Progressive Insanity and the Global Warming Cult

140216191222-kerry-jakarta-story-topProgressives will do virtually anything to advance their agenda. In the arena of global warming, they have resorted to hysteria and angry denunciation of those who dare to question their infallible “wisdom.” And as it is with every aspect of their agenda, such wisdom must be imposed at the expense of liberty.

Leading the charge is Secretary of State John Kerry, who epitomized the above approach in a speech to Indonesian students, civic leaders and government officials in Jakarta, Indonesia. First he laced into one the left’s favorite punching bags, namely the coal and oil industries he accused of “hijacking” the conversation. “We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts,” he declared. “Nor should we allow any room for those who think that the costs associated with doing the right thing outweigh the benefits. The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand. We don’t have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society.”

Possibly suspecting that his presentation might be insufficient to galvanize the unwashed masses, Kerry added a dash of fear to the mix. “This city, this country, this region, is really on the front lines of climate change,” Kerry warned. “It’s not an exaggeration to say that your entire way of life here is at risk. In a sense, climate change can now be considered the world’s largest weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even, the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction,” he added.

Kerry is taking his cues from President Obama, who went to California, where he promptly explained that state’s worst drought in a century is linked to global climate change and greenhouse gases. “We have to be clear. A changing climate means that weather-related disasters like droughts, wildfires, storms [and] floods are potentially going to be costlier and they’re going to be harsher,” he explained.

That was apparently too much even for the New York Times, who contended that the president and his aides “were pushing at the boundaries of scientific knowledge about the relationship between climate change and drought.” Even worse, the so-called paper of record was forced to admit that the much-vaunted computer models the “consensus” scientists having been using to promote their global warming agenda “suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter, when the state gets the bulk of its precipitation. That has prompted some of the leading experts to suggest that climate change most likely had little role in causing the drought.” That included an assessment by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which noted that the drought “resulted mostly from natural variations in weather.”

White House science adviser John P. Holdren, who co-authored a book describing government forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water as legitimate population control measures, rode to the president’s rescue. While agreeing that no single episode of extreme weather can be linked to climate change, “the global climate has now been so extensively impacted by the human-caused buildup of greenhouse gases that weather practically everywhere is being influenced by climate change.”

The Los Angeles Times brought another angle to the mix, one that plumbs the depths of climate change hysteria. It cites a study by Matthew Ranson of Abt Associates, a Massachusetts research and consulting firm, that contends climate change “can be expected to cause an additional 22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft,” between 2010 and 2099.

In a Wall Street Journal article, authors Richard McNider and John Christy underscored the irony of Kerry comparing global warming skeptics to flat-earthers of ancient times. It was the flat-earthers who maintained something similar to the 97 percent “consensus” Kerry used to justify his rant. It was a tiny minority of scientists who posited that the earth was round. With regard to the actual science leftists accuse skeptics of ignoring, the McNider and Christy acknowledge that “carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased due to the burning of fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat before it can escape into space.” Yet what remains unknown is the level of warming that will occur. 

They then address the aforementioned computer models, rightly noting that those created to explain the phenomenon were built “almost entirely” by scientists heavily invested in the idea of “catastrophic” global warming. Unsurprisingly, those investments have tainted the science behind them, which explains why many of the dire predictions they engendered have turned out to be “spectacularly wrong.” 

That wrongness is invariably followed by a litany of excuses. One was the idea that an increased use of aerosols by human beings that ostensibly “skewed” the results. Moreover, the “consensus” scientists continue to ignore data that does not accrue to their political convictions.

Far more devastating, climate change promoters virtually ignore the disastrous economic effects their policies would engender. As Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a nonprofit group focused on cost-effective solutions to global problems explains, 81 percent of the world’s energy needs are provided by fossil fuels, with billions of people depending on them for survival. “For many parts of the world, fossil fuels are still vital and will be for the next few decades, because they are the only means to lift people out of the smoke and darkness of energy poverty,” he writes. 

That necessity explains much of the developing world’s resistance to the Obama administration’s initiatives. At this moment in time, they prefer raising their citizens out of poverty than kowtowing to an agenda they see as a First World problem created by wealthier countries that use the most energy. Despite this reality, the president quietly announced a major policy shift last June, whereby the U.S. would place severe restrictions on federal financing of coal plants in foreign countries. “This new policy sends a message that coal is not an acceptable fuel source for the 21st century,” said Justin Guay, international climate and energy representative of the Sierra Club at the time.

That such a message condemns billions of people around the world to a life of subsistence survival — when they survive at all — is of little consequence. Apparently for progressives, “saving the planet” has little to do with saving the people who inhabit it.

While such an agenda has fewer life and death consequences in the United States, the administration is determined to pursue the same economy-ravaging policies here. And once again a president who has made a mockery of the rule of law and the constitutionally-mandated separation of power is determined to advance those policies “with our without” Congress.

Whether he can actually do so remains to be seen. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case on greenhouse gas emissions that could determine if Obama has so broadly interpreted the parameters of the Clean Air Act that he has rendered Congress irrelevant. Briefs filed by business groups and Republicans paint the president’s effort as another overreach by the Executive branch. A brief filed by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) contends the president is attempting “an intolerable invasion of Congress’s domain that threatens to obliterate the line dividing executive from legislative power,” and that regulation imposed under the auspices of the EPA were “perhaps the most audacious seizure of pure legislative power over domestic economic matters attempted by the executive branch” since President Truman’s attempt to nationalize America’s steel mills during the Korean War. 

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. countered with the administration’s argument. “The E.P.A. determined that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare in ways that may prove to be more widespread, longer lasting and graver than the effects of any other pollutant regulated under the act,” he wrote in his brief. 

The case is a challenge to a 5-4 decision made in 2007, when the Supreme Court required the EPA to regulate the emission of greenhouse gasses from motor vehicles if they endangered the public’s health and welfare. The administration wants to extend that decision to cover stationary power plants, as well as all sources that can annually emit 100 or 250 tons of relevant pollutants. That would give them the potential to regulate millions of pollution sources absent congressional authority to do so. Obama used the same rationale when he ordered the development of new standards for the nation’s heavy-duty trucks earlier this week.

Amanda C. Leiter, a law professor at American University believes a loss by the administration would not have a great impact, since they have other regulatory tools at their disposal. But the political damage could be significant because “it would be painted as another situation in which the Obama administration has overreached against the public will.”

