State Department Had No Money for Benghazi Security, Has $469 Million for Global Warming


It’s time to get serious about fighting Climate Change. Windsurfingly seriously.

Boy that sequester sure is a tragedy. Airline pilots are losing their jobs, children are going without meals and government buildings are melting down into piles of goo in the sun.

And the State Department is suffering the most. Just look at its piddling 51.6 billion 2013 budget. I ask you, ladies and gentlemen, what can an organization be expected to do with 51.6 billion dollars except starve in the streets?

And out of that 51.6 billion, a mere 469 Million dollars, a pittance of a pittance, is being dedicated to fight Global Warming. Wait, you ask, why is the State Department even involved in Global Warming at all? What are a bunch of diplomatic offices run by Obama’s biggest donors supposed to do about the imminent melting of the icecaps followed by the sequestering of the entire planet under the ocean?

Clearly you don’t understand diplomacy. You probably think that money like that should be used to provide security for dangerous locations and prevent another Benghazi? But that’s because you don’t know science either.

Four Americans being murdered is nothing compared to the trillions who will die when climate change takes effect and an angry wave of surfing polar bears descends on California. Sure, spending a few hundred thousand on Benghazi would have saved a few lives, but this way there’s more money left over for the difficult task of stopping Kevin Costner from making another Waterworld in real life.

$469.5 million for Global Climate Change to address the environmental, economic, and social ramifications of global climate change through programs that develop clean energy economies; combat deforestation; and help vulnerable countries build resilience to withstand extreme weather and rising sea levels.

See. Diplomats and aid workers will soon be going to coastal countries and yelling at them to toughen up to build up their resilience.  John Kerry will give windsurfing demonstrations to Pacific Islanders to show them how to escape a Tsunami and address the economic ramifications of Manbearpig phenomena by stealing all the money and sticking it in a hole in the Rose Garden.

I think you’ll all agree that this is money well spent.

  • Toni_Pereira

    I hope Mr. Ranulph Fiennes and his frozen wienner get some of the cake. Even more outrageous, the National Institutes of Health are probably going to suffer cuts on their budget.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The NIH is spending 500 million to increase diversity in scientific fields.
      http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/obama-hi

      • Toni_Pereira

        Thank you, Daniel. The folly of those creatures has no limits. I hope the money spent on Cancer research programs don't harm such noble cause…

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Global warming or Climate Change is a scam, weather never stays the same and is always
    in a continuous fluctuation. If things warm up it is because the Sun is responsible and
    maybe mother nature is tired of being played by idiot politicians out to scam everyone.
    Warmer weather is not such a bad thing, think of all of the folks that will be homeless
    because of Obama and the Democrats, at least they may not freeze living on the empty
    streets of America's Democratic-Communit-Socialist-Islamist future………….William

  • Clark Banner

    "Four Americans being murdered is nothing compared to the trillions who will die when climate change takes effect and an angry wave of surfing polar bears descends on California. Sure, spending a few hundred thousand on Benghazi would have saved a few lives, but this way there’s more money left over for the difficult task of stopping Kevin Costner from making another Waterworld in real life."

    Wow WHAT SERIOUS JOURNALISM!! Clearly you know about the science of global warming and are ready to debate a climatologist about these serious allegations! Or maybe you just want to continue namedropping Al Gore and that BS Climategate Scandal that was manufactured by global warming deniers, but inconveniently was debunked by 8 independent committees…. I think you'd prefer the latter.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I'm ready to debate James Cameron. I hear he's eager to debate how many icebergs can melt on the head of a pin.

      • Clark Banner

        How bout you I set up a debate with the head of skeptical science? Will you accept?

        • Toni_Pereira

          You folks are really desperate since East Anglia, aren't you?

        • JacksonPearson

          If global warming were so real, than why are polar bears thriving in the North?

          • Clark Banner

            The numbers are listed from 20,000 to 25,000 and are listed as vulnerable by the IUCN and a threatened species under the US Endangered Species Act.

            Of the 19 known Subpopulations:
            8 are in decline, 1 is increasing, 3 are stable and 7 we don't know.

            They are in decline. It is fact.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            You're in decline, that's a fact.
            http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/04/more-polar-bear

            Unless you're a creationist, then you really confuse people when you get into the way and interfere with evolution in progress.

