More Bad News for Global Warming True Believers

Pages: 1 2

The American Petroleum Institute announced Sept. 7 that changes in the U.S. oil and natural gas policies could generate more than 1.4 million new jobs, $800 billion in added government revenue, and 10 million barrels’ worth of added oil and natural gas production by 2030. The figures are from a study by Wood MacKenzie, an economic research organization.

German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch last year released their latest international survey of climate scientists. It asked scientists to rank data for climate change on a scale from very adequate to very inadequate. More ranked available data “very inadequate.” Majorities of climate scientists responded that they don’t believe the claims that underlie the predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.

The most recent and significant appraisal of climate change comes from Craig D. Idso, chairman of the Center of the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change; Robert M. Carter, adjunct research fellow, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia; and S. Fred Singer, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, along with executives of the Heartland Institute, the Chicago-based think tank. In its 415-page book, the Heartland Institute reached the conclusion that “natural causes,” rather than man-made greenhouse gases, are most likely to be “dominant.” The study also made what to many may be a surprising finding: that “a warmer world will be a safer and healthier world for humans and wildlife alike.”

A Rasmussen opinion poll reported Sept. 8 that only 24 percent of likely voter consider Al Gore an expert on global warming, even though he and the IPCC won a Nobel Prize with his devastating forecasts on the subject. And he has made multi-millions on his crazed warnings for years.

The Huffington Post Sept. 9 wrote about a trivial study that made projections for 11 states with the ridiculous prediction that a 10 percent reduction in CO2 over the next 10 years would increase employment by 9,490-50,700 jobs and “carbon pollution from transportation [would be] cut by 5 to 9 percent.” Doubtful and inconsequential.

In its exhaustive study, the Heartland Institute and the three renowned scientists aforementioned declared the following: New evidence shows in the “Medieval Warm Period, approximately 1,000 years ago, when there was about 28 percent less CO2 in the atmosphere than there is currently,” it was warmer than today’s world, there is currently less melting of ice in the Arctic and Antactic than previously thought, and there is “no sign of acceleration of sea-level rise in recent decades[.]”

Contradicting forecasts of the IPCC, the “frequency and severity of floods, droughts, and hurricanes all appear to be determined by natural processes other than anthropogenic climate change.” Continued warming “would not increase the incidence of diseases.” And, in fact, “mankind will be much better off in the year 2100 than it is today.”

Pages: 1 2

  • Punkin

    Are you sure you got all the lies right this time?

  • Samoht

    Uh, a study done by the Heartland Institute!! Wow, it must be true then as surely it as been funded by Exxon Mobile, The Koch brothers and other such luminaries.
    By the way, Exxon is funding just about all the so called climate change denier think tanks while their real money is bet on the fact that the North Pole will in due course melt away in the first half of this century as they just signed a multi billion dollar deal with a Russian state owned oil company explore the oil under the North Pole which will become available as soon as the polar ice caps are gone….
    When will the sleeping majority of the USA wake up to the fact that they have been hood winked at every corner of the game by the Machiavellian truth twisters of the libertarian right wing think tanks, tea party funders and their hired guns? Wake up America and shake the grip of the right wing fraudsters off your back once and for goo!

    • Realist

      ExxonMobil stopped funding them in 2008, which debunks your theory that they funded this report.

      The only ones being hoodwinked are those that believe Mr. Gore's doomsday predictions. Luckily that number continues to decrease by the month and soon "global warming" will be just another phrase in the Lexicon of Lies, used to generate profit for those who prey on the gullible.

    • Heather

      So Exxon has a vested interest in the results of a report?

      Doesn't Al Gore run a company that sells carbon offsets? Doesn't he make money off the outcome of reports and studies that he supports? How many millions of dollars has Al Gore made selling his movie? He seems to make money off global warming too!

      But I guess that is allowed! I guess so long as the bias is one you approve of, its allowed!

    • Dave F.

      I think "hoodwinked" is a very appropriate description. The people who you believe are completely above being bought and paid for by the people who stand to make billions (maybe trillions) from the pro warming arguments they present, and any evidence contrary to what they would like you to believe needs to be forcibly ignored.