Regardless of the decision, the administration will undoubtedly continue to overreach, aided an abetted by what authors David Horowitz and Jacob Laskin term the “New Leviathan.” They are progressive moneyed interests whose contributions dwarf those of their conservative counterparts, and who are determined to impose their agenda on the nation, regardless of the consequences. In the environmental arena, they are being led by billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer, whose political organization, NextGen Climate Action, aims to raise $100 million to support politicians who champion the man-made climate change agenda. Like so many leftist elitists, he is against the Keystone pipeline that would go a long way towards creating jobs and putting the nation further down the road towards energy independence. He considers climate change the “generational challenge of the world.”

The real generational challenge, in America at least, is figuring out how to prevent progressives in general, and the Obama administration in particular, from fundamentally transforming the United States into a nation where liberty, freedom and free-market capitalism are regulated out of existence. Make no mistake: those who would employ questionable science to impose what amounts to a death penalty on millions of Third-World residents struggling for their very existence don’t think twice about imposing untold economic hardship on their fellow Americans, 76 percent of whom live “paycheck to paycheck,” for the same reason. 

And its not about the environment. As a study by the Science and Public Policy Institute reveals, if Americans completely stopped emitting all carbon immediately — stopped driving, stopped cooling and heating our homes, shut down all the power plants, and even stopped talking – the global temperature would decrease by only 0.17 degrees Celsius by 2100.

As Bjorn Lomborg explains, the United States is already “showing the way” towards a future with cleaner fuel sources. That the Obama administration would sacrifice the well-being of millions of Americans and billions of impoverished people to force-feed that future is precisely what they did to the nation when they force-fed it ObamaCare based on the same litany of hysteria, lies and smears they are using here. One can only wonder when Americans will tire of the progressive lust for power wrapping itself as noble intentions.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Andy_Lewis

    All aboard the Flat Earth Train.

  • Naresh Krishnamoorti

    The same people who spread hysteria about global warming are also the staunchest advocates of eugenics and population control. That should tell you something.

    Environmentalists deliberately cause droughts in California, floods in England, famines everywhere, and high energy prices all over the world precisely in order to kill as many poor and Third-World people as possible, and to prevent as many births as possible.
    They oppose everything that makes food or energy less expensive and more plentiful. There are “environmentalists” who oppose the mixing of silt with soil — a farming technique that goes back to the Sumerians in the age of Sargon. They oppose every advancement in farming techniques and pesticides, because their greatest fear is that the Earth will produce enough food to feed multiple times the present population of the world, which in fact we can do if we efficiently cultivate an area the size of Texas using modern farming developments.
    If food were plentiful and cheap, how can they spread Malthusian fears about overpopulation?
    There is something profoundly evil in the environmentalist’s worship of Death.

    • frodo

      “The same people who spread hysteria about global warming are also the staunchest advocates of eugenics and population control. That should tell you something.”

      Like who?

      How do environmentalists keep it from raining or snowing in California? That’s a good trick.

      Despite the wishful thinking here, the scientific consensus is clear. More death and suffering is likely to result from not acting than from acting on climate change.

      • flyovercindy

        Did you read the article? or just the first paragraph or two..? The “scientific consensus” is clear only to those who conjured up the “scientific consensus”…

        Wall Street Journal excerpt quoted:
        “They then address the aforementioned
        computer models, rightly noting that those created to explain the
        phenomenon were built “almost entirely” by scientists heavily invested
        in the idea of “catastrophic” global warming. Unsurprisingly, those
        investments have tainted the science behind them, which explains why
        many of the dire predictions they engendered have turned out to be
        “spectacularly wrong.” ”

        …the “consensus” of a bunch of good ol’ boys around the table, “harumphing’ their agreement….

        • frodo

          Nonsense. Are the models perfect? Of course not. Do climate scientists acknowledge this and work for improvements, of course they do.

          To compare climate science skeptics to past skeptics is to grant them far too much credit.

          The consensus is that there’s observable climate change that can be attributed to human action–it’s not about the details of one or another model–and that that warming will have profound effects on human life.
          What effects and how severe are questions, but that there most likely will be, is not.

          That’s not harrumphing, but science.

          • putthehammerdown

            Yeah,.. right.
            The Co2 atmospheric content went from 320 p p million to 390 p p million, plus or minus and the warming did commence. (Or Not……)
            Do the math, expressed as a percentage of increase.
            You Do Have a calculator, don’t you……?

          • Frederick Colbourne

            That’s 22% increase. But the so-called “greenhouse” effect goes by the logarithm of 1.22, which gives 8.6%.

          • putthehammerdown

            So the logarithm you so eloquently mention should by all rights be increasing the Mean World Temperature, on a steadily increasing, measurable basis..
            But for the last 17 years it has not risen or has fallen.
            A 22% increase in a minuscule percentage of total atmospheric gases, is just that : Miniscule.
            You would admit it’s kinda’ small, would you not ?
            Inflate the numbers and play games with the seen, documented outcome all you please.
            There just is not enough a Co2 increase at this point to do all the ‘stuff’ Climate Change acolytes rail-on about.
            By the way I live in Michigan and we have just set an all time record for ‘powdered global warming accumulation’ for the season, and Winter has 4 weeks to go.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            The models are not perfect. They are purposely skewed to “demonstrate” apocalyptic results.

            The effect of warming on human life would be more life.

          • frodo

            To your first point, you’d have to have some actual proof of malice to make that statement. One of the things about science is that many people are engaged in it and scientists test each others results. That’s how the models change, after all.

            To argue that warming=more life is to engage in fantasy.

          • Habbgun

            Well we do have the fact Michael Mann lied through his teeth about his hockey stick model…..but still let’s do the science first. Make it solid and come back with real policy suggestions. We’ll wait.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            First, would you rather live in the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age? Which favored life?

            Anthropogenic climate change … either cooling or warming … has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with politics and ideology. Also, I have experienced some of the AGCC malice, firsthand, and so have the people involved in many industries across our nation.

            Finally …

            Great! Let’s destroy America’s coal industry, stop the Keystone pipeline, and wreck the fracking industry. It will not prevent one bit of carbon from being released in China, India, Indonesia, and elsewhere.

            The enviros have much to answer for, but they have … in their own turn … been used by the Marxists in power to increase their own authority.

          • Scott Scarborough

            Yes, it is absolute fantasy that people get old a feeble and move to warm places like Florida instead of cold places like Minnesota. It is absolute fantasy that their are more plant and animal species at the equator than at the poles where it is cold (I had to explain that it is cold at the poles since you are a liberal. Do I have to also explain that it is hot at the equator?). It is absolute fantasy that cold winters kill more people than hot summers. It is also absolute fantasy that mankind has lived and adapted to every place on earth except Antarctica where no permanent towns exist except research stations (again you are a liberal so I have to say… it is cold in Antarctica).