          • Clark Banner

            Wow you really don't read the articles you send me:

            1) Polar Bear Populations were affected by numerous things: hunting, pollution, and oil drilling. One of the biggest causes was hunting with the introduction of snowmobiles and icebreakers which made it easier to kill them. The International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears in 1973, which restricted hunting, thereby increased there numbers in SOME subpopulations.

            2) Not all subpopulations are affected by climate change

            3) The populations of Polar Bears in the 1960s and 50s were not as well studied. The estimates are based on anecdotal evidence provided by hunters and explorers, not biologists.

            4) Nowhere does the author deny global warming. He says: "“This is not to say that global warming is not real or is not a problem for the polar bears,” Unger added. “But polar bear populations are large, and the truth is that we can’t look at it as a monolithic population that is all going one way or another.”

            5) I said the populations were in decline, not less than the 1960s or 50s. The populations are DECREASING NOT LESS THAN BEFORE

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            So during the period you're specifying is decreasing the bear population, the alleged global climate change isn't a factor. All those words just to admit you're wrong?

          • Clark Banner

            Nope. You just don't like to read. FOR SOME subpopulations, climate change isn't a factor. For most it is.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Because you say so? Can you show your conclusions based on simple facts, or are you just reciting other people's work that was ripped when weather hasn't gotten any warmer here than shifts on other planets or explained by solar activity?

          • Clark Banner

            These are simple facts based on peer reviewed journals i.e. vetted scientific data. Nothing is because I say so.

            And by the way, it's called Climate Change. The Warming CHANGES CLIMATE. Not everything warms.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Like all the data released in climategate?

          • Clark Banner

            Yup. Too bad you didn't even bother to research what the scientists were actually talking about in climategate

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Too bad they pretended to be honest about it instead of trying to hide the details that didn't agree with the Al Gore approved mantra.

          • Clark Banner

            Actually they were honest as overseen by 8 independent reviews vindicating them of any wrong doing.

            Climate change deniers were in actuality making an uproar about tree ring data and the net flow of heat.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Actually the leaked emails showed a lot of things. Ethical honesty wasn't one of them.

            And Climate change propagandists realize not all scientists are with them and are blowing smoke to hide that fact.

          • Clark Banner

            Actually 97% of climate scientists are.

            I'm curious. Can you name one dishonest thing they said?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Excuse me, but when did popularity decide science?

            When did consensus mean jack squat with the laws of nature? Consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth at one point, and it was believed that man had developed past that kind of science.
            http://www.scilogs.com/next_regeneration/are-scie

          • Clark Banner

            The fastest way to gain popularity would be disprove the concensus. As of yet no one has been able to do this. Consensus is based not on opinion but on body of evidence.

            Back then, the scientific community was divided by geography, unable to collaborate, didn't have the tools and technology needed to find the shape of the earth (or were unaware of them), and didn't necessarily follow the scientific method.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Science isn't about popularity.

            Why do you dance around that?

          • Clark Banner

            Why do you dance around the fact that you haven't the faintest idea how the scientific process works?

            You don't even know what a peer reviewed journal is?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Me? You're the one trying to use consensus as scientific proof?

            Hahahahaha…..

            Clark, do you realize that by now I'm toying with you? You're going in circles and not making any more sense now than when you started this.

            And one more thing. Being an academic egg head doesn't give you credibility in the real world. It means you can't deal with it, and that you're hiding behind tenure.

          • Clark Banner

            Sorry, still waiting for proof.

            I suppose you toying with me involves you knowing what a "peer 1 reviewer" is. Please do tell.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Sorry still waiting for proof.

            I suppose you think that my defining the term or not changes this? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole

          • Clark Banner

            Do I have to repeat myself and say this is a 2009 BEFORE everything was disproved when people like you were making a hysteria. By 2011, the 8 committees exonerated those charges.

            Oh and by the way, this just repeats everything we were talking about earlier.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            You can say it all day long. You can even try to keep it confusing. But cyclical climate change still seems to hinge on the seasons more than the cars we drive.
            Oh by the way, you're still not making any progress. It seems that while you guys control the media here, the internet allows us to read stories that you can't shut up. Like climategate.

          • Clark Banner

            Once again you haven't even addressed that you gave me a 2009 article when Climategate first broke out. All this has been disproven by 2011 by 8 independent studies.

            God you don't even read your own side.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            No, it had a committee gather to provide cover.

            And yet the warming has stopped. Isn't that what really matters? Is that why they are so desperate to have all these committees?

