution to anything.

    • eddie47d

      Is that why the French government built the multi-billion dollar Supercollider to prove a theory. Is that why we sent man to the moon just to prove a theory? Most theories cost mucho deniro to bring to fruition and it all depends on how far man wants to progress or to sit back and allow itself to go extinct.

  • Howard Roark

    Two words debunk global warming. “ICE AGE” there have been at least two of them that they know of and each time the earth recovered.there was a mini ice age in the seventeen hundreds that lasted about a hundred years during which thousands died as its result but again the earth recovered.

    Randy 131 says the truth that temperature change on the other planets have changed the same as earth. (the polar caps on mars were receding at the same time as earth) sun spot activity seems to be the common denominator.

    Dave 67 asso truthfully says that climate has been wildly fluctuating throughout the history of the earth. the thing is though, that they happen over such a long time period no one lives long enough to whitness a single event so each time an event begins everyone thinks it has never happened before.

    • Doc Sarvis

      I think most climatologists are saying that human activities are exacerbaing the warming effects

      • George E

        Doc,

        How much is human activity exacerbating the warming effects, and how much will it cost to neutralize this effect? These are facts that should matter when making decisions like how much we’re willing to pay to fix this problem. I’m pretty sure the answer is 1) we’re not sure how much impact human activity is having on global warming, and 2) it’ll cost a lot. This doesn’t sound to me like a compelling argument for wrecking our economy and surrendering our personal liberties to fix this problem.

      • Howard Roark

        And they have been caught several times falsifying the data to make it appear the way they want it to.

      • Doc Sarvis

        George E.
        Please see my response to your previous post to me.

      • Steve

        Doc,

        Well that could be. After all we are all little chemical furnaces walking around putting out about 98 degrees each. Multiply that times the number of people and there you go. So we remove all the particulate and smoke from the air and make it even hotter. Good program. Now lets see, where does the science guys get there money from? Oh yah, Government grants. That’s right. Well we sure want to keep that going.

      • eddie47d

        Government “grants” put us on the moon and helped build the railroads and get oil companies off the ground. Keep the mind open to all possibilities for there has been many successes and a few failures from government helping out. It’s not all good or bad.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Doc: I think most climatologists are saying that human activities are exacerbaing the warming effects.

        No, not most, just some.

      • Steve

        Yes grants can also be good except when they are used against the people who pay the bill. In this case the agenda 21 movement has infiltrated the system and that is the difference. It is a corrupt vehicle to destroy our country in favor of a beloved world order mentality. Many have said it is all about the dollars and that is the truth. Freedom to worship how where and what you want is the basic principal of this country and also why it has prospered so well. Loosing that to a one world order should be everyone’s highest concern. That is where the war is folks. It is not about CFC’s or CO2 gas.

  • PeterHolmes

    Those photos from space, showing the rapid and recent disappearance of 40% of the polar ice caps and the regression of so many glaciers – figure they’re phony, doctored? Just wondering?

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Nobody says the polar caps aren’t melting! It’s the cause that’s in dispute!

      • http://www.facebook.com/rerogersjr Rick Rogers

        Ok.. so the cause is the Dispute? I think I read somewhere that there one thing that lets ICE MELT and that a Tempature above 32F or 0 C…

  • G. Smith

    Well it all seems to me that we are ignoring the overwhelming numbers of dedicated researchers outside the republican democrat divide. There are scientists around the world that are not on Al Gore’s so called payroll. Significant data has been compiled over the course of several decades. If we are looking for a cataclysmic event to justify an ah! ah! gotcha moment like the one suggested here from one senile old man with a few credentials , that’s not going to happen. I look at this like a portfolio. Is there a trend? The data over time does seem to suggest it. That being said what should we do about it, if anything? I know that big oil and big coal are not the least bit interested in doing anything it or even acknowledging it. Corporations, I being people and behaving as such are naturally more concerned with their best interests and not mine. I’m pretty sure that the whale oil industry had the same reaction when real oil was discovered.

    Energy has always been subsidized because of the vital role it plays in survival. Those who insist on keeping all our eggs in one basket and just subsidizing one source renders us very ill prepared for contingencies. Our reserves of virtually anything including food, water, oil, and the list goes on are so serious degraded now that it won’t take much to empty every shelf in the America over the weekend. Once this happens the recovery and restocking will be extremely slow coming if at all.

    I was in the middle of hurricane andrew and I saw how a population of rational people behave when threatened with shortages real or perceived and rescue is not eminent. This all took place even though there was National Guard Troops everywhere. We saw the same thing in Katrina. Imagine this on a national scale and … well you see where I’m going here. More shooting wars in the middle east could disrupt the flow of oil from the Gulf just enough to produce major shortages on main street USA. I remember the gas lines and the odd even fill up days back in the 70′s brought about by the oil embargo by the newly formed OPEC. I saw people in fist fights over a place in line. Could this actually happen? You bet it can.

    Is our military prepared to wage more shooting wars on several different fronts? I’m a prepper I see storm clouds gathering. I’m a product of the sixties been to the Southeast asia three times. We are not in a great position to project our power at this moment largely because our military is burned out. A condition that I might add spans more than one Presidency and I contend will only be remedied by another draft. Relying mostly on the jobless to fill the ranks of our defenses is degrading quality. Call me crazy but when we abandoned, lead by example and diplomacy a long time ago we tipped our hand. Walk softy and carry a big stick was a policy that worked for a very long time. Once we engaged we were exposed. Messing around with a few tin pot sand piles in the middle east going on a dozen years now .. give me a break. This was all about making a few wealthy people a lot wealthier. Ok I’m done .. sorry for the long windedness .. Protect yourselves, and do it now. Buy gold, buy silver, as much as you can and only the real stuff not the paper stuff.

    • Pierre

      Thanks!

  • angelwannabe

    Yeah, Well when ya can’t get anywhere on Political blogs bashing the 2nd Amendment, the Liberals can always go back to there, tried and true, “Global Warming”! and I see they have by some of the posts above…And don’t forget, We The People are making the Global Warming effects worse by merely being here….

    The Earth has done well ALL BY HERSELF before our genius’s got here and started to interfer. The Earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years. This year we’ve added Solar Flares folks, they’ve been going on since the beginning of time, were in one of the worse ones for a long time__Now if you Liberals want to find something to blame for real destruction, I’d suggest you contact HAARP!

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      I agree with you! I think that HAARP is the cause of all the weather phenomena that we have been experiencing. People keep screaming about the extreme changes in the weather. Well yeah but, our government can control the weather, so if they’re not CAUSING this, why don’t they do something to correct it? I think they’re causing it to bring us to our knees. The food shortages and the economic situation will cause “everybody” to rely on the government. A governments wet dream; the people are in their complete control.

      • Pierre

        What are you smoking? The government controlling the weather? Causing Food Shortages?

      • angelwannabe

        Agreed!__ Nancy, its all in the elitest grand plan!_-These bastards think they’re gods and so far their thinking has got them what they’ve wanted which is wealth & power__but the masses are waking to the truth and there is safety in numbers.
        I’m convinced the Good Lord is going to let these nut jobs act as if they’re in control for just so long, then he’s going to show’em just who the real boss is!_I’m not a bettin woman, but if I was I’d bet on God winning! :)

      • angelwannabe

        Pierre, think a little, Eythenol (made from corn)__that in itself is adding to corn production!_ the drought is causing corn prices to sky rocket, do you how much of our food is made from corn?

      • angelwannabe

        …and may I add Nancy, that the Freak Halloween Ice storm we had here in the Northeast, is thought to be a product of HAARP…don’t know for sure just sayin’….

      • Karolyn
    • http://n/a Jerrold

      YES, the liberals or conservatives or independents or other individuals not educating themselves, while the net is still not controlled entirely………….should realize the tectonic weapons as Dr. Nick Begich – expert explains in concert with the ‘chemtrails’ or persistent contrails, are ruining our climate and living organisms. Liberals especially should wake up to the money grubbing tactics of Al Gore’s carbon trading schemes and all else. wattsupwiththat.com is premier in the climate debate circles!

  • Daveh234

    Seems to me there are many things we can do to make our life on this marble better.
    I don’t see anything wrong with recycling, reusing, reclaiming our resources.
    Using solar panels, I have many, for charging batteries and decreasing our use of coal/oil/atomic produced power can only help on all bases.
    Collecting water from the roof to irrigate my vegetables because water is the most valuable resource.
    Self sustaining is “the best way”.
    But if I’m a greenie because I make the attempt I am considered a “bad person” here by most of those posting.
    For me it is liberating to not be paying to the utilities and other profiteers. My “footprint” is lessened by each thing I do to use less and I still get more out of it.
    Happier and healthier.
    Global warming is something that is happening and regardless of why it is happening I can attempt to do my best to lessen my contribution to it. At the same time I am protecting myself from the affects to my advantage with little disadvantage incurred.

    • daniel

      Daveh234 I agree with you entirely on this. There is every advantage to utilize what we have efficiently. That is good. I know that the climate is changing as does most everybody here. It is the “cure” I question entirely. At best it seems that the counters to this climate change are as bad as the change itself.
      At this point for example the ethanol program has cut the amount of farmland available for food production causing price spikes. In this country it may be an inconvenience but in other countries it has hurt significantly. I believe political agenda has taken over something that once was a good idea. Now it has been bastardized into a tool to achieve political ends with no thought given to consequences.

    • Daveh234

      The Ethanol subsidies are a joke. Big farming is a Big problem.
      Using Round Up to both kill the weeds and make corn grow just seems like we are being manipulated on all fronts.
      Ethanol isn’t doing what it was supposed to do. It’s taken us away from other research using more efficient plant materials for fuel.
      Corn is a political chess piece.

      • eddie47d

        I agree David but that goes straight to free enterprise. Where anyone can make a buck off of a product even if it creates a problem for someone else. The Ethanol solution was a good one but the benefits didn’t materialize for the consumer and only the farmer got rich. Maybe they need to go back to farming for food. Think of all the pet rocks that were sold in stores 40 years ago. Go figure in how gullible humans can be in creating corn shortages.

      • angelwannabe

        Eddie, “People want to make a buck even if it harms someone else” I can guaran-dam-tee-ya eddie, we could clean up the earth spotless, and you libs would create another problem, so you could fix it and be the heros, get a life__wake the H*ll up would ya?

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000929742691 Eugene Sevene

          I am not eddie but I think that I said GOD was in charge and we had no control over his planet.

      • eddie47d

        Your sense of humor is thankfully not contagious Angel. LOL

      • angelwannabe

        Your liberal jargon isn’t working here either eddie, at least not since I’ve been on this blog since 2009, you’ve been kicked off how many times now and you STILLTHINK YOUR ALWAYS RIGHT….
        JUST SAYIN….

    • Buster the Anatolian

      “But if I’m a greenie because I make the attempt I am considered a “bad person” here by most of those posting.”

      Wrong. As long as you are spending your money to do those things I am aware of no one that opposes you doing so. The opposition is to an ever bigger out of control government forcing unproven theories on us at our expense.

      I to do things to conserve like collecting rainwater for my garden, compost manure for my fertilizer, etc. but I do it because I want to not because the government tells me I have to.

      • George E

        Good for you, Buster. Sounds like you’re a very responsible person to me. Take care.

  • Fedup

    Hey, Flashy, climate change has been occurring since the beginning of time; and man has been here only a very short time. Climate change will continue, with or without man’s activities and intervention.

  • RUSerious

    Beware of scientists who know better than you and don’t believe your lying eyes. Global warming is a fact, like it or not, ignore it at your peril.

  • uvuvuv

    i ordered this book on indian history from book of the month. it took a long time to get it because it took so long for enough orders to build up to justify printing it. i thought that was odd because the dem libs are always interested in the downtrodden, right? well, it’s too hard to mobilize their votes when they’re scattered in all these reservations. anyway it explained the mystery of chaca canyon in new mexico, the abandoned pueblo village. the book simply said that as the climate got warmer it was more difficult to grow their food, and so many families began drifting away. finally with all those empty adobe hogans it was too weird for the remaining families so they all left. actually this warm-up and cool down cycle repeated several times. in cooler times there was enough game for all and the tribes did not fight over shared hunting grounds. but then as it got warmer the game became more scarce and the tribes began fighting. you know, like, the fighting sioux. one reason for all these warm-ups, every time the pre-history indians flew off to kuala lampur to attend the global warming conferences, their jets left hydrocarbons in the air. the trouble with global warming is there isn’t a reliable baseline. you can’t expect climate data from central siberia in the 1800s. and even now with satellite scanning there is no consistency, where correction factors can be reasonably applied to the data. one day the satellites read too high (as compared to weather balloon data) and the next too low. there might be indeed global warming, we could be in one of those cycles as mentioned, but this is not empircally borne out. the scientists could at least have the intellectual honesty to admit this.