          • truebearing

            To argue that warming = less life is pure bullshit.

          • flyovercindy

            Nonsense? The models are not perfect because so-called scientists PURPOSELY manipulated them to MISLEAD to fit an agenda.

            The climate science industry has used this MISLEADING information as a scare tactic to create a lot of wealth for its backers, who are quite happy to continue feeding the climate-change animal to keep the money flowing.

            Do we need to be environmentally responsible? Of course! Does the climate change?, yes. No matter how old you think the earth is, we have reliably accurate weather data from a very tiny period of its existence – before that, data comes from computer models built by “scientific” estimations – but we do happen to have reliable data on the existence of ice age(s), deserts growing and shrinking, tropical areas waxing and waning… all of this before internal combustion and large human populations.
            I think the average thinking person is correct in being skeptical of the fear tactics…

          • frodo

            One last note here: invoking conspiracy theories about wealthy backers doesn’t really make your position stronger.

            Yes, climate changed before there were people. No one thinks otherwise. We also have reliable data about CO2 concentrations that show that levels have not been as high as they are today in the past 415,000 years:

            The data’s not lying about this nor is the Keeling curve imaginary.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            And 415,000 years ago, the temperature was 5 degrees warmer than it is today, just as it was 5 degrees warmer 10,000 years ago. Throughout most of those 415,000 years, the earth was in ice ages, and the global temperatures are plunging again (as they have been for ten thousand years).


            You’re right. The data doesn’t lie. The data can be misinterpreted, however, especially when political agendas are at stake.

            It is the height of arrogance to believe that the human race … in a single century … can halt a continuous cycle extant for half a million years. This is why I’m a proud “Denier” …

          • Sussex Girl

            Um, you are aware that NASA has been monkeying with the data for years, specifically by lowering the temperature records for the 1930s to make today’s temperatures seem higher, and you are aware that temperature stations around the country have had to be relocated because they were poorly sited, like next to parking lots, and you are aware that European glaciers have been receding since the 1800s because that was when the planet finally began warming after the Little Ice Age, and you are aware that the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew wheat in Greenland, was warmer than it is today, and you are aware that twice now emails have been leaked that document a clear and disturbing pattern of collusion by the warming camp to suppress information and keep papers by skeptics out of technical journals, that Kevin Trenbreth of the NCAR actually admitted “We can’t account for the lack of warming, and it’s a travesty that we can’t,” right?

            Global temperatures have not warmed in 17 years, since 1998 (The UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged the 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend), yet CO2 has continued on its upward trajectory.

            Many scientists (US, Russian, Danish, and more) are watching the Sun and are calling for a Maunder Minimum, which was stinking cold. For 400 years, starting with Galileo, astronomers have watched the sunspots as they form and disappear on the Sun’s surface. During the coldest periods (the Maunder Minimum 1640-1680, the Dalton Minimum 1790-1830, a smaller minimum from 1880-1915, and a very little one from 1945-1977), there were few to no sunspots. We are in Sunspot Cycle 24. Originally, during Cycle 23, observers thought Cycle 24 was going to mimic Cycle 4, which occurred during the Dalton Minimum. However, two years ago, the National Solar Observatory published three separate reports stating that the sunspots are going to hit a low and may disappear altogether.

            We could get into a whole discussion of the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the PDO (the Pacific Decadal Oscillation) and how they affect temperature, but enough is enough. CO2 does not drive temperature (some indications are that temperature drives CO2 levels with an 800-year lapse). After several years of very changeable weather, the planet’s going to slide into a very cold period. One Russian paper calls for a Maunder-type minimum (as does Don Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University and expert on the glaciers in the Cascades, especially Mt. Baker) starting in 2020 and lasting until at least 2040. Better get your long johns ready.

          • CowboyUp

            Someone went out and took pictures of where those data collection stations were set up, and it was clear to me they were placed to maximize temp readings. The one that was set up right next to an air conditioner was my favorite.

          • flyovercindy

            My last note: Buying and selling “carbon credits” does not happen to be a conspiracy theory, and it has moved a lot of wealth into pockets of people – like Al Gore – who have a vested interest in the continuation of the climate change “controversy”.

            …and somehow, invoking “documentation” sponsored by the United Nations (major wealth-distribution/carbon tax supporters) does little to strengthen your position…

          • Digli

            There is one little problem with your post:
            The observations are wrong!

          • Habbgun

            Ok….here’s what we’ll do. We will conduct the first global experiment. We will not enact the controls the global warming crowd wants. Instead we’ll see if you’re predictions come out to be true. If you’re right we’ll pay reparations….if we’re right you will pay reparations. How’s that…..we can settle the science once and for all.

          • Bingeman

            Great idea! Man…how many damn more times to we have to listen to their “end of the world” prophesies?
            “We only have (fill in any random number here) more years to fix the climate”…or “we have to stop living unsustainably soon” before disaster strikes…and another day goes by,another year,another decade.
            I think these folks spend their days actually waiting for something awful to happen so they can sneer and say,”Seeeee!”
            This whole thing is like a really bad sci-fi movie.

          • Schmitty

            I am waiting until they claim victory when nothing happens. They will tell us we were saved by the policies they forced on us.

          • Bingeman

            That’s the other angle…no matter what happens they will insist they were right.
            No wonder there can be no debate…they’ve got this thing all sewn up!

          • NAHALKIDES

            What “the models aren’t perfect” means in reality is that the models are wrong. Since the models are the closest thing the Warmists have to a scientific hypothesis, that means their hypothesis has been proven wrong. “Modifying” your theory means your theory was wrong – get it?

            Because your side cannot advance a quantitative theory other than computer models, when your models are proven wrong, you should admit it. Try saying it: “We were wrong about global warming.” It will be easier than listening to everyone else say “You were wrong about global warming”.

          • CowboyUp

            Not perfect? The models are flat out wrong. CO2 emissions have been steadily rising while the temp hasn’t.

            Also, If the ‘consensus’ was science, the raw data would be available to review and replicate their ‘work’, but it’s not. Much of it was intentionally destroyed by the ‘scientists’ themselves. Trusting their conclusions is faith, not science.

          • Scott Scarborough

            You mad that up. Where did you read that there was a consensus that global warming will have profound effects on human life? Have you been listening to that lying Obama again? The questions that have been used in surveys of scientists to establish 97% consensus on global warming NEVER ask anything about possible future results of global warming.

          • Schmitty

            So if the computer models are wrong exactly what should we be afraid of? Sounds more like you have an issue separating reality from one computer generated. You bet on the wrong horse! Admit it, be a grown up and move on.