          • patriothere

            I thought facts didn't require proof?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Facts stand on their own merit. Like gravity.

          • Clark Banner

            Oh and by the way. I'm still waiting for you to name one dishonest thing that they said in Climategate.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Oh, and I'm waiting for you to show the sensors were placed in logical consistent places.

          • Clark Banner
          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger
          • Clark Banner

            Um dude you posted that article before.

            I posted a journal that disproves that.

            Do you even bother to read the one paragraph that was right in front of you?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Yes, and it still makes my point.

            The sensors were placed in positions that made their data suspect at best, flawed most likely.

            Do you always ignore the obvious? No wonder you still defend climate change as you present it.

          • Clark Banner

            Dude look back to what I wrote before. They account for that.

            Do you want the last word that bad? Alright I'll give it to you. I guess this is a "serious mind looking for other serious mind look to exchange and consider new ideas with."

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Hey little guy, back to what I wrote before and the links. It accounts for all the stupid tricks, the lies, the distortions, the things that we didn't want you the stupid masses realizing in emails going back and forth….

            I don't need the last word. You were finished when you first started.

          • Clark Banner

            You didn't read the journal did you?

            I expected as much.

            Those thermometers are calibrated back to the proper temperature and corroborated with in other tests as stated in the article I SENT YOU.

            ARE YOU TOO LAZY TO READ A PARAGRAPH?

            Oh well. I'm done. Have the last word. I hope it makes you feel better.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            And we're to believe you now why? After all the lies and half truths, why would we believe that when there is no more warming?

          • patriothere

            Global warming is a scientific fact brought on by human activity. Deal with it.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Or not. You're just a hack paid troll here to stop debate.
            6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
            I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.

          • patriothere

            Hugo Chavez has just died. It is a sad day for the world. Show some respect for once.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Good, now Venezuela can start to heal.

          • patriothere

            You're a monster. I hope the same thing is said about you when you realize you have wasted your life and put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Am I? At least I'm not an admitted hack paid troll like you are.

            6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
            I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.

          • onepornqueen

            El Sapo se murió. ¡Cuál dulce!

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    The State Dept had NO interest in protecting Benghazi because the outcome they wanted took place, regardless of the blow back. In other words, the goal was to empower the Muslim Brotherhood Mafia, and this had to be accomplished through weapons running. The safety of the personnel wasn't a factor.

    Moreover, a chief Brotherhood operative, Huma Abedin, Deputy COS to Hillary, oversees all "safety" matters at State. So, if empowerment of the Brotherhood wasn't the goal, would she have been allowed to keep her job, not haven't gone through requisite vetting!! Security, what's that?
    http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/11/07/spotlight-on-
    http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/02/24/benghazigate-

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

  • Clark Banner

    Oh and Mr. Greenfield I love how you lied and misrepresented Ralph Fiennes and what he was doing in your last article. I doubt that you would like to discuss this as this would be equivalent to "how many icebergs can melt on the head of a pin."

    What an awesome Shillman Journalist Fellow!

    • jacob

      Why ???
      Because he is telling the truth about this lot of B.S global warming is ????
      Are you another beneficiary of this "administration" largesse on the subject..?????

      • Clark Banner

        Google search the background behind the article. The explorer KNEW it was going to be one of the coldest places on earth and he even name his expedition "The Coldest Journey." And this is what Greenfield said rather poking fun and lying about his actual research:

        "Attempts to evacuate Fiennes from the warmed polar region, where there are reportedly tropical forests rising out of the icebergs and everyone wears bathing suits, have been hampered by… of all things … a blizzard."

        Greenfield didn't even bother to state the research the man was doing there.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

          You admit there are still cold places on the planet?

          Amazing!

          • Clark Banner

            Funny, all I hear is deflecting with a joke where an actual arguement is suppossed to be.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Funny, all I hear is deflection with a joke where an actual argument and point was.

            Of course it was cold, that was the point. And you pretend people didn't realize it?

          • Clark Banner

            Daniel Greenfield was.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Was what?

            Did you write that faster than you could think?

          • Clark Banner

            I guess that time I did. Daniel Greenfield jested an implied that the explorer didn't think so.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Nope, not the take of mine, or other people from the looks of the thumbs down you got on it.

          • Clark Banner

            Why do I care that I get a thumbs up or down? Does it have anything to do with natural law and how the climate works?