    • 45caliber

      uv

      Most temperature data is from about 1920 to present, mainly in the US and Europe. According to a climatologist I read about some years ago, this time period has very unusual weather patterns since you could forecast about the same weather this time next year as you have now. For the last 30 years or so, the world is going back to the NORMAL weather patterns where no one can predict from week to week, much less year to year. His article wasn’t so much about weather as it was a warning to governments about food production. He stated that all food production was based on the predictable weather patterns. WIth the normal patterns that are unpredictable, he was advising all countries to plant twice as much food as he expected floods and droughts to kill off half the crops. He seems to be right.

      • uvuvuv

        i can’t knowledgeably comment on whether or not warming is taking place. my friend’s major professor in meteorology warned back in the 70s that within a couple decades wisconsin would look like kansas. well it didn’t happen and so i asked my friend what’s the story. he said dr horne recanted. but he had to wait until he retired.

  • http://gmail bubba

    Patriots Look up Maurise Strong& Rothschild on UN agenda 21 , cap & trade, globalisation. Them two made it up. Maurse strong was wanted for questioning , but now is in china hiding behind razor fence compound. Rothschild family banking dynasty is puppet master of THE NEW VORLD ORDER.

  • Pierre

    But I don’t see anything wrong with Wind and Solar Power.

    • angelwannabe

      There is nothing wrong with alternative methods of energy, but you don’t try and delete out fossil fuels until you know what the hell your doing in how well alternative energies work!!!

      • 45caliber

        I definately agree with that!

      • eddie47d

        Then again those who totally rely on fossil fuels are like a drug addict who goes through rehabilatation but then falls back into his addiction(oil) again and again. They are afraid to move on and improve their lives through more sensible solutions. Even though coal ruins our health it easy and cheap so we keep using it when we don’t have too. Like a drug addict they ruin themselves to make themselves feel better and are too stubborn to admit it.

        • George E

          Eddie,

          You and your neighbors are free to try any form of electricity generation you want and are willing to pay for. Just leave mine alone. We like our fossil fuels here, and want to keep them. Our air and water are clean and our electricity is relatively cheap. We’re happy. Go push your climate change concerns on someone else.

      • 45caliber

        eddie:

        I thought you were one who was in favor of legalizing drugs!

      • angelwannabe

        eddie, always trying to be right,…. I think what was said, I’ve no problem with experimenting with alternative methods of energy, but you can’t be idiot enough to THINK AND make scarce, a proven effective method of energy such as, oil, gas coal, natural gas, BEFORE knowing how efficient the other alternatives are___What’s wrong with leaving the fossil fuels alone, whats wrong with us HAVING A CHOICE?

        • marcjeric32

          I like it when Mullah Obama and his eco-nazi friends insist on “green energy”; why, you say? Because it does not exist – it tries to defeat the first and second laws of therodynamics which is impossible. Like those medieval princes maintaining their house alchemists for centuries in their attempts to transform lead into gold.

          • Jeff

            You think utilizing the sun for energy is akin to turning lead into gold and you’re criticizing others? Why don’t you explain your theory a bit more, Professor?

      • eddie47d

        Well Angel it’s better than you always trying to be wrong.

      • angelwannabe

        I call someone like you eddie, a guy with Little Mans Syndrom, and attitude big as h*ll, but with no muscle to back it up….enuff

  • uvuvuv

    my carbon footprint is very small. my trailer is 400 sq ft and my electricity comes from a dam within a mile of my door. a tank of gas lasts me one week and would last two weeks without family obligations. all of you global warming enthusiasts, please let us know one by one what carbon saving economies you are taking for your living arrangements. you talk the talk, now show us if you’re walking the walk.

    • Daveh234

      Besides the stuff I mentioned above, I also drive two Mercedes diesels converted to run on WVO. The effort it takes is richly rewarded in knowing I am making the attempt to conserve. If everyone would start by doing just a few things it make a big difference.

    • 45caliber

      One of the things I learned many years ago was that a 10 x 10 foot square area of grass is equal to one ton of air conditioning. A large tree can provide the equal to as much as a hundred tons of AC. Further, a large tree can absorb more CO2 than a family of 8 can put out.

      So … if you want to eliminate your carbon footprint, plant things, particularly trees. I have 3 1/2 acres of land all covered by trees.

      Incidently, it wasn’t long ago that I saw an article that stated that the forest in Brazil or Siberia could easily absorb all CO2 that humans could produce for the next 100 years. EACH forest could do that. That doesn’t count the rest of the plants in the world. The only reason one area is slightly higher than another in CO2 is due to distribution. Further, most CO2 comes from decaying plant material – not from humans.

      Try convincing any lib of that, though.

      • eddie47d

        The Brazilian rain forest is being cut down and at lightening speed but you can’t convince Conservatives the harm that is being done by farmers and loggers. When it comes to Siberia methane gas is also escaping from the tundra regions because of the earth’s warming. That blows your theory of always blaming libs. I have personally planted over 150 trees on various properties I lived on and make great attempts to make a difference.

  • Richard R. Tryon

    Does anyone know what the climate should be? If so, where? Does it need to have temperature be the same at all altitudes? All latitudes? All day? All night? Sun or shade?
    Measured how often and where?

    How about rainfall, snow, hail, and lighting, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, volcanoes under land and sea?

    Please someone show me who has answers to these simple questions? Then who has solutions to make it possible to control what fuels hit the Sun? What forces change the elliptical orbit around it? And what events cause ± changes from a published norm need to be measured and where? Last, how many of our six or seven billion must die to help avoid disaster?

    • 45caliber

      Richard:

      You want to really make it hard on all these libs, don’t you?

    • eddie47d

      Your last sentence says it all. As Corporations cut down every last tree they can get their hands on. When oil companies drain every fossil fuel deposit they can get their hands on.When they buy up every water right and access to that water. When they farm every available stretch of land and deplete the soil then the rest of us humans will suffer terribly. The Conservatives care more about exploiting the last resources on earth and encourage population growth without considering the consequences you therefore have your answer to that last sentence in spades. The rest of your comment was gibberish without a solid known answer.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        And you call Conservatives, “doom and gloomers”??? Ayi caramba!!!

  • Rick N

    Actually scientists DO confess they are not all-knowing. This is at the very heart of the scientific process. It’s the pundits and the special interests who claim to be all-knowing, when they latch onto a bit of scientific evidence that supports their beliefs and spin it like a top. Good scientists simply do their jobs – well aware of the fact that they certainly DON’T know everything. Ignorant people take bits and pieces of science and spin it to fit what they want. The whole phenomenon is the result of cognitive bias. The Dunning-Kruger effect comes to mind. Google it.

    • 45caliber

      Rick:

      The real problem is money. If you can convince the government that there is a need for some type of research to “save the world” you can get all the money you want. And you can get paid a salary of six figures or more from it. A number of not-so-scientific scientists have latched onto global warming research for that reason. It is an easy way to get a high salary for little actual work effort.

  • Chris P

    The right wing clowns on this site clearly prove their total ignorance of reality. Conspiracy is all they know. Blame everything on liberals – who actually have a brain.

    I am sorry that you are too dumb to know how dumb you are.

    • angelwannabe

      Chris P, Heres your invitation to go play in the freeway, trolls aren’t welcome here! :P

    • 45caliber

      Chris:

      A man with a brain tumor went to the doctor to have it removed. The doctor told him that it was impossible – it had grown too large. The only thing they could do was remove the entire brain. The man was upset. “You mean I’ll die?”

      “Oh, no,” the doctor told him. “Medical knowledge has increased. We can now do brain transplants. You are in luck. We have several brains now in stock. We have the brain of a nuclear scientist available. It is $500. We have the brain of a nureosurgeon available. It is $600. And we have the brain of a liberal available. It is $10,000.”

      “Why is that liberal’s brain so expensive?” the man wanted to know.

      The doctor explained. “Everyone knows that liberals never think so it has never been used.”

      • Jeff

        I’ve heard the same joke told about insurance claims adjusters. The inconsistency is that the nuclear scientist is undoubtedly a liberal since you don’t learn actual physics by reading Genesis.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        On the contrary, Jeff. The Bible, particularly Genesis, gave birth to our science, and our scientific age. I suggest you get aquatinted with the book you love to hate so much!

    • uvuvuv

      says chris p setting 68 degrees for his 6 ton a/c system

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      Chris P, I think anyone who will let himself branded has a cattle mentality. They don’t have a mind of their own. Cattle don’t think for themselves. They are lead wherever by their master and periodically eaten by their master.

  • eddie47d

    Ask Greenland if there isn’t any global warming!!

    • Jeff

      Don’t you know that’s foreign (socialist) global warming. On this blog, they only care about American problems.

    • uvuvuv

      greenland was green when leif erricson settled there. my mini history book doesn’t mention this but the date was pre-columbian. then it started to get cold and the norski villages were abandoned. now omg, the ice is melting. welcome to the 1400s!

      • eddie47d

        The normal rate for melting on Greenland is 46% a year. It is now at 71% per year so some of us do know the difference of what is occurring.

      • Dick

        the southern end of Greenland was always green in the summer. People always lived there, long before the Danes/Norwegian Vikings arrived. The bulk of Greenland has a mile to two miles of ice piled up on the land. Melt it, and you will know you have. There won’t be much of New York or London left habitable, to name only two cities. There won’t be many pacific Islands, or a country called Bangladesh. Or a state called Florida.

        Irrespective of whether there is *human-caused* global warming or not, do you want that?
        And for all the people who say, yes, it’s warming, but it’s happened dozens or hundreds of times in the past, remember this: When the global climate changed in the past, most of the plants and animals then existing went extinct, including the creatures then dominant on the planet. If you are content to see something like this happen to the human race, go ahead. Be blind, be stupid. Who will you blame when it happens? You’ll cast around looking for someone else, but it was us, all of us.

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

      I suppose you could ask Greenland if global warming is occurring, eddie. And no doubt, they would ask you; why are you asking the obvious? They would probably also tell you that this isn’t the first time that Greenland experienced “global warming”, or “global freezing”, for that matter. So by all means, go ask Greenland.

    • JeffH

      DUH! Melting around the edges is exactly what the Vikings saw on Greenland 1000 years ago when they named the island for its green coastal meadows. They moved in with their cattle, and thrived for 300 years, during what we now call the Medieval Warming.

      The Vikings’ mistake was thinking that Greenland would stay warm, that the Earth’s climate was stable. Greenland was then warmer than today, and the summers were longer. There was ample grass and hay for the Vikings’ dairy cows. The Norse settlement grew to 3000 people.

      Then Greenland’s climate suddenly got colder. The Little Ice Age had begun. Sea ice moved south, and the Vikings’ sailing ships could no longer get through to trade wood for seal furs. Shorter summers produced less hay to feed the Viking cows through longer, colder winters. The last written record found in the abandoned Viking colonies was dated 1408.

      Our panic-prone scientists seem to have forgotten their own ice cores, drilled deep into the Greenland ice sheet in the 1980s. These ice cores document a natural, sudden-but-moderate 1500-year global warming cycle. This natural 1500-year climate cycle raises temperatures about 2 degrees C above the mean for 750 years or so and then abruptly drops the temperatures 2 degrees C below the mean (at the latitude of northern Europe).

      Man’s climate impacts are puny compared to the million-degree heat of the sun. There’s no evidence that human-emitted CO2 has added much to the current temperatures. Our moderate warming to date 0.8 degree C virtually all occurred before 1940, and thus before much industrial development.
      http://www.cfact.org/a/886/Melting-the-facts-about-Greenlands-ice-sheet

  • http://www.facebook.com/rerogersjr Rick Rogers

    Want to make sure I have this right. The guy that wrote this has ties into the fossil Fuel Industry? Did I read that right? So let me ask this whats wrong with wanting to make the world a little clearner? We don’t own the world we only borrow it from our children for a short while and There is nothing wrong wanting to try and leave it a little better. Anyone
    ever seen a Live Polar Bear? They are amazing animals. But the North pole Ice packs are melting so pretty soon the only place your going to see one is in a zoo. This not based on some scientfic Report beyond what you can see with your eyes. The Northwest Passage is becoming free of Ice. Why because the Ice is Melting. Why because its not cold enough to re freeze? The Glaciers in Greenland are melting . Why because is not cold enough for them to stay frozen. There is this nice new feature in Google Earth that lets you go back in history and see shots of the same areas. Try it you can see the Ice Receding Faster then Mitt Romneys Hairline

    • George E

      Rick,

      Nothing is wrong with making the world a little cleaner. Let’s just not wreck the economy and surrender or liberties in the process. Is that too much to ask?