      • putthehammerdown

        There is no scientific consensus. There is only you and yours, telling half the story if we’re lucky]and obfuscating facts where ever you’re able.
        The L I V’s might believe this flaming B S, but they’re L I V’s for a reason :
        They’re uneducated ninnies, and as intellectually shallow as a dirt road chuckhole.
        Have you seen the Nat’l Academy of Sciences poll where, of 2200 people asked, 25% of them honestly thought the Sun revolved around the Earth ?
        Remember that tidbit the next time you see any mention of a public opinion poll regarding this false premise…………..

        • frodo

          Not half the story.

          And, the populations of scientists and the general public aren’t coextensive. The consensus paper isn’t a public opinion poll, it’s a metaanalysis of papers published.

          • bjedwards

            how long have you been a moron frodo – is your ignorance a congenital defect, or the result of indoctrination?

          • truebearing

            No, it is a so-called peer review, which means scientist sign it so that when they need backing for their pet project, they won’t have enemies. Peer review is a huge farce.

          • frodo

            Peer review is anonymous.

          • truebearing

            I don’t think so. If it was, how would you know who lent their credentialed name to the list?

          • hiernonymous

            The default process for scholarly peer review is anonymous peer review. The editor identifies a few – usually 2 or 3 – subject matter experts, who independently review the piece and provide their comments back to the editor. The author does not know who is reviewing his piece, and the reviewers do not know who the other reviewers are.

            Once the review process is complete and the paper is accepted for publication, there is more variation in whether the reviewers remain anonymous. In some cases, they remain unidentified; in some they choose to sign their names.

            There is some challenge to the anonymous peer review; there is a movement for a process called “open peer review.” But Frodo is perfectly correct: the overwhelming standard today is still anonymous peer review.

          • frodo

            Peer review is anonymous–the writer(s) do not know who is reviewing their work for publication.

            You might be conflating the petition list (which isn’t reviewed in any way) with the process of scientific peer review.

          • putthehammerdown

            So why are you not even mentioning any of
            “The Published Papers” that refute AGW/C. C. ?
            …or the mass scientist(s) signing of open letters that question/challenge virtually all the methodology used in arriving at the conclusions reached by AGW/C.C. Proponents ?
            It’s easily half, dude.
            [BTW, I brought up polls , because they’re used extensively to drive this debate. I never even came close to comparing them to scientific examination and proving-out facts.]
            Using large words like ‘coextensive’ and ‘metaanalysis’, might cow/silence a dullard/moron.
            I do not come close to those descriptions.
            I ‘ve got upwards of 35 inches of Frozen, Powdered Global Warming in my yard right now and in S/E Michigan we just broke an all-time seasonal accumulation record of 72 [plus] inches.
            Still got 4 weeks of winter to go.
            Sound pretty “(Co)extensive” to you?

          • frodo

            First: the number of papers that deny climate change has anthropogenic elements is very small indeed, and compared to the bulk of research not really significant. As far as the open letters go, do you mean the widely discredited Oregon Petition, mostly signed by non-climate scientists? Not a good argument.

            Second: It’s winter, isn’t it? Last time I checked it snowed in winter. Weather, not climate. To agree with the climate change theory is not to say that we’ll never see snow in winter. We’ll see more extreme events.

          • Schmitty

            But in reality extreme weather events are occurring less and less. Look at the proof not the emotion.

          • frodo

            Really? Not in the world I live in.

          • Schmitty

            Well I guess you live in your own world. The statistics prove that extreme weather is occurring less. Forest fires, tornadoes and hurricanes are happening with less frequency. It is a fact not my opinion. Sorry about ruining your sky is falling party.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            And if you’re a climate scientist, and you want a paper published, then you must adopt the orthodoxy, or no grant money is coming your way.

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        One should not try to argue with someone who doesn’t understand the difference between weather and climate.

        Has there never been a draught in California?

        “Consensus” is another term for enforced adherence to accepted doctrine. Today, the environmentalist establishment is the new “Catholic Church”, enforcing doctrine against those who dissent.

        As to your last paragraph, death, suffering, and war will result from the economic chaos caused by the new members of the Flat Earth Society … climate change “scientists”.

        • frodo

          I was responding to Naresh K’s ludicrous assertion that environmentalists are responsible for the drought in CA.

          Consensus is consensus. Enforced adherence is something else–hegemony.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Consensus … in this instance … is hegemony. It’s a grab for power, and woe unto the lad who breaks from orthodoxy. The punishment? No more grant money …

          • Habbgun

            Besides a carbon tax is hegemony.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            No doubt about it …

      • Habbgun

        Scientific consensus is a crock. If scientific consensus meant anything we would still be looking for the ether. Somehow one man’s ideas on General Relativity won the day. Until you can say how much for how long will lead to what result it is not science but conjecture. Conjecture is a pubic hair away in width from polemics and then from polemics to demagoguery. The science is settled when actual formulas are in place. If time and space can be understood in mathematics so can weather. Until then give it up and go back to the Western Lands.

        • Digli

          The fact that the earth was flat was Scientific consensus
          at one time.

        • MarilynA

          Most of those scary pseudo scientific reports are written by people with doctorates in areas other than science. Like PhDs in religion and Psychology. I personally know some of them who wrote such reports.

          • frodo

            Seriously? Have you looked at the lit review essays in Nature or Science?

          • Schmitty

            Do you go outside? Tell me where I can find actual evidence of global warming. You can’t because it only exists in computer models.

        • frodo

          It’s not, though, and it’s not that scientists don’t admit it when they’re wrong.

          The arguments are based on evidence, and those arguments will become more sophisticated. This isn’t like the notion of the ether or of the flat earth (which most people didn’t believe in anyway).

          • Habbgun

            Oh please….the ether was solid conjjecture by the best scientific minds of the day. They knew light propagated itself via a wavelength and to that point everything that moved in waves required a substance. Your ether literature looks just like your climate change only more scientific. Look here’s evidence light is a wave…see gotta be an ether out there….hmmm…we’re using the ether as a basis for prediction…it works just not precisely…we need more work….sorry…evidence is what leads to hypothesis…but an hypothesis is only that until it predicts accurately the world. Sorry but global warming does not meet that standard…..tell me how much carbon makes how much warming and we can talk….until then not settled…not even a true theory.

          • frodo

            I’m not going to agree here–to compare 17th century physics to contemporary physical science is apples and oranges.

          • Habbgun

            Bullcrap….ether was 19th century physics and its all the same scientific method….by the way those 17th century physicists did quite well for themselves…optics, the pendulum clock which is just an enormous achievement. things that you know work and work precisely…it is all the same…you are begging off because it destroys your position. Your so called science is just post-modern nonsense.