            I guess me getting a thumbs down when I tell the truth about Islam being filth on liberal sites means something then.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            It's an indicator that you are losing the propaganda push here tonight.

            And you aren't telling the complete truth on anything.

          • Clark Banner

            I love that you think facts from peer reviewed data is propaganda.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            I love that you pretend the data isn't flawed and conclusions contrived with people working towards a pre-arranged conclusion.

          • Clark Banner

            It isn't flawed. At worst it's incomplete.

            But hey I'm done talking to you. This is like talking with a Muslim.

          • JacksonPearson

            The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
            The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

            This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

            You're argument is weak,feeble and hollow.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Hey, data collected in urban heat islands is flawed.

            And you've never been talking 'to' me, you've been doing your best to talke 'down to' me. There is a difference.

            It's probably a compensatory technique to cover for the propaganda not selling.

          • JacksonPearson

            Answer the question?

    • JacksonPearson

      So set us free, and let's hear the truth Mr. Banner?

      • Clark Banner

        I'm curious. Have you read 1 peer reviewed journal on climate change? I know the answer but I just want to hear it from you.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

          Why do you think a bunch of Peer one reviewers are above the grab for power that is involved in the fabrication of global climate change?

          • Clark Banner

            I'm curious. Do you know what a Peer reviewed journal is without looking it up? Can you tell me without looking it up? Do you know that peer reviews are from scientists who often disagree with the viewpoints of scientists they are reviewing? Do you care that these journals come from different institutions independent of each other, different countries, and are backed up by mathematics and results that can predictably be duplicated in a tested setting?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Yes, and it's probably the same peers in this case that had their emails leaked from East Anglia, or their close associates.

            Nope, it's not selling mr banner.

          • Clark Banner

            Dear Roger,

            Who cares about selling it to you. It's just funny that you believe Climategate to be real when at least 8 independent institutions including Penn State, the EPA,UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology the National Foundation found there to be no wrong doing. I'm curious do you even know what those emails said?

            The Two main accusations:

            "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

            He wasn't talking about temperatures. He was talking about tree ring width decline correlating with actual temperatures. The Nature Trick is a mathematical technique previously used in another scientist's journal to plot data.

            ""The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

            This is regarding the energy budget and where the net-flow of heat is going, not Climate Change itself.

            Once again, you quote a BS as truth and refuse to do the research behind the "scandal" yourself just like Daniel Greenfield when he talks about Climate Change.

          • Clark Banner

            * and the National Science Foundation

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Selling it to me is the least of your problems. I'm just some schmuck that had to shovel a lot of snow and talk to old farmers that understand weather has natural variations.

            And I'm just some dummy that read about the tree rings in Italy to show we're not in the crisis you pretend.

            But, that's just me. Nope, you're problem is that you're defending something the common people are smart enough to laugh at. Your scores here are representative of the lack of acceptance global warming/climate change is facing.

          • Clark Banner

            Dear smart person can you explain to me what a "Peer one reviewer" is? I'm sorry I'm not as smart at you and have no idea what that is.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Is that where people from all over call a symposium to make sure the approved talking points are understood, then go back and spread the news to have strangers all surprisingly come together at great distances as if that makes it any hotter anyplace?

          • Clark Banner

            It's called reading. But hey, I'm sure it's not as reliable as shoveling snow and getting Global Weather Pattern information from local farmers.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            I read, but I filter fiction out of facts.

            And you go ahead and insult the snow we had this winter.
            But it was record storms with cold snow falling from the sky. So, you go ahead and change the name from global warming to 'climate change' so you can remain flexible enough for any events.

            Question, if the climate changes from our cyclical cold weather now, why would that be bad? Won't vegetation grow faster in a warmer climate?

          • Clark Banner

            So I guess when AIDS used to be name GRID (Gay related immuno deficiency), it was unwarranted.

            Positives:
            Improved agriculture in some high latitude regions
            Increased growing season in Greenland
            Increased productivity of sour orange trees

            Negatives:
            Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts
            Decline in rice yields due to warmer nighttime minimum temperatures
            Increase of Western United States wildfire activity, associated with higher temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt
            Encroachment of shrubs into grasslands, rendering rangeland unsuitable for domestic livestock grazing
            Decreased water supply in the Colorado River Basin
            Decreasing water supply to the Murray-Darling Basin

            And that's just agriculture, I haven't even gotten into the public health problems.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            So, if you're worried about loss of rain, doesn't heat cause condensation and evaporation? Two elements of rain, last I heard. But then I'm not a propagandist expert like you are.