    • BrianD82

      If you can't get past your own prejudice re: Heartland Institute, then I give you CERN: http://ow.ly/6vAgh
      CERN says cosmic rays impact climate, NOT humans. All climate change "science" comes from computer models to predict the future climate. NONE of these computer models even CONSIDER cosmic rays as a variable!!! Apparently the reality deniers think this kind of "science" is just fine and then hypocritically attack the Heartland Institute by saying they have the fraudulent science.
      The Left's hypocrisy is never short of staggeringly spectacular.

    • pyeatte

      Exxon/Mobil contributes a few million to rational science research while the US government gives billions to the grant puppies so they can crank out only the AGW agenda papers the government wants. There is the corruption of science by politicians. Thank God Exxon/Mobil signed a joint development contract with the Russians for Arctic oil and gas development.

    • old white guy

      i say to all global warming nuts. go naked in maine for 24 hours in jan. and then tell me the planet is getting too warm. idiots. you have to stay outside for the 24 hours.

  • Samoht

    Ah and I forgot to mention, that PDF writ by the Heartland institute is from 2009. It has been demolished in due course a long time ago. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=

    So this Front Page Magazine is simply part of a web of nonsense echo chambers.

    • intrcptr2

      Are you kidding me!!?!? An article, in a popular magazine, which references scientific calculations from 1859! As in before lightbulbs science.
      Everything on the planet absorbs infrared radiation, or by its more common name, heat. And considering that water molecules are larger and have a higher specific energy than carbon dioxide molecules, H2O functions as a much more effficient greenhouse gas.

      wow
      I think I will read the other six pages, but mostly as comedic relief. This first point suffices to conclude this lesson.

  • Brother Wolf

    How apropos that most global warming deniers are Christian. Christians believe in Hell and that's where they and their future generations along w/domesticated animals and jellyfish will live. Hell on Earth thanks to the human race especially the selfish ignorant immoral climate change deniers. Amen!

    • Heather

      Wow a liberal working in an assault on christianity. Who would have thunk that!

      Come on go for it! Add in some Bush hate too! Come on you can do it! Take your medication, wrap your head in tin foil and give it a try!

    • tagalog

      It takes a bit of stretching to make an argument supporting the global-warming/climate change panicmongers into an argument against Christians.

      Impressive. Congratulations.

    • pyeatte

      Brother Wolf it sounds like your paradise would be no development beyond bare subsistence. This paradise already exists for people like you if you have the strength of you convictions…North Korea – please, go and be happy – I am sure we can scrape up a one-way ticket for you and any who might want to join you.

    • old white guy

      i sure as hell hope that hell is not as warm as described. you guys are idiots. you will pay for your sins.

    • intrcptr2

      Perhaps you'd like to scientifically support your point, or is mere assertion in rhetoric equally valid, too.

      Although I suppose a "person" who can't stomach being human really has no use for his putative higher intelligence.

  • Brad Arnold

    We're going to cut our emissions to save money:

    There is a new clean energy technology that is 1/10th the cost of any other energy technology. Don’t believe me? Watch this video by a Nobel prize winner in physics: http://pesn.com/2011/06/23/9501856_Nobel_laureate

    Still don’t believe me? It convinced the Swedish Skeptics Society: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energ

    LENR using nickel. Incredibly: Ni+H+K2CO3(heated under pressure)=Cu+lots of heat. Here is a detailed description of the device and formula from a US government contract: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

    Still don’t believe me? A major US corporation has bought the rights to sell the 1 megawatt Rossi E-Cat, and it will be announced late October in the US, with the unit hitting the market in November. How can any fossil fuel compete with such cheap energy (and clean to boot!).

    By the way, here is a current survey of all the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization: http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-bree

    • RBlan

      Very interesting. Thanks for the links. Unfortunately this cold fusion (if that's not a dirty word) technology is still unproven. On the upside, if you have the background to evaluate the science and the businesses involved, you can try to get in on the ground floor of an investment that, if it pans out technologically, economically and politically, will make a fortune for those who are first in. This world really needs an alternative to petroleum energy for political reasons much more than for environmental ones.

      Of course, if it does pan out technologically and economically, it will rise to the top of the ecomaniacs political hit list, just in time to replace the increasingly discredited global warming meme. I don't know what they could manage to find to scare people about the new technology but you will read all about it in the New York Times. You see, the real motive of the ecomaniacs is not the preservation of the environment for the benefit of mankind. The real motive is to get rid of all technology and through the consequential disease, mass starvation, and death, to return the human species to the level of primitive man or the great apes, thereby achieving natures' balance in a new paradise with the goddess Gaia.