          • frodo

            I’m not begging off, I’m not engaging in a bogus comparison. Besides, physicists knew that the ether model wasn’t good enough (because they couldn’t do experiments to confirm it) and it was abandoned when better accounts emerged.

            There’s a significant difference here–the rise in atmospheric CO2 is documented by observation while ether never was. The data was never there for ether, but it is for CO2 levels.

          • Habbgun

            Again…the CO2 issue is what the CO2 does if anything and the exact amount of what exactly the CO2 causes and if man-made CO2 is of significance. We don’t have a model for that and I don’t think we ever will. Remember this isn’t really about climate change…it is about an underlying chemical reaction which needs to be explained and which hasn’t

          • frodo
          • Schmitty

            Wow more website lists as evidence. What about in reality? Where can i go and see or touch the damage of global warming? This is like that Texas size island of plastic bags. Can’t find an aerial shot of it anywhere and none of the tree huggers seem to be out there picking it up. But you people still insist it exists.

          • frodo

            That’s just silly. You see effects in the data, which is right there for you to read. In effect, that’s a picture.

            You’re using the wrong categories.

            Regarding the plastic patch–you can’t see pictures, because the pollution is in the form of particulates in the water not a giant collection of plastic bags. Again, it’s in the data. See this for a popular account:


          • Habbgun

            Even the websites are weak. I remember Andrew Weil….has been. Same arguments. Natural over artificial. Medical doctors and corporations don’t want you to know the truth. He only graduated med school and never practiced. When I lived in AZ I knew a doctor who taught at UofA Med school when Andy was going to be given a research school (don’t know if it ever happened). He was just sick over it. The best med students wanted to join up with Weil because Weil was hot. He begged me to go to med school even though I wasn’t even qualified academically and I know I’m not scientifically gifted at all. He said he wasn’t joking and could do it. Give me a student who will just get through but knows a scam rather than an A student who doesn’t. One will just refer when over their head. They other will kill the patient and blame everyone else.

          • Habbgun

            Very…very unconvincing stuff….suggests empirical evidence which brings me back to the ether. Same scientific methods, same observed hypothesis….it took a dump. The Periodic Table reference was particularly telling. The Periodic table had a strong underlying hypothesis and turned out rock solid. Sorry but to compare that to this climate science is quite wrong by the author. The periodic table made predictions down to the atomic level and to chemical properties……brilliant, brilliant stuff…..all we ask is climate science to do the same….we’re waiting.

          • truebearing

            Are you really that gullible? The lies are getting more sophisticated, and they still sound childish to anyone with a working brain.

            Look up the “Goldilocks Theory” if you want to understand global warming and climate. The distance of each planet from the sun determines not only the relative temperature range of a given planet, but what kind of atmosphere it has. Try learning instead of guzzling kool aid.

      • Guest

        You know something ? it gets hot every summer, cold every winter, cool in the fall, and warm in the Spring…plus this, we’ve had droughts and floods for centuries. if you lived in this country in the Jimmy Carter years, the ‘scientists” were warning us about the approaching “Ice Age”.It must be a democrat thing.

      • Naresh Krishnamoorti

        Environmentalists in California flush down millions of acre feet of water to protect the delta smelt, instead of using the water to irrigate the most naturally fertile farmland in America. That is how they “cause” drought.

        • frodo

          The drought in CA is due to a lack of rain, not policy.

          • truebearing

            What is the cause of your willful ignoring of the truth? California may have a very bad drought, but damage from droughts has been mitigated for thousands of years by something called “irrigation.” Look it up. You might learn something, but I’m not betting on it.

            By shutting down irrigation, Obama and the environmental Left have intentionally destroyed a huge area of California that used to produce a large percentage of our nation’s supply of fruits and vegetables. Now those same fruits and vegetables must be trucked and shipped from foreign sources that don’t monitor pesticide use or maintain sanitary conditions. This means more e-coli and more contaminated food, not to mention the use of CARBON BASED FUELS to get them here. Justify that, genius.

          • frodo

            That’s not DROUGHT. The snowpack that usually supplies the water for the irrigation is exceptionally low because it hasn’t been raining. That’s weather, not policy.

          • truebearing

            Drought is a factor this year, but when the Obama drought started, it wasn’t. In years where there is excess water, there are things called resevoirs, where massive amounts of water can be stored for future need. If our nation’s leadership would start developing that potential, much of the damage from drought would be eliminated.
            Obama has shown ZERO interest in finding a solution for something he helped create.

          • Myrtle Linder

            I think it is because GODis speaking to those who hate HIM. HE is tired of being replaced by Satan , while Satan destructs, GOD makes all things that are good.
            Mark 13:7-8
            7. And when ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be but the end shall not be yet.

            8. But nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in diver place and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.

            1 Peter 5:8-9
            8. Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion,walketh about seeking who he may devour.
            9..Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.
            Luke 21 11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.

        • truebearing

          Speaking of irrigation, this country, with our proven technology for transfering fluids economically with pipelines, should be developing a system of pipelines that can transfer water from flood zones to drought stricken areas so that crops never have to fail. It really wouldn’t be that difficult. Creating deep resevoirs, to minimize evaporation, in strategic locations, connected by large pipelines, channels, man made streams, and even utilizing existing rivers, would eliminate the scourge of drought. It would be an infrastructure of unequalled value and would put many people to work, not to mention produce immense amounts of food.

          • Drakken

            On that same vein of thought, over 2,000 years ago, the Romans had a series of viaducts that transported water from the mountains and rivers to the dry areas and cities, in the modern age, you would think that we would be smart enough to accomplish with pipe, what the Romans did with stone and mortar?

          • truebearing

            Exactly. Why aren’t we doing it when billions of gallons of flood waters are wasted every day? Can you imagine the boon to agriculture, the varieties of food available, and the lower prices?

            The Israelis turned a desert into productive land. Theoretically, we should be able to do far better with more water and more land. It’s all a matter of leadership, or the lack thereof.

            I have believed for years that this concept is not only a good idea but critical. Water and food shortages will lead to war as fast as anything, but if we would perfect 21st Century irrigation, we could make America an incredibly rich agricultural nation, not to mention teach it to nations where food is in short supply.

            Obama would no sooner do this than drill for oil in Alaska. It would be far too beneficial to Americans.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Indeed, before invading barbarians destroyed the aqueducts, Rome was a city of over two million people. It was the largest city in the world.

            By way of comparison, America has been the most free and powerful nation in the world. Alabaster cities from sea to shining sea. The most generous nation on earth.