      • Dick

        It’s not going to wreck the economy, merely change it. Two fifty years ago people hardly used coal in any quantity unless they were near to a close-surface deposit, and could open a drift-mine, and didn’t use any oil except for medicinal purposes and calking their boats. But they got along fine without those fuels. Now we know that the sun causes more energy to fall upon the earth than we will ever need, if we can find a way to collect it efficiently. And it doesn’t pollute – there’s no ash, no fumes, no smoke, no possibility of an increase in CO2. It’s better all round to do that, and you can keep doing it forever. Why the hell would you not? Because powerful people who have an interest in keeping things the way they are don’t want us to. It would reduce their profits. I would urge them instead to put their money into the new energy industries that will in future provide vast profits *and* a cleaner planet.
        But people are afraid of change.
        My Dad was sent down ‘the pit’ to dig coal at age 13 (1920). He saw many people he knew killed and many more die in their 50s and 60s with terrible lung diseases. The death of this local industry greatly impoverished my little town in the mid 60′s – a rich little place became poor -and it’s still much poorer now than it was then- but you know what? This change was in the end a good thing – we have better ways to do things now than burn tons of coal in a grate in our homes every year. We have many better uses for oil than to simply burn billions of gallons of the stuff in our cars every year. And we will continue to discover better ways to do things.
        Don’t allow those with an interest (usually financial) in the status-quo to stop you improving on what you did in the past. And as a side-effect (one heck of a side-effect, to be sure) you will keep the planet habitable for hundreds of generations of humans to come.

        • Jeff

          Sometimes, the society as a whole needs to make a decision to change . . before the market dictates the change. The buggy whip industry didn’t end because we ran out of buggy whips. We made a political as well as a market decision to produce cars, to build roads and freeways, get rid of railroad tracks, build the suburbs, etc. Government can and should encourage the development of the solar industry. It is clearly an industry of the future regardless if solar eventually provides 10% or 75% of our electricity and regardless whether that takes 10 years or 50 years to accomplish.

          • George E

            Jeff, Dick,

            I appreciate your enthusiasm for solar technology. I work in the semiconductor industry, so I appreciate it as well. It certainly is clean, but it is not cheap compared to other methods of producing electricity today, and unfortunately, is not likely to be capable of competing on a cost basis with these other methods at any time in the foreseeable future. In order to make it competitive at least one of the following has to happen: 1) technology breakthrough which doesn’t seem eminent at this time, 2) subsidize the costs of generating solar power, and/or 3) constrain the production of competing sources to drive up the costs to make them comparable with solar power. In the end, if you elect options 2 or 3, the price and cost of electricity will go up. Attempting to find a technological breakthrough is fine because that involves research and development in the lab and in small pilot plants. So, if the government does much more than fund research on solar power generation, they’ll screw up the market. That would be a bad thing because it would lead to higher costs for consumers without providing offsetting benefits.

    • Jeff

      Isn’t Mitt the guy pictured on Just For Men?

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

      Environmentalists and government claim polar bears are doomed because of global warming.

      This is pure speculative alarmism apparently without knowledge of climate and polar bear history. The world has cooled since 1998, the IPCC predictions are already incorrect, and polar bears have survived thousands of years of warmer temperatures including the recent past.

      In April 2012, a report by the government of Nunavut on polar bear number contradicted the so-called experts;

      “the bear population is not in crisis as people believed,” said Drikus Gissing, Nunavut’s director of wildlife management.

      “There is no doom and gloom.”
      “Mr. Gissing added that the government isn’t dismissing concerns about climate change, but he said Nunavut wants to base bear-management practices on current information “and not predictions about what might happen.”

      In another report NTI (Nunavut Tunngavik Inc) vice-president James Eetoolook said,

      “We have reported for many years that we are seeing more and more bears on the land and in communities, which raises public safety concerns.” “Inuit were told by scientists the reason there are more bears in communities is due to a decline in the condition of the population, but Inuit disagreed with this interpretation.”

      “This is not about climate change,” Eetoolook said, “This is about how polar bears were used to draw attention to climate change. Changes were not made to reduce the causes or impact of climate change, but changes were made to the harvesting quotas.”

      He is talking about legal limits for trophy hunting a valuable commerce. As Freeman and Wenzel wrote:

      “Although polar bear hides taken in the subsistence hunt have commercial value, revenues from nonresident trophy hunting provide a much greater economic return to the Inuit. Research suggests that these greater cash returns and the increased local interest by native hunters in outfitting and guiding do not threaten community cultural values, which continue to emphasize subsistence and the conservation of local wildlife resources. These outcomes suggests that community-based polar bear trophy hunts provide an example of a successful conservation-hunting program that contributes to wildlife management and sustainable economic and community development in the Canadian
      Arctic.”

      http://drtimball.com/2012/polar-bears-and-inuit-victims-of-environmental-hysteria-and-inadequate-science-not-global-warming/

  • 45caliber

    The biggeest laugh I get about this whole “climate change” is that it is natural. If you check any climatology book or class, you will see that the world temperature constantly varies by far more than a measily 1/2 degree these people fear so much. At one time during the human species existence, Europe was almost tropical – and had ice ages. The original settlement of the humans in Europe (the Pony Warriors) was forced out of Northern Europe by ice even though it was warm when they settled there. One climatologist whose article I read many years ago now insisted that the weather we’ve been having the last sixty years or so was unusual since it was predictable from one year to the next. He said we were simply going back to the normal weather patterns of the world.

  • http://None Mike C

    DR. Evil: “NASA by now must have a sensor that can measure air temperature in every square inch of earth’s atmosphere at every moment of every day so we study the trends over time and finally determine if the earth is warming or cooling.”

    Number One: “Um… Sir. That has not happened.”

    DR. Evil: “I’ve been frozen for 30 years throw me a fricken bone people.”

  • cerebus23

    We have what 150 years of accurate temperature data? the earth is how many of millions of years old? so we base all our observations on temperature over the lifespan of 2 humans, that is not even a fraction of time in the larger picture,

    So anyone telling you that this causes this in a weather sense is just full of it. maybe if we observed the data over 1000s or millions of years. we would know something. but weather as a whole is too chaotic to even predict with much accuracy, ever notice how often the weather reports are just wrong? there are just best guesses based on patterns of what might happen.

    we do not even know what causes lightning, or how tornadoes actually form. you all can call use global warming doubters idiots. but i think the comparison to religion is spot on.

    you base your entire “faith” on someones elses word. you have no proof of it you cannot actually show proof of it, but you will denounce anyone that disagrees with you on faith alone.

    except the people at the top that are raking in tons of money from you greens. all them research grants and public moneys being poured into combating the next imagined crisis.

    you humans know so little it is mind boggling sometimes.

    • Daveh234

      We humans? aren’t you one of us?
      Actually they have an extreme amount of data to go on back millions of years. Ice Core samples, fossilized tree rings much more to back up the theories.
      Not saying they have the right conclusions.
      Big light in sky to appear in the East in the morning.
      Later…dark..getting darker.

      • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

        We can’t go back any further than we know. Anything else is theory and one mans theory is just as good as anothers. The bible outlines times to the extent God wants us to know. The bible was written by 40 authors, contains 66 books and covers 1,400 years in the writing. It covers a period of 6,000 years. What was the weather over the 6,000 years? Whatever God wanted it to be. What is it now? Whatever God wants. Better to be in tune with God than try to figure Him out. After all, He is the Creator, not us.

  • http://loboviejo.wordpress.com loboviejo

    The earth is a dynamic system. It warms to a certain point and then for a period it cools. I learned this in multiple classes in geology and geomorphology–back in the sixties when certain politicians and policy wonks were taking “science for policy makers” or such. One of the things that happens is that the heat generated in the earth’s core which is highly radioactive molten iron radiates outward. Heat actually leaves the earth. This rate of heat leaving changes periodically. Solar storms have some impact and cloud cover a little.

    You also have to realize that in known history there was a Greenland that had farming and wildlife. The remnants of docks indicates that the ocean surface was much higher than today and yes, there was a Northwest Passage. Earlier there was an icepack much greater in the Arctic region so that there was room for migration. And new discoveries show a settlement at the bottom of the North Sea between what is now Scotland and Denmark.

    In geological terms this is no big deal. What seems a big deal in terms of global warming may not be nearly as serious as the coming glacial period.

    • Jeff

      As Keynes said, “we live in the short run.” What will be iin a million years is not our concern. What is our concern is whether we are creating warming that will radically change the earth over the next 50-150 years.

      • GIVEMEFREEDOM

        “What is our concern is whether we are creating warming that will radically change the earth over the next 50-150 years.”
        Nuclear holocaust . . . . yes, man made global warming . . . . NO.

      • http://loboviejo.wordpress.com loboviejo

        It is hard to say because we are having swings in climate right now. Whether we are creating or merely abetting the warming is the debate. That said, there are reasons beyond “global warming” or climate change to practice sound management of resources.

      • DaveH

        The Changing Climate of Global Warming:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LbqU3spW90&feature=youtu.be

  • max mitchell

    NASA’s top meteorilogical scientists have told the left wing media, marxist scientists and others that have no idea that this is a set up for world domination, to lay off with the global warming nonsense. I’d say those folks would carry some pretty significant weight as far as scientist’s credibility goes. But this planet is our home. We should take care of it the best we can. But turning the entire world over to a tyrannical world governing body IS NOT THE ANSWER! Agendas always get in the way of truth.

  • Jimbo

    Besides forcing us to use a less efficient air conditioning refrigerant in our cars, the green whackos got the government to order the removal of freon from aerosol cans and the substitution of CARBON DIOXIDE. Now carbon dioxide is a much smaller molecule than freon, which causes it to leak out of the cans much faster. There was a day when you could store a spray can of paint, and 5 years later it would still spray out all it’s contents. Not any more. Millions of cans of paint, oil, hair spray, etc. go to the dump each year, contents unexpelled, because all the gas is gone. Where did that CO2 go? Up into the atmosphere. And now these same scientists are telling us CO2 causes global warming! The less efficient refrigerant in our cars ALSO causes us to use more gasoline, and emit more CARBON. INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.

    But the kicker about all this? A few years after the ozone hole scare, other scientists drilling ice cores in Antarctica determined that the ozone hole is a natural phenomenom, which reoccurs every 50,000 years. We didn’t need to waste millions of gallons of gasoline and pollute our water supplies with aerosol solvents and paints to protect the children in Australia from skin cancer.

    But back to “global warming”. Did these same scientists say anything about the absolutely FRIGID temperatures in Russia and Eastern Europe last winter? NO! They only make note of events that support their wacky theories!

    What do these frog biologists know about the heating of the earth anyway? Has anyone noticed that we are in a decades long period of reduced sun spots? It’s been adversly affecting our AM radio communication for years. Sun spots are COLD spots on the sun. IF there is a shortage of COLD spots on the sun, wouldn’t that account for whatever miniscule temperature rise the scientists have detected?

    We’ve NEVER had an air conditioner at our house. When I was a kid, I remember sleeping on top of the sheets for two months out of the summer, it was so HOT. These temperatures are nothing new. Nor is regional changes in temperature in Greenland.

  • 45caliber

    If you are worried about the temperature becoming warmer …

    You may wish to take a look at photos of other planets/moons in our system. All planets show some form of increased temperature. The ice caps of Mars is melting and so are areas of other planets/moons.

    And there is only one thing common between these various bodies. The sun. Does that suggest anything to any of you?

  • uvuvuv

    when the asians crossed over to alaska the bering ithsmus (spell?) wasn’t some narrow strip of land, it was a 100 miles wide. they weren’t heading east to explore, they were migrating as the population growth there forced them to incrementally establish new villages and hunting grounds. when they finally got to alaska it was the ice age, they could either travel down the coast (settling seattle etc) or they could travel across the top of the ice pack in hopes of finding a better situation. they finally came to this great cleft between the west ice sheet and the eastern one, and traveled south between them, until they got out of the ice south of canada. as this ice eventually melted, leaving behind the coulees and kettle moraine in wisconsin, the bering ithsmus became the bering strait. that sounds like global warming to me. retroactively i am deeply concerned.

  • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

    In Matthew 24 vs 7 we read: “For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places”. There are many passages that give more details of the end times prophecies but you should of gotten the message. The God that created the Universe and everything that is in it does with weather whatever He wants. Personally I think we should start to get our moral compass pointed in the right direction than worry about the weather. We have the ability to completely destroy ourselves and our world and that concerns me more than the weather, which we can’t do anything about.
    Of course the fear mongers want us to be kept in submission to their beck and call use the weather. Those fear mongers are the ones that would pull the pin on the nukes. They’re just crazy enough.

  • northbrook

    Global warming enthusiasts should do a bit of research and check historical records on weather temperature cycles. they might find that mother nature has repeated warm and cold cycles through out the ages. This is another cycle. Man’s influence on the weather has had minimal impact.

    t

    • eddie47d

      I have seen several maps of weather patterns of the years. Most maps have a steady line (including the ice ages) until 1880. Then the line moves up the map 50 fold in the last 100 years. There is indeed a warming trend which coincides with the industrial age. Considering that the population is 7 times larger and every corner of the earth burns fossil fuels its fairly simple to figure out. No man is an island anymore and we all influence the other.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Pure conjecture.

      • DaveH

        If you’re talking about the hockey-stick graph, Eddie, it is nonsense. Among other things, Russia collapsed about the same time the temperatures started rising. As a result, temperature data from their weather monitors was greatly diminished, and since many of the inoperative stations were in Siberia, the remaining statistics were skewed upward. But more importantly perhaps was that Michael Mann, a Global Warming advocate and developer of the hockey stick graph, has been exposed as a fraud:
        http://www.climatedepot.com/a/6577/Horner-Virginias-Cavalier-Ethics-Mann-usedhundreds-of-thousands-of-taxpayer-dollars-building-on-his-work-and-the-name-he-had-created-for-himself-with-the-Hockey-Stick

        From the Wegman Report:
        “Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis”.

      • eddie47d

        The 90′s were hot and the 2000′s are even hotter on average. Don’t need any hockey stick to see that.His point was proven not debunked.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.knows.3 Kevin Knows

    Just 3 simple questions:
    1) John Myers is an expert in what subject area?
    2) Exactly what evidence would be needed to prove at the 95% confidence interval that global climate change is being caused by the 7 billion humans on earth?
    3) Without science as we generally know and practice it, would this blog or computers, or the aircraft that Mr. Myers uses to jet around and make money, exist?

    • George E

      Kevin,

      You put your man-made global warming faith in the scientists that support that theory, and I’ll put mine in the scientists that say we don’t know or don’t believe global warming is caused by man-made causes. You support politicians who promise to increase your taxes and add additional cumbersome regulations to “fight” global warming, and I’ll support those who promise not to increase taxes and add these regulations. You’re confident you’ll look back in 30 years and be proud of your choice. I’m comfortable with mine. OK?

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

      All very good questions, Kevin! But before we get to those questions, the most pressing question should be; Why is there no consensus within the scientific community regarding this all-consuming issue? The only place we find a consensus, regarding this issue, is within the brain-dead-media. Don’t you find this, a tad odd???

      • eddie47d

        Because most scientists are not weather oriented or climate scientists. Their opinion is as relevant as a newsboy so we may never get a true consensus. We also have conservative talking heads who are clueless yet many feed off of their “knowledge” like fly paper.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        eddie says: Because most scientists are not weather oriented or climate scientists.

        Well thank you for stating the obvious, eddie. So let me rephrase the question; why is there no consensus among the leading experts in the branch of atmospheric science?

    • DaveH

      The Great Global Warming Swindle:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE

  • Jeffrey Mooney

    All you people on here denying the fact of global warming caused by HUMAN action should get educated. And not by Fox “news”. Climate change IS natural but this current change is being “fueled” by human actions. If everyone in Washington has not lost their minds they have certainly lost all credibility and lost touch with the people they were elected to serve. Each year, coal plants pour millions of tons of harmful pollution into our air – including mercury, a potent brain poison that stunts the mental and developmental growth of our children and the unborn. Furthermore, the toxic air pollution spewed from power plants doesn’t stop at state lines, forcing people hundreds or thousands of miles away to breathe and deal with dirty, unhealthy air.I can’t eat the fish I catch from the Mountain Island Lake reservoir here in Charlotte NC The fish have been poisoned by the coal fired River Bend Steam Plant. We must discontinue the use of fossil fuels period. There are non polluting alternatives. The implementation of alternative energy sources could also end joblessness and restore our economy. Don’t let the oil and coal companies continue to dictate government policy. We should regulate them out of the pollution business and into the use of environmentally friendly energy sources Haven’t heard Hannity making any global warming jokes lately. Anti science, pro big oil/big business republicans care nothing about the environment or our future but rather only about the next dollar they can bank at the expense of the poor. Continue to vote republican at your peril.

    • George E

      Jeffrey,

      Do whatever you like in your region. Shut down all of the coal-fired power plants and replace them with wind and solar units if you and your neighbors want. You will find that your electricity bill will go up a lot, but that’s your business. Just leave our fossil fuel industry alone. We like ours and want more of it. Our air and water is clean and we get relatively cheap electricity here. KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OUR FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY.

      • eddie47d

        We have lots of oil and gas drilling going on in Colorado. We also have 20% of our energy needs coming from alternative energy sources and that will go up to 30-35% in the near future. We have a healthy combination and continually search for better ideas. Those who are stuck strictly on oil aren’t doing themselves any favor.

      • DaveH

        A “healthy combination”, Eddie, can only be determined in Free Markets where consumers choose what to buy and what not to buy. Politicians making those choices for us is Unhealthy.

      • eddie47d

        Were a little smarter than that Dave. We aren’t sheeple for dirty coal or fracking without regulations. Free markets can be exploited and have been at terrible consequences by unsavory capitalists too.

    • DaveH

      Sure Jeffrey, let’s impoverish the nation and send millions to an early grave to satisfy your control issues.
      The Great Global Warming Swindle:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE

      • eddie47d

        Leave it to Dave to skirt the issue of mercury as Jeffery pointed out. We don’t need these programmed responses.

  • Mike Holmes

    It has become pathetic how the members of the church of this relatively new Gaia Green religious cult are continually trying to fool the unsuspecting and are doing so quite successfully even with the majority of members of the US Congress. Aside from questionable funds from various State governments, this religious cult is receiving continual unconstitutional blessings and monetary support from our federal government. Tax dollars are being used for, among other things, supporting Green (Gaian) teachings and crusades to convert non-believers into believers of such things such as, but not limited to, scientifically unproven sins of carbon dioxide production.

    The federal support with tax dollars is clearly unconstitutional in that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” US Const. 1st Amend. In that our Constitution does provide any list of recognized religions, the prohibition of Congress in the 1st Amend. respects any and all religions and including the unscientific teachings of the aforementioned Green religious cult.

    Our, US taxpayer funded satellites tell us that since 1979 the globe has warmed +0.39 deg. C (or about 2/3rds of 1 deg, F in 33 yrs, see http://www.drroyspencer.com). Religious leaders of the Gaia Green cult ignore this fact. They also ignore countless scientists who don’t hold their religious views, among whom include Richard Lindzen, Ph.D, MIT Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences; and, Roy Spencer, Ph.D in Meteorology, Climatologist, and Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites.

    Instead, these cult leaders pretend to be mankind-caused global warming/climate change “experts” by way of considerable recognition by consensus of disciples and other cult members (there is nothing scientific about consensus). Under this ruse, these Gaia Green religious leaders, their disciples, and other wannabe societal manipulators are trying to fool the unsuspecting taxpayers and Congressmen by pointing “expertly” at extreme weather events, natural disasters, and consequences of arson and human error, saying at any opportunity that they are proof positive (not just theoretical) of mankind’s detrimental contribution to (nonexistent) mankind-caused global warming and/or climate change that is apparently altering over two (2) billion years of natural cycles on Earth of warming, cooling, and climatic change.

    If you wonder for even a moment what would the motivation be for perpetrating such hoax. Answer: follow the money. Not including any other deep pockets, well over $100 Billion spent by Congress in the past ten (10) years was paid to these cult leaders and disciples for their supposed ongoing effort to address “climate change” (US Government Accounting Office).

    • Mike Holmes

      It has become pathetic how the members of the church of this relatively new Gaia Green religious cult are continually trying to fool the unsuspecting and are doing so quite successfully even with the majority of members of the US Congress. Aside from questionable funds from various State governments, this religious cult is receiving continual unconstitutional blessings and monetary support from our federal government. Tax dollars are being used for, among other things, supporting Green (Gaian) teachings and crusades to convert non-believers into believers of such things such as, but not limited to, scientifically unproven sins of carbon dioxide production.

      The federal support with tax dollars is clearly unconstitutional in that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” US Const. 1st Amend. In that our Constitution does not provide any list of recognized religions, the prohibition of Congress in the 1st Amendment is quite broad. This Constitutional prohibition of Congress is respective of any and all religions and including the unscientific teachings of the aforementioned Green religious cult.

      Our US taxpayer funded satellites tell us that since 1979 the globe has warmed +0.39 deg. C (or about 2/3rds of 1 deg, F in 33 yrs, see http://www.drroyspencer.com). Religious leaders of the Gaia Green cult ignore this fact. They also ignore countless scientists who don’t hold their religious views, among whom include Richard Lindzen, Ph.D, MIT Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences; and, Roy Spencer, Ph.D in Meteorology, Climatologist, and Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites.

      Instead, these cult leaders pretend to be mankind-caused global warming/climate change “experts” by way of considerable recognition by consensus of disciples and other cult members (there is nothing scientific about consensus). Under this ruse, these Gaia Green religious leaders, their disciples, and other wannabe societal manipulators are trying to fool the unsuspecting taxpayers and Congressmen by pointing “expertly” at extreme weather events, natural disasters, and consequences of arson and human error, saying at any opportunity that these events are proof positive (not just theoretical) of mankind’s detrimental contribution to (nonexistent) mankind-caused global warming and/or climate change that is apparently adversely altering over two (2) billion years of natural cycles on Earth of warming, cooling, and climatic change.

      For whatever it’s worth, there is not even any proof that climate change and/or global warming would even be a bad thing. To the contrary, warming and change might be good. Recorded history tells us that in certain areas of the globe such as in Greenland, crops were grown in places that are now permafrost. Those that harvested those crops we have found were buried in graves dug in adjacent soft soil which of course now has been frozen for nearly a thousand years. Extended growing seasons also means more crops and hence more food for an ever growing population.

      If you wonder for even a moment what would the motivation be for perpetrating the dire global warming hoax; here’s the answer: follow the money. Not including any other deep pockets, well over $100 Billion spent by Congress in the past ten (10) years was paid to these cult leaders and disciples for their supposed ongoing effort to address “climate change” (US Government Accounting Office). They will perpetuate the hoax and keep addressing “climate change” as long as the swollen rivers of subsidies and grant money keep flowing their way. You will never hear even mention of a possibility that mankind may have no effect whatsoever on climate change or global warming. They do not want to kill the “goose that lays the golden eggs.”

  • dixie suzan davis

    Shucks don’t mess with Global Warming !!!! I am making a fortune on it. I sell lots on the balmy beaches of the Arctic with their glistening white prestine sands and the cocoanut trees rustling in the gentle whispering cool ocean breezes coming off the placid Arctic waters to assuage the overheated lot owner. Once the ice melts, these pristine spots will be exposed, along with their lovely beaches and will be open for habitation.

    I give Genuine 100% Warranted and Guaranteed Dixie Suzan Gilt Edged Quit Claim Deeds for each and every lot purchased, AND as a Special (this week only) include a free membership in the proposed Yacht Club. I myself proposed that Yacht Club years ago. These rare and delicate, highly undervalued properties will mushroom into a personal fortune for each and every financially astute purchaser. For those inclined to a larger scale investment, I also can provide a legal Quit Claim Deed to the entire Arctic Circle. So don’t go mess up my sales !!!!

    • 45caliber

      dixie:

      Just don’t get mixed up with my polar bear reserves there! My idea is to feed the polar bears by selling tickets to the libs to visit these gentle peace loving creatures and play with their small cubs. The libs can enjoy the knowledge that they are contributing to the continued live of these endangered animals. You are welcome to place your yacht club next door. I’m sure most of your buyers will also be libs.

      • eddie47d

        More strange Conservative “humor”? Liberals won’t be playing with polar bears and wish folks like you would leave them alone instead of them being your next trophy.