            You don't know what the results are, but there have been warmer periods in earth's past and the preserved fossil record has larger plants, so it's not all devastation.

          • Clark Banner

            I guess facts are propaganda to you. My question to you is where the weather pattern will take the rain?

            You do realize that different levels of gas like CO2 and oxygen were underlying causes of these warmer periods right?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            When you use facts, then it's not propoaganda. It's the conclusions based on suppositions and the suppositions as if they are facts that is propaganda.

            And if those two gasses were the cause of warmer periods, why are global warming propagandists trying to stop CO2 emissions?

            And are you going to change that to water vapor instead of oxygen? Are you going to try legislating limits on water vapor emissions too?

          • Clark Banner

            Testing which yields the same results over and over again and mathematical certainty is not propaganda.

            Increased C02 makes more water vapor which increases Climate Change Effects moreso than water vapor by itself.

            C02 emissions are the main cause of climate change right now as oppossed to other gases. Simple.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Testing with sensor stations in logical places might yield honest answers. That's something that wasn't achieved. And to pretend it did, that's propaganda.

            And CO2, it's a natural fertilizer that plants soak up. Instead of pushing restrictions, why not push plant matter growth?

            This isn't about climate, it's about people such as yourself grabbing power and control. Al Gore doesn't fool anyone.

            Even liberals like Southpark mock him with shows like "ManBearPig".

            You're not doing so well in the mainstream populations. They know better.

          • Clark Banner

            I'm pretty sure it was.

            C02 isn't a fertilizer. Iron is. C02 is a gas plants breathe. Oxygen is just as important as c02 to plants.

            Wow you quoted Al gore again! You sound so much more credible! Oh my God South Park! Even more credibility!

            Most Americans believe in Global Warming. Even half of Republicans do. YOU are in the minority. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/10/15/po

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Don't believe me, believe a scientific study.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE

          • Clark Banner

            Lol, if your breathing conditions are better, you're going to grow better.

            An example of this is if you were living in the Himalayas as oppossed to sea level.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            And, so global warming with green house gasses would encourage plant growth.

            Hello, nature has a way of balancing things out.

          • Clark Banner

            The conentration of CO2 is doubled in those conditions. The concentration would not be the same. This is in addition to negative things that will happen regardless of growth such as:

            Encroachment of shrubs into grasslands, rendering rangeland unsuitable for domestic livestock grazing
            Decreased water supply in the Colorado River Basin
            Decreasing water supply to the Murray-Darling Basin

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            If less CO2 helps less, that's still more food grown for the hungry masses. Doesn't that matter to you?

          • Clark Banner

            Please explain to me the science behind your C02 assertions and how adding more c02 will magically feed the hungry masses and not have the detrimental effects on agriculture discussed before.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Why should I? I linked to a video proving that plant life does great with higher levels of CO2. If youtube confuses you, you don't want to bother with horticulture.

          • Clark Banner

            Well, I'm not the one that thought C02 was fertilizer. Clearly you're the science expert.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            If it makes plants grow better and faster, isn't that the same effect as fertilizers?

            Clearly you're the science denier, but that wont' matter if you can cobble together some sort of consensus, right?

          • JacksonPearson

            East Anglia consensus will work for him.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Touche!

          • patriothere

            Yeah nature has a way of causing out own extinction. nature doesn't need us.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Are you speaking of your muslim loyal handlers that pay you to post here?

            6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
            I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.

          • JacksonPearson

            "An example of this is if you were living in the Himalayas as oppossed to sea level."

            So how many billions of earth's people can move to the Himalayas? Can that area support that large an influx of people? Who will fill the at sea level vacuum spots?

            No dude, I make my own environment. I found, the only way I live and breath better, is to use a Neti Pot, once or twice a day, with Distilled Water, Kosher Sea Salt, and a dash of Baking Soda.

          • patriothere

            south park are not liberals. Pull your head out of your ass.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            They are, by their lifestyle and values.
            Ask Mr. Hanky.

          • Clark Banner

            Who said it would be all devastation? I clearly pointed out positives as well. But to deny the devastation that will ensue is idiotic. Islam has done some good things to, like invent coffee. Am I going to ignore everything else it has done just because of that one positive thing?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            To deny the positives is to ensue to idiotic.
            Islam stones rape victims begging for mercy, and when possible traps reporters so they can hack their heads off. To ignore their surah 9 mandates would be 'ensuing to idiotic'.