            Now, the barbarians have not only invaded, but taken over. They once wished we would live simpler lives. Now, they are enforcing it with a ruthless determination that would make Genghis Khan blush.

            “Carbon” is one of the weapons in their arsenal … not of freedom … but against it.

          • Schmitty

            That is a very clever idea.

        • Wayne Jett

          Presently they are using a more toxic and pervasive way to cause drought. “Geoengineering” is the name intellectuals give to their weather modification techniques. Those methods include heavy spraying from jet aircraft of micron-sized metallic particulates in aerosols (primarily aluminum, strontium and barium as described in patents and proved by scientifically tested samples of rainfall and soils). The science is unmistakeable that the metallic aerosols prevent rainfall. And the metal particulates cause many neuro-diseases (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, ALS, autism, attention deficit disorder, plus respiratory death, cancers, and on and on. Then there is Vitamin D deficiency, resulting from the “dimming” effect of sunshine reflected back into space, currently at 22%. ALL of our weather presently is artificial; naturally occurring weather systems are attacked by the spraying and torn apart, while the moisture contained is deflected to another place to be inundated by historic flooding. Get the facts at a site founded and operated in northern California which is suffering its worst drought in history and where forests are being burned by UV-B rays seven times higher than normal.

      • tagalog

        It’s not raining or snowing this California this year because the extreme cold of the Arctic Circle is pushing the jet stream farther south and making North America colder, thus acting as a barrier to moisture-laden winds from the Pacific Ocean. One could infer a couple of things from the unusual cold in the Arctic. But, vis-à-vis California, there is less precipitation and California is drying up to what it was like when California was a Mexican colony.

        Also, much of California’s agricultural product is the result of extensive irrigation. Central and Eastern California is a desert, remember. The natural state of climate in California is wet up to the Coastal Range, then dry as a bone east of that divide.

        • frodo

          Exactly. It’s not because of some mad, eugenics-loving environmental death cult. It’s weather.

      • hiernonymous

        “Like who?”

        You know. Them.

        The Darwinist Marxist Malthusian Druid Minions of the Anti-Christ.

        • truebearing

          Those who can’t debate mock.

          Your insistence on the necessity of “atonement” (read: reparations) for whites (living today) for what SOME whites did in the past (150 – 250 years ago) is all the proof anyone needs of your demented perspective. And then there is your bizarre argument that reparations aren’t complete until strangers from other countries can’t tell if the descendants of slaves in America are related to their distant ancestors who were slaves. Your ridiculous theory begs the questions: how can foreign strangers detect slavery in someone’s ancestry; and are you contending that slavery creates a traceable and visible genetic condition?

          Your attempts to position the slavery in early America as somehow unique fails to acknowledge the extensive history of slavery, worldwide. At one time or another, it effected all races. I’m sure it has nothing to do with your political agenda or limited range of historical knowledge. Marxists are paragons of honesty.

          It seems you are seriously deluded, profoundly dishonest. perhaps both.

          Just because you lost every debate doesn’t mean you have to completely come unhinged. Buck up, hiernonymous. There are still people out there who will fall for your sophistry. They aren’t hip to your tactics, yet. You still have a chance at decieving a few people.

          Naturally, you won’t admit the truth about environmentalism. i understand. You are part of the collective lie.

          • hiernonymous

            Your insistence on the necessity of “atonement” (read: reparations) for
            whites (living today) for what SOME whites did in the past (150 – 250
            years ago) is all the proof anyone needs of your demented perspective.

            Perhaps I should have asked this earlier: do you suffer from a reading or learning disorder?

            I’ve quite explicitly, on several occasions now, explained to you that I reject the notion of atonement or reparations. That you continue to characterize my position that way suggests, at this point, that you either suffer from a defect in your comprehension, or a defect in your integrity.

            And then there is your bizarre argument that reparations aren’t complete
            until strangers from other countries can’t tell if the descendants of
            slaves in America are related to their distant ancestors who were

            This is another case in which your emotional iinvolvement has affected your comprehension. There is no issue of reparations here; I’ve suggested that we will have solved our problem when a visitor cannot tell that one group was oppressed by another, but that has nothing to do with reparations or atonement, and everything to do with having a society in which the lingering effects of the oppression are no longer evident.

            Your ridiculous theory begs the questions: how can foreign strangers
            detect slavery in someone’s ancestry; and are you contending that
            slavery creates a traceable and visible genetic condition?

            To borrow a line from I, Robot, “‘that, detective, is the right question.” It’s the one you perhaps should have asked before offering your earlier comments. The obvious point is not that one looks at an individual and “detects slavery in his ancestry.” It’s that one looks at society and can observe that a particular segment of society is obviously at a disadvantage. I’m talking about the lingering structural symptoms. When, for example, blacks are not disproportionately poor, and are not disproportionately represented in our worst schools, etc, then we’d be able to say we’ve overcome our past.

            Your attempts to position the slavery in early America as somehow unique
            fails to acknowledge the extensive history of slavery, worldwide. At
            one time or another, it effected all races.

            To imply that the African slave trade was just one of many similar phenomena is a dishonest distortion of the historical record, for several reasons. There have been other societies that practiced slavery, but there have actually been very few where the status of being chattel was presumptive based on ethnicity or “race.”

            American chattel slavery was unusually harsh in other respects. Unlike previous slave regimes, the American experience took place at a time when, in the wake of the Enlightenment, we had accepted the precept that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among this are life, liberty,, and the pursuit of happiness.” The conflict between that ideal and chattel slavery is unavoidable, and in the U.S., this conflict was resolved by the growing tendency to assert that blacks were not fully human. This was the solution that permitted us to go on about freedom while enslaving millions – “all men are created equal, but they’re not men.

            Other slavery regimes used varying degrees of brutality to enforce obedience among slaves, but while I can think of slaving that was justified on the basis of having taken the slave from ‘savage’ or ‘barbarian’ civilizations, I can’t think of any that justified slavery on the basis that the slaves weren’t really people.

            Alexander Stephens immortalized this concept in his infamous Cornerstone address:

            Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its
            foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that
            the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to
            the superior race is his natural and normal condition.

            You can detect echoes of agreement with this sentiment in some of the posts here; I suspect that was the motivation behind Alisia’s allusion to The Bell Curve. Be that as it may, this assumption: that black humans were fit only for slavery due to a natural, God-created inferiority, was at the least highly unusual, and, as far as I’m aware, unique, to American chattel slavery, and no doubt contributed in great part to the ferocity with which the Black Codes and Jim Crow were sought and enforced.