      But I am optimistic that the ecomaniacs will be so thoroughly discredited that they will lose the political battle. The left will abandon them and they will survive only as a religious cult. Then the leftists will be left with their one last best hope for world domination: their alliance with militant Islam.

  • p mizla

    Science and paleo climate history say something vastly different then the misinformation here. If you want to see a nation go over a cliff- as well as a civilization- keep reading junk like this.

    • BrianD82

      If you can't get past your own prejudice re: Heartland Institute, then I give you CERN: http://ow.ly/6vAgh
      CERN says cosmic rays impact climate, NOT humans. All climate change "science" comes from computer models to predict the future climate. NONE of these computer models even CONSIDER cosmic rays as a variable!!! Apparently the reality deniers think this kind of "science" is just fine and then hypocritically attack the Heartland Institute by saying they have the fraudulent science.
      The Left's hypocrisy is never short of staggeringly spectacular. If you can't get past your own prejudice re: Heartland Institute, then I give you CERN: http://ow.ly/6vAgh

  • scientists

    how can you publish such rubbish? do u have an editor here?

    • BrianD82

      If you can't get past your own prejudice re: Heartland Institute, then I give you CERN: http://ow.ly/6vAgh
      CERN says cosmic rays impact climate, NOT humans. All climate change "science" comes from computer models to predict the future climate. NONE of these computer models even CONSIDER cosmic rays as a variable!!! Apparently the reality deniers think this kind of "science" is just fine and then hypocritically attack the Heartland Institute by saying they have the fraudulent science.
      The Left's hypocrisy is never short of staggeringly spectacular.

  • Randy

    Pretty weak if you're basing your argument on a report from the Heartland Institute. You owe it to your readers to tell them who pumps money into the so-called think tank.

    • Heather

      But the global warming scientist are above reproach? These scientist rely on goverment grants for their funding, grants they only get if they produce the "right" results.

      How does this make them any more trustworthy then a researcher who gets funded by Exxon? If scientist who are funded by Exxon are accused of providing results their funding sources like. then it seems this has to be just as valid for the scientist funded by liberal left leaning politicans!

      • trickyblain

        Of course they are not beyond reproach. The reality deniers just need to come up with factual refutations to counter the evidence. The type of refutation that cannot be debunked as easily as what's previously been submitted.

        Name some specific studies that you feel are being funded by those with a leftist agenda. And are yoiu saying that this agenda is to force everyone to drive a Prius?

      • drklassen

        Implies "the government" has a desired outcome. It doesn't. See, government doesn't have to have a particular result in order to make money to pay inflated and unearned compensation packages to its executives.

    • BrianD82

      If you can't get past your own prejudice re: Heartland Institute, then I give you CERN: http://ow.ly/6vAgh
      CERN says cosmic rays impact climate, NOT humans. All climate change "science" comes from computer models to predict the future climate. NONE of these computer models even CONSIDER cosmic rays as a variable!!! Apparently the reality deniers think this kind of "science" is just fine and then hypocritically attack the Heartland Institute by saying they have the fraudulent science.
      The Left's hypocrisy is never short of staggeringly spectacular.

  • Hudlup

    Further evidence of the US slide into ignorance, isolation and irrelevance…

    • BrianD82

      If you can't get past your own prejudice re: Heartland Institute, then I give you CERN: http://ow.ly/6vAgh
      CERN says cosmic rays impact climate, NOT humans. All climate change "science" comes from computer models to predict the future climate. NONE of these computer models even CONSIDER cosmic rays as a variable!!! Apparently the reality deniers think this kind of "science" is just fine and then hypocritically attack the Heartland Institute by saying they have the fraudulent science.
      The Left's hypocrisy is never short of staggeringly spectacular.

  • Mary Fay

    The scientific evidence that man is causing global warming is something I have tried to research, and for the life of me I cannot tell you that anyone really knows the answer. What I can tell you is that burning fossil fuel and adding hydrocarbon breakdown products to the atmosphere is causing lung disease in humans, and that needs to stop. The incidence of asthma and inflammatory disease of the human respiratory tract has increased in direct proportion to the amount of hydrocarbon breakdown products in the air. My child has asthma. I developed asthma in my 40's. We lived in Chicago. Do the math.