      • angelwannabe

        oh goody another bleeding heart who believes the TV commericials when the Polar Bears are supposedly stranded on melting Ice Flats,…. I guess they’re not smart enough to know that polar bears can do this because one they happen to thrive in the artic AND two they swim!

        • http://gravatar.com/marcjeric32 marcjeric32

          The official Canadian count of polar bears in 1975 was 5,000; in 2005 it was 25,000. Stop listening to that bloviating gasbag Gore from stinking up the atmosphere.

    • eddie47d

      We are well aware that adult polar bears can swim up to 40 miles. The cubs, well they are doomed if they get stranded and become whale food. I even know that adult polar bears who aren’t the mother kill and eat young cubs. The issue is territory loss and how it effects their survival. Humans are moving farther north and polar bears are getting into their garbage dumps. Beyond the warming issue there are actual hunters in the world who want to be the one to kill the last species (of any animal) and have bragging rights. I believe that all species that inhabit this earth deserve a fighting chance. That includes the human species so we need to be more realistic about the earth’s future.

  • marcjeric32

    The global warming conspiracy needs to be put in perspective to be properly understood. This far-left attack by government-paid drones started in the 1970′s with the global cooling scam: we should disarm our nuclear bombers and fill them with soot to be spread over the poles and so prevent those new glaciers from descending south and crushing the New York skyscrapers to dust. When that did not work the same fakers invented the global warming hoax in the 1990′s; we should nationalize all industries and organize a UN-sponsored world socialist government based on “social justice” with the fakers in charge. What with 12 years of substantial cooling the fakers switched to the climate change flimflam in the 2000′s; so whatever happens we should…see above under the global warming hoax. And now we are faced with the cap & trade power grab – but the aim is the same as above. Our socialists, Marxists, communists, Hollywood stars, university professors in social and political “sciences”, and environmentalists are all clamoring for action while spurring President Obama (“Tomorrow the oceans will stop rising and the planet will start healing”) and his 35 czars/commissars to undertake immediate measures to save the planet – with the same aims as described above.
    It is evident from the above quote that our President believes himself to be either Jesus come back to Earth, or at least the 12th Imam so ardently desired by that jihadist terrorist Ahmadinejad. …see above under the global warming hoax. And now we are faced with the cap & trade power grab – but the aim is the same as above. Our socialists, Marxists, communists, Hollywood stars, university professors in social and political “sciences”, and environmentalists are all clamoring for action while spurring President Obama (“Tomorrow the oceans will stop rising and the planet will start healing”) and his 35 czars/commissars to undertake immediate measures to save the planet – with the same aims as described above. Like to the Pinocchio in the fable, Obama’s nose grows longer with every lie he pronounces, while jumping up the steps to his teleprompter like a marionette.
    Another thing ignored is the “Global Warming Petition” (see Internet) where 31,487 independent US scientists (including 9,029 of them with PhD degrees) dispute decisively the findings of the UN-sponsored panel; also ignored is the “Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change” (see also Internet) where a smaller number of competent world scientists, about 712, including 142 pure climatologists, state the same – i.e., that the man-caused catastrophic global warming is a farce. The books by Christopher Horner, Robert Carter, Patrick Michaels, Lawrence Solomon, John Berlau, Steven Milloy, Ian Murray, Christopher Booker, R. C. Balling, D. Avery, S. F. Singer, Brian Sussman, and AW Montford describing the lies, fakes, phony data, opposite conclusions, redacting by UN political hacks, reverse graphs, etc., have exposed this far-left propaganda in painful detail. In the case of the above mentioned Petition, several “environmentalists” had submitted phony names with phony credentials in order to sabotage that effort. It took several years of painstaking and expensive effort (that effort cost us more private money, no oil money there) to clean up the list from those saboteurs and verify all academic and professional data of the signatories.
    To put this whole conspiracy in terms of numbers, let me say that the projected world-threatening increase of carbon dioxide of 100 ppm (parts per million) by the end of this century would increase thermal absorptivity of the atmosphere by one-eighth of one percent; that is the definition of something totally negligible. On the other hand the sun cycles of cooling and heating are many thousands of times more powerful with regard to the carbon dioxide in the air; when the sun is in its cold cycle the oceans absorb billions of tons of it; and when the sun heats up the oceans release the carbon dioxide in quantities many thousands of times bigger than anything the mankind could produce. To illustrate this point in more accessible terms to somebody who is not a climatologist or a scientist or an engineer; the argument of catastrophic anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming issued by our panic driven socialist/marxist government-paid hacks is like saying that a burp of a lonely wolf in Alaska will transform Florida into a Sahara-like desert – tomorrow! Perhaps an even better example would be to argue that the Pissing Boy in Bruxelles will inundate the continents by the end of the week. As for that bloviating gasbag and “climatologist” Al Gore, Dr. James Hansen with his tirades designed to get him more taxpayers’ money and who started his career by the global cooling scam in the 1970’s, as well as for Dr. Mann who inverted cause and effect in his “studies”, for Phil Jones who destroyed faked data, and for the corrupt Maurice Strong who started the whole affair – they should be brought to the International Court in The Hague on charges of crimes against humanity.
    Marc Jeric (MS, PhD, Engineering, UCLA)”

    • Alex

      marcjerc, you are not smart enough to be a Bruin!

  • Chuck

    I’ve heard that sunspot activity causes higher temperatures, and we’ve had a lot of sunspot activity this year.

    • Buster the Anatolian

      You are correct Chuck. Sunspot activity along with variations in the earths orbit and the tilt of the earth are the major influences on the climate.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

    List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

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

    • Dave67

      wikipedia? really?

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Really!

      • Dave67

        Well, no questioning that source at all for sure… So I have a question, when did you change the page to suit your political agenda?

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Your question is farcical at best. Anyone can change anything to suit their political agenda. The source you criticize is a contributory-community-endevour, where anyone, regardless of political leaning can make a contribution to aid in the understanding of a particular issue. So for you to suggest a conspiratorial-collusion, to reach a desired consensus, is illogical. It is possible, that your accusation may be a projection of who you really are?

    • Dave67

      Thats right Jay… ANYONE can change the content…who cares if its true or not.

      But then again you knew that and used the source anyway… Well done… well done

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        You proved nothing, Dave. The only thing you proved is the fragility of your colossal ego!

      • Dave67

        LOL Jay… no you just make yourself look foolish… but then again, you are used to that.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        You’ve got nothing Dave, admit it. Go lick your wounds and come back when you feel better!

      • Deerinwater

        Dave67, Jay doesn’t posses the capacity to actually “follow” a conversation very close. Any response from Jay, is intended to elevate “himself ” by putting you down and that is the only kind of communication your might ever expect of him. ~ Sad really. he’s out there somewhere, thinking for something cleaver to say right now. , ~ that it’s in ~ no way germane to what is being say, doesn’t seem to affect him, as long as he get you last, he has won something. ?????? LOL! ☻

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

    Dr Timothy F Ball-Historical Climatologist

    http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/864

  • Thinking About

    All who want to point to history of climate change needs to check to see how many cars was using fuels along with many other chemical combinations we currently use today. You want to blame liberals and progressives for all the problems, go ahead and die in your own pollution. Think pollution is great, just move to China and they will gladly share with you their pollution and see how well you breathe. Keep your head buried, it might keep you from taking in the air of your production. We should be good stewarts of the earth, to keep it as clean as possible. I know, solar and wind energy must pollute your world, nice try, I don’t buy that theory either.

    • marcjeric32

      Typical eco-nazi rant!

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

      TA says: I know, solar and wind energy must pollute your world, nice try, I don’t buy that theory either.

      You do realize that in order to produce solar panels, wind-energy-turbines, electric-cars, a considerable amount of energy and the burning of fossil fuels are required? And not only to produce, but to maintain, as well. Carbon credits, anyone?

      • Alex

        Jay, these problems will subside as more human intelligence is devoted to the saving of the Earth.

      • uvuvuv

        the trouble with solar collectors is they get dusty and lose efficiency. this was pointed out when they anticipated building a collector farm in the mojave desert. crews would be required to wipe them or hose them off, and this would be hundreds upon hundreds of panels. this would be a full time job, but where would they commute from? no one would want to live out there, or even do that as a job. this might be one way to put the illegals to work. wind turbines need extremely beefy transmissions and clutches to withstand the strong gusts coming in from rapidly switching directions. if you ever sailed (green) you know what i mean. do these wind towers need periodic maintenance? if they do this, this would be hazardous duty and therefore subject to high pay rates. this would kind of take away from that free energy promise. also there are long long time frames where the winds are quiescent. instead of putting in all this infrastructure why doesn’t everyone just economize in their fuel and electricity use? this would take sacrifice, which might be why everyone is pushing this green energy. they can crank the a/c and heat 8 bedrooms with a clear conscience.

  • ONTIME

    The left, cheapshot politicos, whacko enviros and the Algores of the world need to be strung up and made to remember that crime doesn’t pay if your caught. These people are nothing but scare tactic thieves and apparently, a sucker born every minute, still is their motto. The hysteria they use to spread that pack of lies they use keeps them in biz and out of jail…
    Records show that we are in a cooling period, the hottest time on record is still in the 1930′s and CO2 is natures fertilizer and in past history of our planet CO2 was more plentiful than now, weather is still local and climate worldwide, we still live on a very habitable planet and Ma Nature can still demonstrate PMS at any given moment…

    • Jeff

      When you and Rush have lunch, check and see how many cheeseburgers he wolfs down. Honestly, use at least a few of your own words.

  • Francis Fashing

    I have never been one to jump on any bandwagon: global warming, ice age, etc. I think the jury is still out. However, it is clear that oil and coal are both finite and dirty. Renewable energy is an area that we are going to have to develop in the long, if not short, run. Being forced to go there will only create resistance. Ignoring or attacking the concept is what Luddites might do. I’ll subscribe to neither religion, thank you.

    I live in the Palm Springs area, by the way, and find that the windmills may not be the best way to generate energy, but they do little to no harm, have been constructed through private enterprise, and are on land that has little other value. So your ridicule seems misplaced and smacks of partisanship rather than facts.

    • Alex

      Sadly, this wretched country will never embrace Green Energy until the big energy corporations can figure out a way to charge you for the wind and the sunshine with a straight face!

      • George E

        Alex,

        You and your neighbors can build any kind of power plants you want and can afford. Just leave me and mine alone. My neighbors and I like our fossil fuel plants and want more of them. They work very well and provide us with relatively inexpensive power. If you don’t like our choice of energy, then you can pay for what you want us to have. We both know that’s not going to happen, so end of conversation.

      • 45caliber

        Alex:

        I have no problem using Green energy – as long as you can provide it cheaply. But why should I pay twice or four times as much for it just because you think it is better? Further, where are you going to put all those wind mills – on someone else’s place. And what land are you going to bulldoze clear to set up those solar power plants? PA officials once looked into it and came up with the need to clear and level over 6,000 (yes, six thousand) square MILES of land to provide for their state alone. Are you advocating destroying that much natural land? Per state?

        What about small hydro plants? A study some years ago said that if small streams were used, they could double the amount of power produced by water. But it was decided to be far too expensive and would take up too much land for the lakes that were formed.

        What about the small nuclear plants that Gates is considering for African towns? Each can provide enough power for a small city, has almost no waste, and can be maintenance free for 100 years – when it needs to be refueled. And it is safe.

      • http://twitter.com/ericbischoff Eric Bischoff (@ericbischoff)

        Yes but you’ve been duped into believing it is cheap because the game is rigged so that they don’t have to pay to dispose of their waste properly, provide their own security or pay for the damages they cause to the environment or the people. Sounds like China but no it’s America.

        When one counts everything properly on both sides when comparing, one discovers that today, right now, wind and solar is cheaper and a hell of a lot healthier for everyone especially for children.

        I think it’s a no brainer.

        • George E

          Eric,

          I’m not surprised that you would think it’s a no brainer. What are you going to do on a cloudy day or at night when solar cells don’t generate electricity? What are you going to do when the wind isn’t blowing to generate electricity with wind mills? That means the very best you will every practically be able to do with wind and solar, regardless of their cost, is as a supplemental source of electricity, not as the primary source. This means that these technologies will always be relegated to a minor role no matter what you want. Our primary sources of electricity have to be fossil fuels and nuclear which can generate electricity around the clock all year long in any weather.