            Just because you lost every debate doesn’t mean you have to completely come unhinged. Buck up, hiernonymous.

            I’ll try.

            There are still people out there who will fall for your sophistry. They aren’t hip to your tactics

            I know! Poor “reader” found that out! It’s a shame you weren’t around last evening to come to his or her rescue. In one of those sad moments of bad timing, ‘reader’ appeared just after your last post for several hours, and announced his departure just moments before your return. Had you had some overlap, you could have given him or her some support. Oh, well.

            i understand.

            There’s a first time for everything.

          • truebearing

            Either you are the most confused writer alive or a blatant liar. You took the positions I have described, but upon rebuttal, are now abandoning them and claiming I can’t comprehend what I read. Your attempt to avoid owning up to your support for reparations is cowardly and lame…and if people consistently fail to understand your comments, the problem lies with you.

          • hiernonymous

            Either you are the most confused writer alive or a blatant liar.

            Let’s have a look and see if that really exhausts the options.

            You took the positions I have described, but upon rebuttal, are now abandoning them and claiming I can’t comprehend what I read.

            Twaddle. I’ve been known to change my positions, but generally only when someone produces good information and a compelling argument. When that happens, I’ll be the first to acknowledge it.

            In this case, I invite you to find this position I supposedly abandoned and link to it. I have consistently told you that I reject the notion of reparations and atonement; you consistently find yourself unable to comprehend that.

            Here a portion of one of your comments in our debate on this topic on another thread:

            Yes, now read it more carefully, and think about what you’re reading. Note that from the outset, I reject the notion of blame and fault – which is at the heart of atonement and reparations – and note that what we bear is responsibility.

            Allow me to further direct your attention to the portion of my post that you just quoted at me, apparently without reading it or understanding it even as you cut and pasted it. “….as a citizen of a democratic country, problems can be your responsibility without being your fault.

            What in the name of all that’s holy do you think that meant? And if it honestly wasn’t clear to you following your first reading of it, what, other than sheer ill will, rendered you incapable of reading and understanding the three or four subsequent occasions where I very explicitly clarified for you my rejection of reparations and atonement.

            “Your society…?” A curious phrase. Why isn’t it also your society, or are you not an American?

            It is also my responsibility of course. I used the term “you” because I was addressing you, and the second person pronouns are customary in that situation. Note also the context of pointing out your responsibility in the context of your continued focus on denying your own blame; I was explaining to you why your blame was irrelevant. It seems remarkable that this was a point of confusion for you, but then, having been explicitly told on no fewer than three occasions that I reject atonement and reparations, you continued to insist that such represented my stance – I suppose it’s not so remarkable at all.

            I didn’t have any slaves. My father had no slaves and neither did his,
            or his before him. My ancestors fought for the North, yet millions of
            blacks hate me because I’m white and because fools like yourself keep
            convincing them that they are irreparably damaged and need special
            treatment. I don’t owe any reparations, yet I have been paying them for
            years, nor need to atone for anything done to any race. “

            And, even now, you drone on in dull incomprehension. Your responsibility stems not from the actions of your ancestors, or the color of your skin, or anything your forebears or even you have done. It stems from your status as a citizen of a democratic republic. Responsibility for identifying and correcting wrongs in our society falls on all of us. If you’d immigrated to the U.S. and been sworn in as a citizen yesterday, you’d bear responsibility for fixing this problem just as much as if your mother was in the DAR.

            You have a high opinion of yourself, yet you offer no solutions. Not
            one. You’re a wind bag. A vacuous, dishonest fool who poses as an
            expert, but has no solutions but squander more money and blame white

            My opinion of myself preoccupies you to an unhealthy degree; it continues to render you incapable of an intelligent and honest reading of my posts. If you had been capable of such, you’d note that I’ve already told you that I don’t have a solution; I’ve even told why it would be unreasonable to expect me to have one at this point. You haven’t addressed those, you’ve just pretended you haven’t read them.

            As for “posing as an expert,” there are a couple of subjects on which I am an expert. I involve myself in conversations about them every now and then. This isn’t one of them; and, as I recall, I even explicitly addressed this with you. You do have trouble reading, don’t you?


            If you’d posted that alone, it would have been a more honest post, and really hit all your substantive points.

          • truebearing

            “.as a citizen of a democratic country, problems can be your responsibility without being your fault.”

            This is just another way of pushing your collectivist viewpoint without honestly stating it. What you are supporting is the leftist concept of “collective salvation.” Obama likes this concept too. We can’t be happy and prosperous until we’re all happy and prosperous. Let’spread the wealth.

            Collective responsibility removes personal responsibility and encourages blame. This is something that I, and all conservatives, totally reject. I am not responsible for the slavery that took place 200 years ago, nor am I responsible for the 100,000,000 people murdered by Marxists in the 20th Century, even though many of those were committed by people of European descent. I am responsible for what I do, don’t do, or should have done. Taking on the responsibility for others, unless they are my children and are too young to be responsible for themselves, is damaging to those who are then free to act even more irresponsibly, then blame me for it when they fail.

            Am I responsible for drug addicts? Is it my responsibility to get them to quit? or should I be housing them, feeding them, buying them new clothes?

            Collective salvation always fails because a certain percentage of people are more than happy to sit on their tails and do nothing while someone else has to earn enough to feed, clothe, educate, and house them. As more and more of the “responsible class” see that they are doing all of the work but getting no more than the sluggards, they become cynical and give up being responsible. And so it goes until the collectivist lie collapses under the weight of its own fraud.

            BTW, why aren’t you making the connection between Islam and slavery, since historically, they have been by far the worst practioners? Slavery is condoned, even encouraged in the Quran. Given your belief that the half-life of the consequences of slavery exceed that of plutonium, why aren’t you more concerned about Muslims — great believers in Manifest Destiny — using nukes to force submission in weaker nations? You don’t think that will only increase the already thriving slave trade in Muslim countries? Seems your moral outrage over slavery is very selective.

          • hiernonymous

            This is just another way of pushing your collectivist viewpoint without
            honestly stating it. What you are supporting is the leftist concept of
            “collective salvation.”

            Or, you know, I could actually mean exactly what I say. But I suppose that trying to inject a hidden agenda is an improvement to simply attributing imaginary positions to me, so we’ll call that progress and move on.

            I am not responsible for the slavery that took place 200 years ago

            Correct. You’re not even responsible for the slavery that took place 149 years ago. You’re just responsible for how your present society meets the challenges facing it today.

            Am I responsible for drug addicts?