            Get real, if you want to think that multiple posts are going to make you sound more authoritative it's not going to work.

            You pounce on every nuance however outweighed in the larger picture (solar system) and push for the Al Gore talking points.

            It's still not selling.

          • Clark Banner

            In the larger picture there are more negatives than postives. I have acknowledged the postives as well. Unfortunately the negatives outweight them

            Oh and by the way, it doesn't matter how many time you state Al Gore's name. You still don't have scientific data to back up anything you say.

            Moreover you still have yet to explain what a "peer one reviewer is"

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Why, because that supports your propaganda?

            You acknowledge squat.

            Moreover you have yet to explain why I should bother using your approved definition of anything.

          • Clark Banner

            Sorry buddy, facts aren't propaganda.

            Hey I'm still waiting to see what a "peer one reviewer" is. What is it?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Sorry little guy, your facts are suspect and the presentation isn't anything outside the Al Gore approved talking points.

            I'm waiting to see why I should define the term.

          • Clark Banner

            My facts are peer reviewed.

            Oh Al Gore Again! You're so convincing!

            "I'm waiting to see why I should define the term."

            Maybe when you do you'll convince me you have the slightest clue how science works. I mean we all can't shovel snow and talk to local farmers and have your extensive knowledge of Global Climate!

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            The peers lied, twisted and got caught at it.
            http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole

          • Clark Banner

            Once again 2009. They didn't twist anything. And everything discussed here is what we already talked about as well as disproved by the 8 independent committees by 2011

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Blah blah blah. And if England had it's content controlled the way we do here you might have some credibility when you keep saying that.

            But now? It's still not any warmer. And now? Science still isn't run by consensus. And now? You're just boring me and it's still not any warmer.

          • Clark Banner

            Are sure you're not Muslim? You argue like one.

            It's called CLIMATE CHANGE. The Warming causes A CHANGE IN CLIMATE.

            Oh my god. you seriously should convert to Islam. You "argue" like one and lack of evidence is your Bible.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            It was global warming until you realized it wasn't warming. So you changed the name. When the concept is flawed and you can change the name to fit the new evidence… there is a term for that.

            It's called 'being wrong'.

          • patriothere

            Roger 169p · 23 hours ago
            The Almighty gives life and it's His place to take it away. You can't show those Egyptians were perfect and didn't deserve it.

            Th account shows God gave them several times to do the right thing.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Yes, and have you been realizing I was correct? Is that why you're showing off that great comment again?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            The hack paid troll realizes God has the job, not some car bomber?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            And God took care of it, He didn't pass out suicide vests.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Still amazed the real Almighty didn't pass out a surah 9 and a stack of car bombs?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Sorry little guy, your facts are suspect and the presentation isn't anything outside the Al Gore approved talking points.

            I'm waiting to see why I should define the term.

          • patriothere

            god does all that. Like kill egyptian boys remember?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Like you handlers would do with you if it suited them?

            6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
            I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.

          • JacksonPearson

            "Islam has done some good things to, like invent coffee."

            Are you saying that Muhammad was a good guy, and did some good things, like exactly what? Pushing coffee aside, did the good Islamic things come before, or after MO's companions slaughtered 270 million of the earth's population?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            But for coffee, it was worth all those dead….
            (sarcasm)

          • JacksonPearson

            If your talking about a peer review from the same old clowns from East Anglia, than you're selling the same old untrusted cooked books.

            Other than natural earth temperature cycles, there's been NO change to warrant billions of dollars of taxpayers hard earned dollars to fund more leftist, social engineering foolishness.

            Have a good day, because you didn't set us free, and in spite of your unwarranted accusations, Daniel's Greenfield's still an honest Abe.

          • JacksonPearson

            "Who cares about selling it to you.
            If you're not trying to sell your GW crap, than why are you here blathering, and responding to Roger or anybody else?

          • Clark Banner

            Lol he thinks "peer 1 reviewers" are an actual thing. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Omg this is too funny. I said have you read ONE peer reviewed journal on climate change. As in the NUMBER ONE.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            lol, at least I'm not here losing every argument, even the specious ones.

            Why not make up another bunch of stats about the polar bear sub sets having smaller cubs, or how the earth worms in the polar regions need more body fat to stay alive?

            Nope, it's not selling mr banner.