        • marcjeric32

          Wind and solar energies do not exist – their pitifully small outputs could perhaps satisfy the needs of the Neanderthals. In the meantime – remeber those medieval alchemists trying to transform lead into gold. Not the least, in addition to their unreliability and enormous cost the wind and solar energies are fantastically environmentally disastrous.

    • George E

      Francis,

      Obviously, fossil fuels are available in finite amounts, just like everything of physical matter in the universe. The question is just how much of these natural resources is there really, and at what cost can they be produced? Truth is, we really don’t know the answer to either of these questions. There is more of these resources than we currently know. We just don’t know how much more. Currently, our oil and gas companies are finding and producing more of these in the USA each successive year after many years of declining reserves. This is due largely to new technologies developed by these companies over the past few years. This success has been achieved even with resistance from the current administration which has reduced leases on public lands including offshore areas, and the EPA’s efforts to stop drilling and production on private lands. Just imagine what could be accomplished with an administration that actually supported increased exploration and production.

      At some point it will probably become necessary for us to utilize alternative forms of energy, but we really don’t know when that time will come because we can’t answer the first two questions, cited above. It may be within the next 20 years, or it may not be necessary for another 200 years. If we force a transition before it becomes necessary, then we’ll pay a huge price, something we really can’t afford and shouldn’t do.

      As far as windmills are concerned, they just aren’t profitable right now because they can’t compete with natural gas. The only way a for-profit private company can operate windmills profitably right now is with government subsidies to make up the cost difference. This should be reflected in the price you pay for your electricity. If you and your neighbors value wind energy enough to pay a premium for it, then go for it. Just don’t ask the rest of us to subsidize your electricity company so you can get the same inexpensive electricity the rest of us get from our fossil fuel plants.

      • http://twitter.com/ericbischoff Eric Bischoff (@ericbischoff)

        George,
        What you really mean is YOU don’t know. Some of us have figured this out long ago. You are letting the carbon industry feed you BS and you are happily buying it. Ignorance is not a valid defense.

        • George E

          Eric,

          Not exactly. What I mean is no one really knows for sure. The fact that you made up your mind long ago doesn’t mean you know the real answer either. It only means you made your decision with the facts you had at the time. That’s OK so long as you don’t ask me to pay for your decision with my money and my liberties. Personally, I think the facts support the alternate theory, that carbon dioxide is not causing global warming. Take time to watch this video and see if it doesn’t cause you to rethink some of your previous assumptions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE

      • http://twitter.com/ericbischoff Eric Bischoff (@ericbischoff)

        Children are smarter than you. They have figured out that the water, air and atmosphere is our common wealth and it is in the trust of our government and therefore they must protect it for us. Since they are shirking this responsibility they are being sued. The Supreme Court will be forced to hear these cases. A Texas judge has already set a precedent for this. Can you believe it a Texas judge.

        • George E

          Eric,

          Thanks for the insulting remark. Maybe when I grow up I’ll be as smart as you……….. That is, someone who knows all of the answers without all of the facts. You can have all the opinions you want. Just keep you hand out of my pocket to pay for your “hope and change”, and hands off my liberties.

          • Jeff

            George:

            That’s excellent advice. I hope you gave it to W before the invasion of Iraq based on “facts” a lot more tenuous than what we have here. Of course, nobody had to pay for that one, just the grandkids as W put everything on the credit card. Under the George E Doctrine, can they opt out of paying?

          • George E

            Jeff,

            Rather than go back and debate whether we made a mistake getting into the Iraqi war, let’s for the sake of argument agree for the moment it was a mistake. Now, my position is that two mistakes don’t make the first mistake any better. Does it? Among other things they are doing wrong, our government is spending far too much money, and fighting a ghost problem like global warming only makes this problem worse.

          • Jeff

            No, but it gets very frustrating when Republicans want to spend money on obviously idiotic adventures, it’s unpatriotic to question them. But let a “liberal” propose something, no matter how sensible, and suddenly he’s proposing to “steal” money from people who only want to spend on bombs and killing.

          • George E

            Jeff,

            That’s funny, but you’re right. We just have different priorities and different perspectives. Maybe we should all join the Libertarian Party and agree to not spend taxpayer money for anything but the most essential things. I would give on defense spending if you would give on environmental spending. Once that’s done, let’s move on to the next issue, and so on. If that worked out, then maybe the country wouldn’t go bankrupt.

    • marcjeric32

      Dear FF – have you visited a wind farm lately? Their blades are covered with blood, guts, and feathers of birds, often rare bald eagles and albatrosses – you see, the birds DO NOT SEE THE TURNING BLADES. The 200 wind turbines strung up along the HIGH Sierras peaks must be cleaned up from that bloody gore (what an apropriate name) that cuts their efficiency by up to 50% every 6 months.

  • Dalene

    Fish fossils are found on the sides of “cliffs” in the middle of the prairie – once it was a sea? A berg melting away gave up eveidence of prehistoric man – once a very long time ago it was that warm? I’ve read that, in general, the earth has been warming since the last “Little Ice Age”. The “big names” pushing this are not educated about the climate and the Climatologists do not all agree. Of course, it is good to encourage as little impact by man as possible, but it certainly isn’t in our best interest to wreck our economy and fritter money away on unworkable solutions. The problem with zealots is that they have tunnel vision, they only concentrate on their interest and know nothing about the big picture nor the consequences.

    • Dr Parnassus

      Touche’

  • Rennie

    Scientists are still trying to figure out how the sun works, and often you will see “scientists surprised…baffled….confused…etc.” as theories fall as new data from satellites comes in. We just had a M7 class flare register a few days ago, on the BACK side of the sun from earth, we have had X class flares recently yet scientists continue to push back the expected maximum of this solar cycle, which some say is “weaker’ than expected and not the source of our unusual weather. Ever notice extreme weather tends to go in cycles, like the solar cycles? It’s very likely next year could be as severe a drought. There is also unusual ionization of the atmosphere being detected as more solar particles are penetrating than in the last solar cycle max. So their dismissal of the solar cycle as the cause at the same time admitting they can’t predict solar weather, is laughable at best and politics at worst. If you look up the 1859 Carrington Event and all it’s associated effects, things coudl get really interesting the next few years, and those in the know will prepare while keeping us in the dark. 2 minute news on ytube, mysolaralerts, and solarIMG are just some of teh online sources you can find to educate yourself. Also teh Max Planck Institute suggested current activity looked the same as ice core samples before the Younger Dryas period 10,000 years ago. More fun.

  • George Evenson

    Talk about a bunch of idiots. Where do you think all this food is coming from? I have grown your food for 50 years. It need rain, it needs moderate temp. You think you have all the answers, wait until the stores shelves are empty and your kids a screaming for food. One more year like this our grain reserves will be gone and our cattle and dairy industries have been liqduidated. World food reserves are low and populations are exploding. Good luck,
    It will be interesting to read the blogs from people not being able to find food or be able to pay the high prices.

  • moonbeam

    It’s not unusually hot in Florida. It’s ALWAYS hot here. Same as Texas, which is a veritable fiery furnace. I’ve lived there too and I think it’s hotter than Florida. By the time I left my house and got to the car, my hairdo was DONE! That’s how hot it is there and here and it has nothing to do with global warming.

    • Karolyn

      This summer it has bee hotter in the Carolinas and even up north than in FL.

  • Alex

    Ninety-two year old Lovelock has lost his marbles.

    Frightened people who have a stake in a matter will always find the one or two “experts” whose opinions back up their own delusion. Some people will claim to have “proof” that the Earth is 6000 years old, that God really did have to USE PART of a man to make a woman, even though God is supposed to be able to “Create anything”.

    Some of you can probably find “experts” that can prove that a man and his sons built a boat big enough to hold TWO of every creature, plus food for all of them, that none of them died on the cruise (the most ridiculous of all the ridiculous stories in the Bible).

    One of the main components of Conservative thought is fear—fear of newness, fear of change. Rather than confront and deal with a new societal or scientific paradigm, the Conservative cowers, pulls closed the shades, and ruminates in the dark, longing for the Old World that made sense to him. To the Conservative, change is scary and upsetting, especially if it impacts his financial stake.

    The small anti-Warming crowd cools to the idea that we cannot use the infernal compulsion engine as we wish. “But we always had cars,” they cry, “my dad had a car. We LIKE cars!” If some of these geezers live long enough to see the abandonment of the automobile in favor of cleaner, much more efficient public transit and its resultant freeing of the commuter’s time to be able to read, work, or nap, he will slowly embrace it. Lots of seniors who once thought the idea of a home computer was a silly, unnecessary notion now would crumble without them—their social interactions are so often played out on the screen.

    While one can sympathize with the poor Conservative’s confusion and, at times, anger, you cannot drag someone kicking and screaming into reality. So you get buried in the ditch of Human Folly, like bloodletting and slavery.

    Your mocking of the wind turbines, like the contempt and ridicule splattered on solar energy misses the big point—-all new technologies suffer stops and starts and growing pains. Lots of rockets crashed before we got to the moon. The first automobiles were cantankerous and inefficient—they were laughed at. While Progressive people took to the sky, the Conservative looked up, shaking his head at what he perceived as madness. Time, energy, and human intelligence reworked, reformed, and retried each technological bresakthrough. In time, solar, wind, and tidal energies will power all of Man’s energy needs.

    The Conservative, you see, imagines himself perched upon the apex of human development and therefore is unable to see beyond his nose such emerging technological improvements as fire, the wheel, or computers. The past is comfortable, understandable, and the Conservative cowers from change, even for the better.

    About now, you Conservatives are probably pulling your hair out, thinking, “I LIKE fire, and the wheel. and computers.” Exactly. Once the emergent technology has time to stretch its muscles and, over time, prove its desirability, Conservatives jump aboard and embrace THAT newness, as it begins to fit into their narrow world view. In two hundred years Conservatives will be awash in solar, wind, and tidal energy and decry those who say that we could harness the energy of, say, pulsars or quasars or whatever else is out there.

    Lastly, so many Conservatives whine about Al Gore or the Green Energy producers pushing their “agenda” to make money. Yet these same crybaby Conservatives GLADY pour BILLIONS of our dollars into dead technology such as fossil fuels. The extraordinary amount of taxpayer dollars given to the Big Oil is welcomed, because the Conservative thinks that big business is a good thing, that corporate welfare is needed. So Exxon/Mobile, Shell, ARCO, etc, even while TURNING RECORD PROFITS on YOUR addiction, are given billions of dollars. The Conservative politicians like James Inhofe, padded by oil money, tell them that it makes sense to give corporations billions of dollars they do not need.

    The reason that solar energy has been so slow to blossom is that the energy companies have yet to figure out a way to charge you for the sunshine while keeping a straight face.

    So, silly reality-avoiding Cons, keep your simple and frightened head buried in the sand—maybe you’ll strike oil.

  • boyscout

    I suggest that y’all buy as many blues albums as you can, invest in shore line properties and reside there (or rely on the safety of levees when you decide to build below sea level) and continue to deforest to make more room for GMO produce like maize corn. And certainly keep your funds in sound stocks like BP, Exon, Tyson, Con Agra and Monsanto as those folks are not just turning a profit but are making the world a better place to live in. I would do so myself but I just can’t afford to. And move your bottom from that computer chair to the couch for some good TV entertainment and/or any main stream media news reporting. Hell, enjoy a box of Twinkies while you’re at it and wash ‘em down with Kool Ade.
    Next winter I’ll be heating with tons of plastics from the recycle bins (a trifle sooty but lots of BTUs in those high end petroleum products) and I hear that that soot will protect us from the awful clear sky that lets in sunlight to cause the earth to overheat (yeah, I really like that one!) No worries. It’s all good. Oh,and I can’t afford beef either, so it’s OK to let your cat stray into my back yard – I have become quite adept at Vietnamese and Thai cuisine prep.
    Best wishes.

  • Michael Willemsen

    After spending a week in Colorado Springs last month, I’m convinced. But it didn’t take much to convince me, because I hike frequently in Glacier National Park, and have watched the glaciers recede year after year. Its time to stop arguing about whether the warming is caused primarily by human activity or natural climatic cycles, because it doesn’t matter. There have been periods in geologic and human history when temperatures and sea levels were much higher than they are now, but a repeat performance — with the ocean covering Louisiana and Texas temperatures reaching 130 — would be catastrophic. Reducing the human contribution to warming would minimize the harm.

    • George E

      Michael,

      You get an “A” for logic, but an “F” for your conclusion. There is a cost associated with reducing/eliminating man-made carbon dioxide emissions, and it’s a huge cost. The cost is so large that it will have a devastating effect on the economy. That’s bad enough but the impact on the overall level of CO2 is estimated to be very, very small. Doesn’t sound like a smart move to me.