    • BrianD82

      If you can't get past your own prejudice re: Heartland Institute, then I give you CERN: http://ow.ly/6vAgh
      CERN says cosmic rays impact climate, NOT humans. All climate change "science" comes from computer models to predict the future climate. NONE of these computer models even CONSIDER cosmic rays as a variable!!! Apparently the reality deniers think this kind of "science" is just fine and then hypocritically attack the Heartland Institute by saying they have the fraudulent science.
      The Left's hypocrisy is never short of staggeringly spectacular.

  • VPK

    Yep, it's natural allright, if you increae greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere the climate will change. Brillant. Oh, please stop repeating the BIG LIE about the so-caled "Climategate". It is getting old now and after THREE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANELS found NO wrong doing. The credibilty of your so-called announcement is zero!

    • BrianD82

      Those so-called investigations were whitewashed shams of "investigations." "The "investigations" didn't even look at Mann’s “Nature Trick”, where he ignores tree ring data during the thermometer era, that would land you in jail if you tried that on the EPA. Without that trick, NONE of the tree ring data sets that he uses would pass statistical muster. “Hide the decline” isn’t just a catchphrase, it was the core of the entire hockey stick. There are basic standards to which you must be held, and Mann just didn’t."
      If you can't get past your own prejudice re: Heartland Institute, then I give you CERN: http://ow.ly/6vAgh
      CERN says cosmic rays impact climate, NOT humans. All climate change "science" comes from computer models to predict the future climate. NONE of these computer models even CONSIDER cosmic rays as a variable!!! Apparently the reality deniers think this kind of "science" is just fine and then hypocritically attack the Heartland Institute by saying they have the fraudulent science.
      The Left's hypocrisy is never short of staggeringly spectacular.

  • http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php rwmsrobertw

    For anyone who wants to know why 97% of climate scientists think that global warming is currently being caused by human activity:

    10 lines of evidence that humans are causing global warming / climate change by burning carbon
    (taken from http://skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm )

    1. Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    2. Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon dioxide.

    3. Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.)

    4. Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply.

    5. Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.

    • BrianD82

      Those so-called investigations were whitewashed shams of "investigations." "The "investigations" didn't even look at Mann’s “Nature Trick”, where he ignores tree ring data during the thermometer era, that would land you in jail if you tried that on the EPA. Without that trick, NONE of the tree ring data sets that he uses would pass statistical muster. “Hide the decline” isn’t just a catchphrase, it was the core of the entire hockey stick. There are basic standards to which you must be held, and Mann just didn’t."
      If you can't get past your own prejudice re: Heartland Institute, then I give you CERN: http://ow.ly/6vAgh
      CERN says cosmic rays impact climate, NOT humans. All climate change "science" comes from computer models to predict the future climate. NONE of these computer models even CONSIDER cosmic rays as a variable!!! Apparently the reality deniers think this kind of "science" is just fine and then hypocritically attack the Heartland Institute by saying they have the fraudulent science.
      The Left's hypocrisy is never short of staggeringly spectacular.

    • old white guy

      co2 is not a polutant. you are a carbon based idiot who wants to eliminate carbon from a carbon based universe. duh.

      • rwmsrobertw

        Nothing is a polutant in small enough concentrations. If you think CO2 is not a polutant, try spending some time in a room where the atmosphere is 20% CO2.

        The problem is that we have increased the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere by 40% in just 130 years of human activity. It is a proven fact that this increase has warmed the earth and will continue to do so for hundreds of years, even if we were to stop burning fossil fuels today.

  • rwmsrobertw

    6. Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface.

    7. An increased greenhouse effect would make nights warm faster than days, and this is what has been observed.

    8. If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.

    9. This combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere should cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has also been observed.

    10.It was predicted that the ionosphere would shrink, and it is indeed shrinking.

    • sedoanman

      To all ten of your claims, compared to what?

      • rwmsrobertw

        Uhm – compared to humans not adding 30 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This evicdence that global warming is being caused by humans – your question makes no sense.

    • trickyblain

      Prepare yourself for alot of "thumbs downs" and no coherent refutations. Posting facts is frowned upon in these parts.