          • Clark Banner

            Sorry buddy. I'm not making up anything. Unfortunately for you every stat is backed up by vetted data and can easily be verified through a google search. I don't care about selling it to you. You don't even know what a peer reviewed journal is. Do you honestly think I can have an intelligent conversation with someone who dismisses such data and offers nothing except the mere notion of "losing an arguement" as a retort?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            The vetted data based on the experts like the climate gate scientists? http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/ground

          • Clark Banner

            The warming trend is also measured by satellite, natural thermometers, as well as being measured in rural areas.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            In rural areas near A/C units and asphalt?
            By the same satellites that say other planets and solar activity match ours?

          • Clark Banner

            All the temperatures correlate. When processing data the organizations take into account local heating or cooling effects. This is done by weighting readings.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            All the temperatures correlate. The solar activity effects us more than anything and that variations are part of natural cyclical changes.

          • Clark Banner

            In the last 35 years the sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.

            The Sun has been experiencing a cooling trend while temperature has been going up

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Base on what? Your newly made up talking points?

            The solar activity is more active right now. It's a natural cycle.
            And like the leak of emails at East Anglia the experts are still hiding correlations that might not support their propaganda.
            http://floppingaces.net/2009/06/03/nasa-still-hid

          • Clark Banner

            Yawn….

            Here is the latest NASA data from 2013. When you graph it you can see that the sun is having a cooling effect and the temperature is rising in opposition to this. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GL

            It is in a natural cycle and right now it's cooling

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            You have one nasa source, and I have a source showing nasa is agenda driven. Why am I not surprised that you could find a nasa link showing what they're paid to find?

            Propaganda. If you want to reverse cooling, why not have liberals in congress legislate against it?

          • Clark Banner

            Well I guess I'm going to have NASA is propaganda when institutions from all over the world, from different countries, with different politcal beliefs all have journals correlating what nasa says.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Nasa, isn't that the place re-jobbed to give muslims a better self esteem?

          • Clark Banner

            That's the government allocating funding. Is there any peer reviewed journals by NASA saying we should?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            You really think that deserves a serious answer? Are you saying no researcher has ever slanted any conclusions in the drive for funding?

          • Clark Banner

            Still waiting for a peer reviewed journal by NASA scientists saying NASA should allocate their funds to the muslim world's education.

            What you're talking about is government spending not science.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Still waiting for you to prove that CO2 might cause some plant growth but it's still a bad thing. Especially in a time when solar heat output is on the decline.

          • Clark Banner

            Dear Roger, look back to the postives and negatives I posted. Oh wait you don't like to read and you're just stoking your ego so you can get the last word at this point.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Why bother? You were being mangled pretty well from your first post.

          • Clark Banner

            I'm sure you haven't bothered to begin with otherwise you wouldn't repeat the same redundancies when it's a new topic being discussed.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Why let you change the subject at whim? Isn't that called realizing you're wrong?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            You really think that deserves a serious answer? Are you saying no researcher has ever slanted any conclusions in the drive for funding?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            You really think that deserves a serious answer?

          • Clark Banner

            Oh and by the way, 95% of the data was already available to the public regarding what the East Anglia experts were talking about to begin with.

            By the way, what propaganda are you talking about? Have you any idea what correlations you're talking about?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Oh, and by the way, 95% of the data was still exposed to show the totality of the lack of transparency and the lack of ethical behavior in that other 5%.

            What propaganda?
            Let's see, how do you measure heat output from the sun?
            If you want to pretend the sun is cooling, wouldn't we want to stockpile the gasses in the atmosphere to catch as much of that heat as possible to protect our future with a cooler sun?

          • Clark Banner

            The 5% was released afterwards and showed no foul play as indicated by the 8 independent institutions. Go look them up yourself. Oh wait…. you don't like to read.

            "If you want to pretend the sun is cooling, wouldn't we want to stockpile the gasses in the atmosphere to catch as much of that heat as possible to protect our future with a cooler sun? "

            Wow your logic is amazing! i guess there is only a correlation between the earth and the sun, not weather pattterns and gas levels, not tides and ocean acidity, not c02 levels and water concentration. ONLY THESE THE SUN AND THE CO2 LEVELS CORRELATE!!! WOW!!!

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Really?

            Then why did it discredit folks and why did it result in people getting fired/retired?

          • Clark Banner

            Nope. Didn't happen. Once again you really don't read. Wow. Your "arguements" and willful lack of reading are just… wow….