      • 45caliber

        George:

        Not only that, the equipment is made by companies that Al Gore (Big Al) owns huge shares of. And guess who came up with the need to remove that CO2? Big Al. If he can get the government to pass a law that would force all companies to buy his equipment, he stands to become the richest man who ever lived. And many of Congress are willing to do it as they believe he will give them millions for their “campaign contributions”. The only holdup is that too many people don’t believe it is real and won’t allow that to happen. So they spend millions (most of it in government – our – money) to “prove” that global warming is real and due to CO2.

  • Richard

    What would happen IF —– just IF —– global warming happened to be real? How would you be able to interweave your venomous political theories about everyone from the UN to foreigners to scientists as conspiring to raise taxes in America — avery unlikely consortium, by the way? What IF? Huh?

    • John Illinois

      Possibly you should note that the fires are occurring on Federal Government managed land, or should I really say “Mismanaged land”. No privately owned forest land is involved. Private land owners have an interest in managing, and maintaining their land so that fires do not wipe out their potential to sell the produce of the land, in other words, profit. The Federal Government, or even the State Government has no such incentive, so they continue to screw up, but nobody looses their job, or investment.

      • 45caliber

        John:

        If you remember back to the Yellowstone fire about 20 years ago, the “environmentalists” stated that fire was nature’s way of handling problems. They also insist that it is wrong to use controlled fires (as the Indians did) to get rid of underbrush and leaf buildups. That “isn’t nature’s way”. So the government is simply following those “environmentalist” ideas of what nature should be.

        I also remember another act from them at that time. It was on TV news. They burned off all the food for the deer and elk which had to leave Yellowstone to find food that winter or starve. A reporter and cameraman followed a couple of park rangers and several “environmentalists” to a ranch outside Yellowstone where the rancher was tossing out hay for the animals. The animals were so hungry they were coming up to the trailer he was pulling with his pickup and ignoring the humans completely. The rangers told the rancher that he was feeding Yellowstone animals and had to stop.

        “This is my land and my hay,” he told them. “They are starving. I can do what I want with it.”

        One of the “environmentalists” butted in. “This isn’t nature’s way,” he insisted. “Due to the fire, they are supposed to starve. You are interferring. You can’t do that since they come from the Yellowstone park and are owned by the government.”

        The rancher walked to the pickup and pulled out a rifle. “You are tresspassing on my property,” he stated flatly. “If you aren’t off my ranch in three minutes I start shooting!”

        I almost fell out of my chair laughing at the rush the “environmentalists” and rangers made to get in their vehicle and out of there. So did the cameraman and reporter.

    • 45caliber

      Richard:

      You asked what would happen IF it was real. That has been determined.

      They used a huge terranium to run a simulation. If the temp goes up, there is more evaporation of water, which puts more water in the atmosphere. It forms clouds and rain, which cools off the temperature. Increased termperature simply means more rain. And water is a miracle chemical if you study chemistry. It has the largest absorbtion of heat (heat sink) of any chemical known. So any temperature increase will adjust itself out.

  • Worrried about us

    Global warming is real and we need to get our heads out of the sand soon or our kids will not have a planet. If you have traveled across the globe, as I have for many years, you know it is real.

    • George E

      Worried,

      Actually, it’s not known to be real. But for the sake of argument, let’s say global warming is real. Then let’s ask “to what extent does man-made influences impact global warming?” We don’t know the answer to this question either. We do know, however, that none of the proposals to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is likely to reduce the earth’s temperature by more than 1 degree, but the cost of these proposals is enough to really damage our economy and lifestyle. This does not temp me to throw in the towel, so to speak, and go with the global warming crowd on this one.

      By the way, I have traveled around the world several times, and I’m still not ready to agree that man-made global warming is about to kill the earth.

  • Smithkowitz

    How does anyone really know what if anything mankind’s miniscule attempts to stifle global warming would accomplish? They don’t, and they never will, no matter what we do. No matter how much expense, time, changes to societies ways we enact, we may not actually have any effect at all. The tests and data we evaluate are all based on theories, ones that cannot be absolutely conclusive.

  • Phil Anderson

    Lovelock did not say that anthropogenic Global Warming is NOT real – that our release of primeval carbon through fossil fuels is NOT taking us back to primeval climate. He only recanted on the rapidity of these events and that there are non-atmospheric factors involved in the speed of warming which are not fully understood – especially the ocean.

    I identify with and endorse the common sense, liberty and empowerment so well expressed on this website, but this article today does not give the whole picture of climate change. I assume that John’s understanding of Lovelock’s supposed recanting of anthropogenic climate change was from the MSNBC article ” ‘Gaia’ scientist James Lovelock: I was ‘alarmist’ about climate change” – a headline which is only a half truth. The whole truth was more fully, accurately discussed later in the article that he was “alarmist” about the rapidity of global warming /climate change, and so a confirmation of his assertion that Science is not exact or always correct, including his own in his prediction of the speed of global warming. But this speed could change very rapidly as tipping points of natural system change occur, which are being predicted as best can be without precedent for the sake of risk management, common sense, survival.

    Climate Scientists do say that no one can say for certain anything until it happens – just as we could not and still cannot say that cigarette smoking causes cancer – only the data overtime show a high-percentage correlation. But we can give a percentage chance of reliability and that stands in the 90 percentiles for anthropogenic climate change – from human-caused global warming. This is from peer-reviewed science by the scientists who are qualified to make this observation, and that includes James Lovelock.

    Take a look at Lovelock’s own website: JamesLoveLock.org – he is stating very clearly that human-released fossil CO2 is playing a big part – if not the main part – in climate change, although the unknowns of the Ocean could change the unfolding of the story of the global warming story – positive or negative. And the reduction in CO2 might actually speed climate change – so dammed if we do and dammed if we don’t – decrease CO2, but this too is hypothesis, and he states that we must stop producing CO2, which is less hypothetical because we can see clearly the warming from its production.

    Lovelock’s own words on his website show that he is still strongly worried about and not in doubt about the negative outcome and our inability to avoid the negative consequences of massive planetary forces of heat energy and ecology that we have already set in motion and whose irresistible momentum cannot be reversed in time to avoid consequences, and he doesn’t say we should cease and decease in the release of fossil CO2 and the destruction of the natural systems which could sequester this carbon (forests, plants in general and the oceans). He says we should make our best efforts to avoid the worst level of climate change and consequences.

    We cannot afford to snatch phrases, impressions here and there for what we want to hear, especially when scientific evidence with peer-reviewed interpretation, and ongoing weather-events are showing the opposite of this wishful thinking. Investors, free thinkers, people who value liberty should be VERY concerned (and the majority of us are these people) that Nature /Gaia, which is the source of all wealth and our life support system, is sickening and this is accelerating exponentially, and at the heart of the cause is both 1) global warming from our CO2 pollution of the atmosphere and the methane gas of our meat animals, and 2) the destruction of the oceans and forests which can no longer absorb enough of the excess greenhouse gas to preserve today’s relatively benevolent climate so that we are turning back the climate clock faster than ecology and WE can adjust. (By the way, the Oceans are no longer absorbing CO2 and are turning acidic!)

    Climate Change can result in the disestablishment of the CRITICAL weather-dependent paradigms of water, food, ecology, sea level, weather events and shelter, which is no small matter, and by which the loss of short term profits /business as usual, pale in comparison. If all of these paradigms change at once, and Lovelock has not recanted on this as a near inevitable event, we are going to have to be some pretty resourceful, creative, tough, flexible and INFORMED individuals if we are going to continue to enjoy the Natural Cornucopia which provides our life support and empowers our pursuit of happiness. If the way we exercise our personal liberty undercuts our ability to pursue it, then?

  • Kay The Black Agate

    It is stated that the Great Lakes were carved out by the retreat of glaciers, and filled by the melting of those glaciers. The retreat and melting was caused by the heating of the earth’s crust due to increased activity in the earth’s core along with the warming of the earth’s atmosphere. It is believed the activity in the earth’s core was due to the flipping of earth’s magnetic poles (which just happens to be going on again, and has for a few years now), and the heating of the atmosphere due to increased intense solar flare activity (which also just happens to be going on right now). So yes, Global Warming is a reality, has been for longer than humans learned how to hit two rocks together to make a fire.

    You can tell the “experts” don’t know what they’re talking about by a few statements they have put forth. Three to four years ago the panel on Global Warming admitted that they did not know that living plants emit methane. Uh, gee, folks, why do you think it’s called a greenhouse gas? We don’t pump it INTO a greenhouse, we take it out of it. Sheesh.

    There was an advertisement, fortunately short lived, that was promoting the elimination of carbon dioxide, claiming that if you do so a tree would hug you. Yeh, to ‘breathe’ in your exhale of carbon dioxide, since trees and all plants absorb that and release oxygen.

    Another stupid statement from the experts, rather recent, is that increased solar flare activity has no effect on earth’s atmosphere. Huh? Say what? Sunlight doesn’t warm us?

    So the ‘experts’ want us to get rid of two of the most vital gasses next to oxygen that are in our atmosphere. Ever see pipes sticking out of landfills? Those pipes are part of a mining operation removing the methane and turning it into usable fuel.

    We were called ‘tree huggers’ in the 70s as if that were an insult. We knew a breathable, sustainable, atmosphere required large forests. The ‘experts’ still don’t know it.

    Oh, and arson is not part of global warming/climate change. There’s also a simple way to reduce fire by lightning …. it’s called a lightning rod.

  • Suzy Hayes

    Sites such as this are the reason the U.S. is in a bloody mess! Ugh, how did I link up to this crap!

  • art

    all the greens should just move to afganastan, then they would see how you would live without modern energy,that is very cheap and abundant. when they all give up living in houses,with heat and AC ,stoves,refrigeration,clothes,medicines,foods,cars and trucks,planes and cruise ships so can go on vacation ,have jobs .to pay for kids education,have electricity,have lites at night,healthy water and foods….all the solar power and wind power in this country combined can be replaced by one mid size power plant.also all the wind farms and solar farms,all have to have back up feeder power plants to pick up the load when it is dark or calm, yeah thats making head way. plus the fact is we use 75 % of the oil in this country for transportation,cars, trucks, trains,planes,ships. how exactly is solar and wind going to help there?. plus all the solar panels work less the hotter they get…look it up ,now the solar manufactures are being sued because ,surprise! no one told them..last thought. remove all the money from the green machine world wide, and you will never hear the words climate change again. the more money made available the louder they scream, the louder they scream the more money is made available….how did al gore get to be worth several hundred million dollars in a few years…..without screaming so loud for so long. think he would be that rich otherwise?? he has other talents we dont know about? never in a million ,climate changing years!!!

    • Jeff

      Once again, point me to the Love It or Leave It clause in the Constitution. Is it somewhere near the Scalito misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment?

  • Robert Rashbrooke

    In reply to the post by Jay concerning biogenic and abiogenic production of oil, I remember reading an article in New Scientist back in 1983 or so, that explored the idea of abiogenics.

    An area in Sweden, where the top soil was removed by a meteoric collision down to the bare bedrock, was chosen to see if any oil was being produced as a natural function of earth chemistry. Despite very deep drilling, no evidence of oil production and seepage was found. So the scientific community concluded that oil was produced biogenically and is therefore categorized as finite. It seems that despite the finding of hundreds of years worth of natural gas in ther US we had better think seriously about alternative forms of energy.

    I also heard on NPR the other day that in areas where frakking is taking place, due to the use of the chemicals needed to accomplish the extraction, health problems are manifesting themselves in the local area of the mining operation. Once again, the people’s welfare seems to be taking second place to business profitability. Just like the areas surrounding pig farming on industrial scale. Just my opinion.

    • George E

      Robert,

      I’ve heard many claims, especially from those who oppose production of fossil fuels, that fracturing processes have caused problems with ground water sources, but to my knowledge not one of these claims have yet to be validated as true. Fracturing generally occurs thousands of feet, maybe miles, below ground water sources, so the two zones are far, far apart and therefore very unlikely to mix.