      • BrianD82

        If you can't get past your own prejudice re: Heartland Institute, then I give you CERN: http://ow.ly/6vAgh
        CERN says cosmic rays impact climate, NOT humans. All climate change "science" comes from computer models to predict the future climate. NONE of these computer models even CONSIDER cosmic rays as a variable!!! Apparently the reality deniers think this kind of "science" is just fine and then hypocritically attack the Heartland Institute by saying they have the fraudulent science.
        The Left's hypocrisy is never short of staggeringly spectacular.

      • rwmsrobertw

        You certainly called it!

    • tagalog

      1. Humans emit 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Assuming, since it isn't stated, that that is a figure for annual emissions, what percentage of the total annual emission of CO2 into the atmosphere from all sources is that 30 billion tons?

      2. How far have oxygen levels fallen? During what period? What was the level of oxygen at whatever optimum time you specify? What is it now?

      3. How is "fossil carbon" distinguished from non-fossil carbon? Are they two different isotopes? How much non-fossil carbon has been produced vs. fossil carbon production during, say, the last 150 years? How much before then? We DO want to compare the difference, don't we?

      4. What is the reliability of readings on carbon depostion in coral?

      5. How much less heat in the suspected wavelenghts do the satellites register as compared to what was lost earlier? If we don't have figures for a figure dating from before the warming period began, how can we rely on the new figures as showing anything compelling?

      • rwmsrobertw

        You can find far more details in the scientific papers that are referenced at the site I linked –
        http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-….

        There you will find vastly more support for the scientific findings concerning global warming compared to the claims of the denailists.

    • tagalog

      6. How do scientists distinguish the returning heat from the heat that is being generated from other surface sources? That seems as if it might be a bit tricky, making that distinction, but scientists are very clever; perhaps you can explain that.

      7. Agreed, but an increased greenhouse effect is not the only reason why nights might warm faster than days, such as the warming effect that would come with the ending of an ice age, such as ended 15,000 years ago, and a little ice age that ended 150 years ago. Solar activity also might explain this phenomenon too.

      8. The troposphere-stratosphere differential in temperature is interesting, but it doesn't seem to be particularly persuasive on the issue of human-caused warming. Furthermore, even if such warming is human-caused, it doesn't explain how much is human-caused and how much is natural.

      9. If the troposphere's temp is rising as was predicted, good for climatologists who believe in global warming. They are evidently right on that one.

      10. Who predicted the ionosphere would shrink? What did he think the cause would be? Is the cause what he predicted?

    • BrianD82

      If you can't get past your own prejudice re: Heartland Institute, then I give you CERN: http://ow.ly/6vAgh
      CERN says cosmic rays impact climate, NOT humans. All climate change "science" comes from computer models to predict the future climate. NONE of these computer models even CONSIDER cosmic rays as a variable!!! Apparently the reality deniers think this kind of "science" is just fine and then hypocritically attack the Heartland Institute by saying they have the fraudulent science.
      The Left's hypocrisy is never short of staggeringly spectacular.

      • rwmsrobertw

        Your statement that "All climate change "science" comes from computer models to predict the future climate" is absolutely false. None of the 10 items that I listed above had anything to do with computer modeling.

        Here is a good introduction as to why cosmic rays are not all that the denialists hope they will be. (Hint – despite large increases in global temperatures over the last 35 years, cosmic radiation levels have remained flat.
        http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscien

        • BrianD82

          Well, if my statement re: computer models is false, where do the predictions come from – scientific experimentation???…Nope. Those who value science know that scientific experimentation is what proves or disproves theories and/or predictions. There is no scientific experimentation done by the climate change cultists that prove any of their predictions. Even worse, CO2 levels started rising AFTER temperatures did, not before. A judge in the UK made schools report that fact before they can show Algore’s propaganda movie. “An Inconvenient Truth.” That judge found at least eight other falsehoods in that film.

    • pyeatte

      Where do you guys come up with all this nonsense? Address the NASA finding that radiated energy from the earth is much greater that the AGW mob thought. Address the recent CERN findings. Address the fact that CO2 is plant food and a trace gas to boot. You must have gotten your fix from Gore's current flatulence on Current TV and it is affecting your collective brains. BTW, Climategate is still the thorn in your saddles. Those so-called reviews were done by the same people who worked with the people who fabricated data to begin with.

      • rwmsrobertw

        By "AGW" mob, you mean over 90% of the earth's climate scientists , 32 national scientific acadamies, and many other scientific organzations?
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_o

        I love this quote from that article:

        "Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change."