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Really? Why not review how the rest of us saw it.
            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chr

            Why do we question government facts as propaganda?
            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/clim

            Was no action taken over the emails?
            http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/

            Was it undeserved?
            Oh yeah.
            http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole

          • Clark Banner

            Oh my God… YOU DON'T EVEN READ WHAT YOU SEND ME.

            1) This article is dated in 2009 WHEN THE EMAILS FIRST CAME OUT before the 8 investigations cleared the scientists.

            2) SO WAS THIS ONE

            3) When did Mann lose his current position? The article was speculating that because of the scandal the University was afraid to give him a higher one because of publicity at the time. As for Sullivan being ousted. Is she a climate scientist in Climategate?

            4) And another BS article from 2009 bringing up the same "decline" and "travesty" points I brought up before.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            So, you guys were lying in 2009?

            And before the cover up and white washing happened? You see, after the emails you have no more credibility.

            You can have all the reviews you want, and you're still considered a bunch of snake oil salesmen.

            Those tiny points? The ones I brought up with sensors in urban heat islands, and all? Oh, propagandists don't bother with any facts but the ones they are trying to sell..

          • Clark Banner

            Dear Roger,

            There were no lies in 2009 as shown by the studies which investigated those claims till 2011. Do you even know what the lies were?

            More BS. Hey dude. Do yourself a favor and read.

          • JacksonPearson

            You're wasting your time dude…

            Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996
            http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/article

        • JacksonPearson

          The last time I checked, lots of bears were still sh*tting in the woods, and on icebergs. Was there something I missed?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            But he'll say it's not the same old sh*t.

          • JacksonPearson

            It is the same old sh*t….All I'm hearing is the same old regurgitation, from the same old East Anglia liars. And he has the gall to call Daniel Greenfield a liar. OHHHH, the hypocrisy from the left.

            It's been proven over, and over that there's been no measured change. Data gathered from centuries past show that the earth goes through natural cycles. The Al Gore climate thieves want lots of money, and that's about it.

        • JacksonPearson

          "I'm curious. Have you read 1 peer reviewed journal on climate change? I know the answer but I just want to hear it from you."

          Were you curious before, or after the East Anglia hoax was exposed?

    • JacksonPearson

      Daniel Greenfield is NOT a liar. Global warming is just more bullsh*t to thin taxpayers wallets and fatten snake oil salesman's wallets…Enough is enough!

      The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported. This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

      Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased. Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?

      You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius. From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.

      Global Warming is BULLSH*T and so are YOU!

  • Hemi_dude

    "why is the State Department even involved in Global Warming at all?"

    -Because global warming is being used as a means to redistribute wealth from rich countries to poorer countries.

    -Because global warming is being used as a way for every human on Earth to have an equal per-capita carbon footprint. The same applies with other natural resources.

    -Because global warming is being used as a means for population control. How so? Our wealth is earmarked to be used to build up infrastructure in other countries, when this is done, jobs will be transferred there and the goal is to get more women working so that they are too busy to have lots of kids.

    -Because global warming is being used as a means to implement a global government that that UN will most likely be in control of. Given that the UN was created out of FDR's communist infested admin and that we know the State department has a history of communist infiltration, we can safely assume that this global government will be socialist (and socialism according to the CPUSA, is the best replacement for capitalism).

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

    I wanted to comment sooner, but I was busy shoveling snow. Can they fix global warming so that it doesn't wait until summer to kick in?

    • JacksonPearson

      Global warming is just another ploy to get another finger in our wallets
      Knowledgeable scientists have proven over and over that climate change is cyclic. Other than to line pockets with taxpayers gold dust, there's been literally no change in temperatures to warrant a massive expenditure. In a nutshell, it's all pure leftist BS!

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

        Remember how it was revealed how the tracking sensors were located near black top and other places that would have been warmer to get the data they wanted?

        Why don't they place those in the pizza ovens then claim warming has taken the planet to 450 degrees?

        • JacksonPearson

          Recall where and when global warming came unraveled, is when scientists got caught fudging their own reports and papers. Ever since, they've had difficulty selling their snake oil. But guess what…Baracky's gonna make everyone believe that GW's real…because he says so.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Or what? Michelle gets to decide what we eat for lunch?

            She's already doing that.

          • JacksonPearson

            LMAO…with a butt as big as she has, what could possibly go wrong with our diets?