      Regarding thinking seriously about developing alternative forms of energy, what would your propose? We have been spending millions of dollars each year on research and now manufacturing and production of wind and solar, mostly to little avail, it seems. Wouldn’t we get more for our money if we spent millions of dollars on figuring out how to utilize all of the natural gas we’ve got? This is the cleanest fossil fuel, is abundant in very large quantities, can power motor vehicles as well as fire electrical power plants, and is inexpensive compared to everything except coal. I don’t mind investing in researching alternative forms of energy, but for heaven’s sake, the alternative that beats the pants off all the rest at this point in time is natural gas, not wind and solar. Maybe some miracle technology will come along in the next 50 years that will make wind and solar economical, but it’s not here today.

      • Jeff

        Right. Fracking is totally safe . . . .until it isn’t. Excuse my skepticism about the truthiness of the oil and gas industry. There was no chance of an accident in the Gulf, either, and they all had a “Plan” for cleanup if the unthinkable happened. When you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. If you swallow what the frackers promise, you deserve to have your tap water light on fire.

        • George E

          Jeff,

          Ground water in shale formations often has natural gas mixed in. That has nothing to do with the fracturing process. In fact, folks that live in these areas often have gas in their water before any drilling takes place. This is just a natural occurrence, and doesn’t hurt anything other than causing some cavitations in the water well pump if not bled off occasionally.

          Regarding the Gulf oil spill, it looks to me like BP took some shortcuts that they shouldn’t have taken, and regulators shouldn’t have let them take, which exposed that well to much more risk of spill than they should have taken. I’d bet BP will not take these risks in the future after having suffered the terrible financial and public relations problems that they suffered from this spill. I think it’s also interesting that none of the other wells out there have had a similar problem, so this suggests to me that other companies are operating their wells more responsibly than BP operated this particular well. Nevertheless, everyone involved in drilling offshore wells should learn an important lesson from this spill that should make future drilling safer. Accidents happen, especially when you’re pushing the frontier of knowledge like this. The only way we can insure that no accidents ever occur like this again is to stop all offshore drilling. That’s a price that’s just too high, I think.

          • Jeff

            Having a regulator helps, too. I believe they have deep-water wells in Norway that are actually inspected. I believe it can be done but not in an atmosphere of “self-regulation.”

          • George E

            Jeff,

            I have no problem with that. However, there’s no way they’ll have to tell the oil companies to take precautions like this again. The price of being wrong is too high.

          • Jeff

            I’d like to believe that, but it’s difficult, particularly if the Republicans gain power. They practically compared Obama to Willie Sutton for getting BP to put up the clean-up money. The way some in the House apologized to BP, you’d think it was the Gulf that got in the way of their oil!

        • marcjeric32

          Life is full of dangers – also drilling for oil and fracking. However, 30 years ago we had some 20,000 dead on the roads; with the CAFE standards we now have 33,000 dead every year in those lighter cars. With Obama’s Executive Order #1500 or is it #2000 already, with CAFE standard calling for 50 miles per gallon we will have somewhere around 60,000 dead every year on our roads. You know – the lighter the car more deadly it is. But then our eco-nazis, following their cult of death, desire nothing better that to reduce the world population from the present 6.5 billion to the “sustainable” 1.5 billion.

  • Rob

    Someone said: “The earth takes care of its self, it was designed that way.”

    So, are you going to use this excuse to not care about the environment? You mean that we can use all the plastic we want, all the oil (no matter how many spills destroy whole ecosystems), all the nuclear power, plus pollute rivers and oceans, create more smog that pollutes the air we breathe, etc. because the earth will basically heal itself since we are so insignificant that our impact on the environment is negligible? Let’s not recycle, let factories produce all the pollution they want, let’s cut down all the trees we want, … because the earth will somehow take care of itself.

    Even if global warming or climate change or whatever label you want to put on it was not an issue, there is still the issue of taking care of the environment. But many people seem to be using their denial of global warming (or denial of man’s influence in global warming) to effectively deny the need for everyone to use the planet’s resources responsibly and to strive for cleaner air, land, and waters.

    • George E

      Rob,

      To do nothing or accept global warming are not our only two options. We have been, and continue spending great amounts of money monitoring, reporting, and cleaning the environment without the additional burden that would be imposed on our businesses through additional global warming legislation. Most people I know agree that our top priority right now is to repair the economy and bring back jobs. Putting additional environmental regulations and taxes on our businesses now is only going to make the economic and jobs situation worse. Furthermore, the global warming theory is flawed in several ways, so why should we surrender more of our money and liberties to the government to “attempt” to fix a problem that may not be a problem? Watch this video. It’ll clear up some things. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE.

      • Rob

        George, I see your point. But I believe that, even with all the money that is being put towards the environment, not enough is being done. Forests and many species are still being threatened, the quality of the air and waters is still not acceptable in many places, etc. And, while I know that it takes time to fix these issues, it takes people to agree that it is our responsibility to care for the environment and use resources responsibly, instead of letting things take care of themselves. I think the economy is a top priority, but the environment cannot be relegated to 2nd or 3rd place. Both issues affect us all. The economy is global, but we all live in the same earth. If pollution and other environmental issues are not addressed appropriately now and if people are not well educated to care about the environment, then it all becomes a political and economical matter. Moreover, if the pollution and the climate get to an unmanageable point, there won’t be an economy to worry about, because many of us will not be around.

        To whomever made the previous comment about the earth: there is a difference between the earth “defending itself”, which I believe it does, and us humans surviving what happens. I believe the earth and many forms of life will survive what is to come, if things get to their very worst. That doesn’t mean that humans will necessarily be one of the survivors.

  • sisterk

    “Global Warming” is the cover story for the group that is using high altitude spraying of certain toxins to denude large areas around the globe for the purpose of population control. America’s mid-west beef and grain belt is suffering from it. Just watch for ‘Chem-trails’ at high altitudes that don’t dissipate like normal jet contrails.
    Kss says.

  • http://twitter.com/ericbischoff Eric Bischoff (@ericbischoff)

    The lines have been drawn between:

    Those who care about people, their health, the environment, sustainability for future generations, preserving our common wealth, empathy for the unemployed, poor, sick and homeless.

    And those who care more about money and getting theirs now, no matter what the cost to the environment or our health. Freedom is your call. Freedom to do what ever you want just so that you can make money.

    I know who funds the lies and the propaganda and I proudly stand with caring and sharing.

    Where do you stand?

    • GIVEMEFREEDOM

      “Those who care about people, their health, the environment, sustainability for future generations, preserving our common wealth, empathy for the unemployed, poor, sick and homeless.

      And those who care more about money and getting theirs now, no matter what the cost to the environment or our health. Freedom is your call. Freedom to do what ever you want just so that you can make money.

      I know who funds the lies and the propaganda and I proudly stand with caring and sharing.

      Where do you stand?”
      `
      Hey Eric,
      I stand with all the hard working conservative Christians who make all that “money” you seem to despise. I stand with small business, private companies, and corporations which employ the millions that supply all the empathy and health care, and hospitals, and roads and infrastructure, and that tax money you would like to spend on all the others who refuse to work but LOVE to live off the sweat and the Liberties and freedoms provided by We the People.
      If you THINK you know who funds the lies and propaganda and you stand with them, you’ve just identified yourself as one of the brain washed democrat horde.
      I saw you coming a mile away. You were leaving a cloud of medical marijuana smoke behind you followed by that band of “forever” students trying to figure yet another way to get US to pay for more years of “schooling” while learning nothing.

      • marcjeric32

        Hello Eric: I recommend that you stop studying Karl Marx ans start studying the marxist consequences in the last 80 years. You can still find inspiration in North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, … – and remember the 140 million murdered in the name of your hero Marx. The response by “Givemefreedom” is also worth your time to study.

      • Rob

        Givemefreedom:

        What kind of Christian disregards education and the environment, and thinks that all those disabled, retired, war veterans, orphans, widows, ill, marginalized, … should just “shut up” and go get a job?

        • Jeff

          Perhaps as a non-Christian, it is easier for me to see, but there appears to be an inverse relationship between the degree to which one invokes Jesus and the degree to which one believes in anything Jesus ever stood for. As Gandhi said, “I like your Jesus, but not so much your Christians.”

          I really appreciated Pres. W making it so clear – waging pre-emptive war in the name of Jesus.

          • Rob

            For those who consider themselves Christians, they should consider, for instance, what Jesus’s mother says on Luke 1: 51-53:

            51 “He has shown strength with his arm;
            he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
            52 he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
            and exalted those of humble estate;
            53 he has filled the hungry with good things,
            and the rich he has sent away empty.”

  • Pingback: Hanoi John Hot Over ‘Warming’ Critics | Be Sure You're RIGHT, Then Go Ahead

  • SiliconDoc

    Now libtards like flash in the bedpan claim that even if they are wrong, their fascism makes the world a better place.

    Dan Mancuso, you got it correct, and crybaby fear filled apocalypse libtard liar Jeff can stick it up his drug doused libtard distortion field.

    • Jeff

      Why do I have this suspicion you might not actually be a doctor? Mental patient – that I can believe.

  • http://n/a Jerrold

    new MOVIE: ‘Why in the World They are Spraying’ but for FREE – the movie: ‘What in the World Are They Spraying’ is available on the net.
    hint- even though massive amounts of aluminum are being dumped onto humans, plants, animals and oceans………..Monsanto has an aluminum resistant seed for that!
    Aren’t they clever? Don’t mind the rates of Alzheimers rocketing up!

    • http://n/a Jerrold

      -forgot to mention that geoengineering (persistent contrails or chemtrails) are tied in with HAARP to manipulate weather. (Nick Begich) The history channel did a thing on weather weapons and warfare. Won’t find it on the History Channel site, googling it will still find it on youtube.
      The rabbit hole is deep. I can avoid chemical laden water, GMO frankenfoods, choosing to opt out of the radiation/biometric image collecting-scanner, but the air is another matter. It’s shocking to know how we are being poisoned daily, worldwide (aircrap.org) by the insane oligarchy who decide what will be done to us. hint again: they are not your elected officials

      • DEE

        JERROLD YOU ARE DEFINATELY WELL INFORMED!! “HAARP” IS SOMETHING EVERY ONE NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT.

  • roberts

    Hi, I’m from Sydney Australia and it is winter time now.
    Our winters have been getting colder and lasting longer over the last three years now.
    We don’t have snow in Sydney but it gets pretty cold.
    Here is what I find so ridiculous.
    In the northern hemisphere it seems that summer temperatures are high at the moment.
    To claim that this is due to global warming is so stupid because if it were true then we would not be having cold winters down under.
    Therefore the only conclusion any person with a bit of intelligence can come too is that this events are due to local conditions not global.
    The climate has and always will change.
    It has to, because even if the earth’s precession where the only factor, bearing in mind that the north axial pole moves by 1degree every 70 years would have an impact on the poles alone.

    From Oliver K. Manuel
    Emeritus Professor, Space and Nuclear Studies:

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0704.pdf

    The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    (IPCC) assumed that solar influence on Earth’s climate is limited to changes in
    solar irradiance and adopted the consensus opinion of a hydrogen-filled Sun—the
    Standard Solar Model (SSM). They did not consider the alternative solar model
    and instead adopted another consensus opinion: Anthropogenic greenhouse gases
    play a dominant role in climate change. The SSM fails to explain the solar wind,
    solar cycles, and the empirical link of solar surface activity with Earth’s changing
    climate. The alternative solar model—molded from an embarrassingly large
    number of unexpected observations that space-age measurements revealed since
    1959—explains not only these puzzles but also how closely linked interactions
    between the Sun and its planets and other celestial bodies induce turbulent cycles
    of secondary solar characteristics that significantly affect Earth’s climate.
    Keywords: Earth’s Climate, Earth-Sun Connection, IPCC Policies, IPCC
    Procedures, Solar Inertial Motion, Solar Orbit, Solar System Center of Mass, Solar
    Density, Core of Sun, Neutron Repulsion, Solar Composition, Origin of Solar
    System, Solar Luminosity, Solar Interior, Mass Fractionation, Iron Sun.
    1. INTRODUCTION
    Much of what we hear from the scientific community concerning AGW
    (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is based on an obsolete model of the Sun, a
    misunderstanding of the ways that Earth is connected to this unstable heat source, and
    on politically driven conclusions that come either directly or indirectly from the UN’s
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC admits that it “does
    not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters” [1].132 Energy & Environment · Vol. 20, No. 1&2, 2009
    Instead, IPCC operates under a myopic mandate to assess “the risk of human-induced
    climate change” [1]. Not surprisingly, the IPCC found what they were looking for.
    This paper is concerned with fundamental flaws in the currently fashionable model
    of Earth’s heat source—the Sun. Errors in theoretical models may significantly

    The rest can be read here..
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0704.pdf

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

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

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

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