        I guess you would rather get your information from discredited political "think" tanks funded by gigantic fossil fuel corporations that got their start by denying the negative health effects of cigarrete smoke (Heartland Institute – http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartl… ). I'll stick with scientific reality, thank you.

    • Don't be a sheep

      How about instead of copying and pasting snippets from your favourite alarmists' preaching you have a look at what your Phophets of Doom are doing eg Al Gore being the first climate change preaching billionaire; oh yes Al, we're all polluting bastards but you keep flying all over the world in your private jet while telling us to stop killing the planet. Google them and read all about them.

  • John Parsons

    Anyone that sees you using "climategate" as a proof that climate change is not real will immediately know that you are a liar. You know the results of three separate investigations into that trumped up "scandal" and you keep lying about it anyway. There are skeptics and there are deniers–you, sir, are the later. Someday your grandchildren are going to see the twaddle you wrote back in the early 21st century and realize their grandpa was a hack. Sometime, when your reader's want an interesting vacation, they should pay Heartland a visit. It's essentially like visiting the former compound of David Koresh. The Heartland "Institute". Give me a break. Dr. John Parsons

    • BrianD82

      Those so-called investigations were whitewashed shams of "investigations." "The "investigations" didn't even look at Mann’s “Nature Trick”, where he ignores tree ring data during the thermometer era, that would land you in jail if you tried that on the EPA. Without that trick, NONE of the tree ring data sets that he uses would pass statistical muster. “Hide the decline” isn’t just a catchphrase, it was the core of the entire hockey stick. There are basic standards to which you must be held, and Mann just didn’t."
      If you can't get past your own prejudice re: Heartland Institute, then I give you CERN: http://ow.ly/6vAgh
      CERN says cosmic rays impact climate, NOT humans. All climate change "science" comes from computer models to predict the future climate. NONE of these computer models even CONSIDER cosmic rays as a variable!!! Apparently the reality deniers think this kind of "science" is just fine and then hypocritically attack the Heartland Institute by saying they have the fraudulent science.
      The Left's hypocrisy is never short of staggeringly spectacular.

  • Naksuthin

    The climate debate mirrors the debate on cigarette smoking during the 1990's. Back then Republicans sided with tobacco industry's claims that there was no truth that cigarette smoking was harmful or addictive. It became a campaign issue in the Clinton -Dole campaign
    Dole stated that there was no evidence that cigarette smoking was addictive and that the campaign was a smear by Surgeon General Everette Koop and the liberals. The tobacco industry paraded out it's scientist who claimed there was link between smoking and cancer.

    The entire argument collapsed when the tobacco industry executives were caught lying and agreed to settle with the federal government
    Republicans stopped trying to defend the tobacco industry….
    and a host of anti smoking laws were quickly passed.

    Today tobacco smoking is down among all age groups and smoking is banned in the workplace, airplanes and many public establishments.

    Funny how history repeats itself

    • BrianD82

      If you can't get past your own prejudice re: Heartland Institute, then I give you CERN: http://ow.ly/6vAgh
      CERN says cosmic rays impact climate, NOT humans. All climate change "science" comes from computer models to predict the future climate. NONE of these computer models even CONSIDER cosmic rays as a variable!!! Apparently the reality deniers think this kind of "science" is just fine and then hypocritically attack the Heartland Institute by saying they have the fraudulent science.
      The Left's hypocrisy is never short of staggeringly spectacular.

  • Robert Davidson

    This article is so full of misleading half-truths and outright distortions that it's hard to know where to start in pulling it apart. Climategate certainly did not show what you are saying it showed – read the independent inquiries. Surely this should be put to rest now – what more factual information do you need? Read the scientific literature – this is just so off it's crazy.

    • BrianD82

      If you can't get past your own prejudice re: Heartland Institute, then I give you CERN: http://ow.ly/6vAgh
      CERN says cosmic rays impact climate, NOT humans. All climate change "science" comes from computer models to predict the future climate. NONE of these computer models even CONSIDER cosmic rays as a variable!!! Apparently the reality deniers think this kind of "science" is just fine and then hypocritically attack the Heartland Institute by saying they have the fraudulent science.
      The Left's hypocrisy is never short of staggeringly spectacular.

    • pyeatte

      Those were not independent inquiries by any stretch of the imagination. If you are a member of a movement that must suppress publication of conflicting science you are not honest.

  • ugh.

    oh yes, it's all our fault…we are such a terrible species. we are wrecking this planet. give me a break…we must be really full of ourselves to think that we have such a significant impact on a planet with 4.5 billion years of history. climate change is a natural phenomenon that will continue as long as the earth rounds the sun…no policy is going to be able to stop it.

    • drklassen

      If you doubt the ability of a lifeform to significantly alter the atmosphere of a planet consider this: why does Earth have a 20% O2 concentration but Mars and Venus don't?

      • Conservie

        Simple, God created it that way. Note I am being sincere. I no longer believe in the Big Bang.

      • intrcptr2

        So what you're saying is that all those primeval bacteria were burning fossil fuels too, thus destroying Mother Earth?

        Given Mars lack of gravitaional capacity to hold liquid water, and Venus' extreme temperature and pressure, which cracks certain life-supporting molecules, like water, I would consider this a very stupid non sequitur.

        Accepting the modern "scientific" explanation of primordial soup to man, how do you explain why the other planets lack some sort of life that could terraform them?

  • mikidiki

    First there was global cooling, then global warming, then global lying and now global BS. Climate changes naturally .. man has no influence on the changes. Who do scientists blame for hurricanes? Windy Miller and his Flour Mill?

    • Stephen_Brady

      Last winter, I posted a thread (on another website) about the tremendous amoung of snow we had in a blizzard …. shocking, right? Blizzards in January? Who woulda thunkit?

      Immediately, one of the AGW nuts said that he wouldn't "debate with someone who didn't know the difference between weather and climate".

      But now, with wildfires in the SW and heat waves plus hurricanes in August, etc., these weather effects are … once again … "proof" of AGW.

      I don't want to talk with them, anymore. People who don't know the difference between weather and climate don't deserve my time! :)

    • drklassen

      No. There was never "global cooling". Fox is lying to you again.

      • Conservie

        What he means is the scientists were FRETTING ABOUT cooling. Don't even make me use Google to give you proof!

      • intrcptr2

        never mind…

    • tagalog

      Furthermore, in the last 110 years (since 1900), CO2 levels have been steadily increasing while the average global temperature went down by about 1 degree C for the first 25 years of the 20th Century, then went up by about 1 degree C during the next 20 years, then went back down by about 1 degree C between about 1945 and 1975, then went up again for another 25 years or so by about 1 degree C. If the global temperature has been fluctuating like that for 110 years while the CO2 levels of concentration in the atmosphere have been going up consistenly during the same period, what does that say about rising CO2 concentrations being a cause of rising atmospheric temperatures?

      Perhaps drklassen wasn't paying attention during the 1970s, when scientists (some of whom are now global warming mongers) were predicting the sudden onset of a new ice age.

  • Hugh Jardohn

    The issue is not climate science in and of itself. The issue is the neo-fascists use of it to put a stranglehold on all peoples and 'tamp down' human progress in prosperous countries and "level" human access to this prosperity.

    Look at what 0bama has done to America in the name of these types.

    • trickyblain

      Explain. What has Obama done to America?

      • Conservie

        Uhh… does Cap and Trade or the EPA ring any bells?

      • intrcptr2

        Or maybe we could discuss that new, kinder tenor in political discourse…

  • http://jewishdefense.org AJ Weberman

    What has global warming have to do with fighting Islamists? Cause you get money from scum who want to destroy the earth? Stick to one issue.

    • tagalog

      AJ Weberman? Cute; have you rummaged through any popular singer's garbage lately?

  • Jim

    Any increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would not cause the Venus effect as some would be absorbed in water. Most would be absorbed in plant growth. Green House operators triple the level of carbon dioxide to accelerate plant growth.
    Le Chatelier's principle would predict the effect of carbon dioxide increase on plant growth.

    To answer the effect described above a propaganda line by global warming
    predictors was created. An article promoting the message can be found in Dec 6 2002 Science daily.

    Ironically in the "science daily article" appears " Prevailing view amongst 'most scientists' is that for farmers climate change will prove beneficial" The key word is Most.

    "Most scientists" we have been told by global warmers is that most scientists say global warming will be harmful..

    Time the global warmers hired an editor.

  • mrbean

    Hey, the world has been warming since 1680 and the cause is changes in the sun. But in their computer models they hardly talk about the sun at all and in the IPCC summary for policy-makers they don’t talk about the sun at all. And of course, if they put the sun into their formula in their computer models, it swamps out the human portion of CO2, so they can’t possibly do that.

    Read more: The politics of global warming – Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

    • intrcptr2

      Wait, 1680?

      You realize this means that it was the printing press that's been warming the planet, and that the internet is what is driving it now; all those people reading and thinking really hard, drinking coffee and reading in bed.
      OY!

  • BrianD82

    For those who can't get past your own prejudice re: Heartland Institute, then I give you CERN: http://ow.ly/6vAgh
    CERN says cosmic rays impact climate, NOT humans. All climate change "science" comes from computer models to predict the future climate. NONE of these computer models even CONSIDER cosmic rays as a variable!!! Apparently the reality deniers think this kind of "science" is just fine and then hypocritically attack the Heartland Institute by saying they have the fraudulent science.
    The Left's hypocrisy is never short of staggeringly spectacular.

    • pyeatte

      Absolutely correct. The AGW computer model outputs are being defined as data. They are not data, they are predictions. Data must be observed, not artificially generated.

  • essendee

    No wonder the US is going down the drain if this represents its intellectual capacity.

    • Conservie

      Which side are you talking about? I, once again, am being sincere. I truly don't know what or whom you're talking about.

      • intrcptr2

        Dare I suggest that the form his comment demonstrates his point better than the words; I am fairly sure he was aiming at the skeptics.

  • old white guy

    truth truth truth truth echo echo echo echo carry on.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    In the past the Earth was much hotter than today and the cycles of change
    had nothing to do with human activity and in the future it will prove to be
    negligible. With the weather you want what you want and get what you get.
    I find it interesting that no one today will live to see any of the insane predictions
    of the Al Gore gang but what ever scam you have going I think it has tanked.
    Enough nonsense, climate change is natural and real, it's panic promoters
    are scam artists and it's followers are dupes, just that simple………..William

  • anencephalic

    Be it manufactured evidence or pure hubris, not being available for debate on the subject and saying we don't need your stinkin' opinion is not the way win the hearts and minds. Granted, it has worked in the past from Viet Nam to the Stimulus of 2009 but thanks to dissenting opinions now being published, a 'we're right, your wrong, shut up' debating tactic isn't working as it once did. Very strong dissenting arguments are destroying the media that once had a strangle hold on now controversial issues. Without a vigorous debate, it's impossible to know where the truth may lie.

  • http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com msmii

    There are a large number of governmental agencies which are run by presidential appointees. These appointees must be approved of by congress. What happens when the Congress and the President are all on the same party line is that the vast bureaucratic ship of state turns towards a direction that looks a lot like a centralization of power and a primary dominion. These are things which the founders of America sought to avoid. http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/09/appointe

  • Martin

    it doesn't matter what we say the facts are simple and the scientist just do their jobs of turning it into a massive confusing equation to confuse and justify the results the financiers of their researchers want. the earth has been around for approximately 4.55 billion years humans have been around for only around 200000 years, a mere blink and of that only a few hundred yrs of industrialisation, only a few hundred years folks, the earth has gone through many heating and cooling cycles over its life, higher temperatures than today's and lower than recorded, look at deep ice drilling temp charts, their are many natural causes for global warming from solar flair activity to volcanoes to gamma rays ETC that has been contributing and will continue to change our climate. How Audacious of us to claim the prize, to think in such a short amount of time we can influence the natural progression of this earth is not only narrow-mindedness but also arrogant. get your hand off it. scientist will always produce results compassionate to the financial supporters or sponsor's of the research else no more money. we are more likely to fall into an mini ice age, then what will you all do? at least if its warm we can grow food and go to work and the industry keeps running and survive!

  • Martin

    yer what he said

  • pyeatte

    Recently the IPCC admitted their past reports were junk because of many irregularities – in other words, no peer-reviewed entries. The famous statement that 98% of the scientists support AGW was based on 75 scientists reporting and 72 of them thought that it may be caused by AGW. Typical left-wing agenda dishonesty.
    If you are interested in getting a credible analysis, read "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout" by the founder of Greenpeace, Dr. Patrick Moore, PhD.