            If drug addiction is a significant problem in your society, then you are responsible for how your society responds to that problem. The whole notion of democracy rests on the idea that voting is not a privilege, but a responsibility. We The People are the ultimate source of authority and legitimacy, rather than, say, divine right, and one of the burdens of being a citizen rather than a subject is that you are responsible for everything that your government does in your name. You can cry “collectivist” all you want, but that’s the underlying understanding of our Constitutional form of government.

            Collective salvation always fails because a certain percentage of people
            are more than happy to sit on their tails and do nothing while someone
            else has to earn enough to feed, clothe, educate, and house them.

            Well, then, that suggests that the prudent course of action isn’t simply to feed, clothe, educate, and house them, doesn’t it? Though the ‘educate’ part puts you at odds with the whole notion of public education, and the idea that a democracy is better served by a literate electorate. But I digress.

            And so it goes until the collectivist lie collapses under the weight of its own fraud.

            You seem to be muddling two unrelated concepts in your head. That we bear collective responsibility for our decisions and actions in no way implies that the policy decisions we reach are “collectivist” in nature.

            BTW, why aren’t you making the connection between Islam and slavery,
            since historically, they have been by far the worst practioners?

            Well, for three reasons. First, even if I accepted your historical premise – and I’m not convinced that you actually know what you’re talking about – I’m not impressed by “my atrocity is not so bad if I can find someone else that did something worse.” That’s gradeschool morality at best.

            Second, I’m not a Muslim, nor am I a citizen of any of the countries in question. My primary responsibility is to my own country and countrymen.

            Third, it’s utterly irrelevant in the context of this conversation. There’s no reason that the topic would or should come up. We’re not engaging in a “who suffered the most” contest; we’re discussing whether the disproportionate representation of black Americans in our lowest socio-economic classes is the result of past institutional and structural oppression and, if so, what the best way to correct it might be.

            Seems your moral outrage over slavery is very selective.

            Of course it’s selective. We’re Americans talking about an American problem. That selectivity is perfectly appropriate to the conversation, which was not – as near as I can tell – intended as a venue in which we could vent all of our “moral outrage.”

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Reparations are being paid, at this moment. They’re just not called “reparations”. I think the most acceptable term is “unfunded liabilities” …

      • pupsncats

        How many of these scientists have a vested interest in being proponents of man-made climate change by needing the government and private funding of research and the tools of research for the continuation of their careers? I would suggest we delve into the backgrounds of all of them. And we should ask ourselves why scientists were so wrong when the “consensus” in the 1970’s was that a catastrophic global cooling was on the way.

        • frodo

          How many climate change denialists have a vested interest in not changing the current course?

          Not all that many scientists made this prediction, and far far fewer than agree that human activity is contributing to climate change. One might conjecture that the projections of cooling didn’t take CO2 into account, but I’m not going to argue that claim, but see this and other easily findable things on Google (and World of Science):

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I’m a proud Anthropogenic Climate Change Denier. I do have a vested interest in this debate. It comes from fighting in Vietnam, coming home, marrying, having children, and grandchildren. I will fight your agenda with every weapon at my disposal, because my grandchildren will inherit as much of the America I grew up in, as possible.

            Now, that’s a vested interest, and I don’t give a D**N who makes money, in the process. I’m also a proud Capitalist …

      • Schmitty

        Notice your case always contains likely to happen, could take place etc. If your evidence is all maybes it isn’t really evidence. Open your eyes, where can you see the proof of global warming? No where except on a computer model.

    • Guest

      Calif. should remember how it was so important to save an “endangered’ tuna or salmon, that water previously used to water vast farmland was diverted to save the salmon instead. They have no interest in saving anything but their own control. If the public is not awake by’s already too late. Don’t forget which ‘Pelosi” in Washington is in the tuna/fish business.

    • truebearing

      Very well said.

      Adherents to the environmental religion have ordained themselves as survivalworthy, and everyone else as expendable. Posing as humanist saviors of humanity, they are in fact, virulent anti-humanists with one obsession: kill human beings any way they can, without appearing to do so.

      Their strategy is to implement negative eugenics, but not with the heavy-handed methods of the 20th Century Communists and Fascists. What they are setting up is Situational Eugenics — a man caused disaster, if you will — where shortages of medicine, fuel, food, heat, electricity, and denied health care will result in famines, epidemics, people freezing to death, or dying of treatable ailments. They are synthesizing elements of Darwinism with Marxism and Malthusianism, not to mention Druidism and other pagan cults, resulting in a toxic syncretic religion that has one goal: death to the majority of humanity. These are the minions of the Anti-Christ.

      • Bill_H2

        Measured by the outcome of their policies, it sure looks that way

      • alannah mcgrowdie

        my Aunty Amelia got a new blue Land Rover
        LR4 only from working part time off a home computer… helpful hints F­i­s­c­a­l­P­o­s­t­.­ℂ­o­m

    • Myrtle Linder

      Now, at last I know what this saying means: Fools names are like their faces, always seen in public places. It seems like his face is in view, every time he makes a fool out of himself

    • senior74

      I’m amazed no one here is talking about the UN Sustainable development Agenda 21 (agenda for the 21st century) that is being pushed by the Obama admin and they are using global warming propaganda to push it! The plan is to make America part of a communist one world gov. This is about environment, economy & equity! I read the UN document & one thing it says is “it isn’t equitable for some to buy property & sell & make a profit when not everyone can.” This agenda is about total control of humans, land, minerals, animals and every thing else you can think of!!! Check out Even they don’t want this when they find out about it and NO one is talking about it!

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        It’s always on my mind, whenever anyone brings up climate. My solution to the problem of Agenda 21 is … if it ever becomes official policy of the United States … secession of the red states.

  • Lanna

    You’re looking at full fledged communism…their goals are destroy humanity, and enable an ensane environment where earth and space come before human life or any kind of realistic policies!

  • Tradecraft46

    Look it’s a religion and they have to put the fear of a god into people, or it doesn’t work.

    Me, I don’t worry until something is within bayonet range, and suggest you do the same. Calls for general action and a cause are never for your benefit.

  • Hawkeye3939

    I wonder why folks don’t accept the words of such pillars of truth as Dear Leader Obama and Swiftie Kerry?? Could it be that these two clowns have only a passing acquaintance with veracity? Maybe if the warmists could find someone whose word is known to be accurate and truthful to act as their spokesman, the public would be more liable to believe them. But that wouldn’t happen because a person who speaks the truth would never buy into the Chicken Little ideas of the warmists.

  • Docs357

    I think that covers it

    • Headed4TheHills

      ^^^ I am HT4H an’ I approve this post ^^^

      • Guest

        I believe the Swift Boat Veterans who served alongside this “liar”,& “coward” as they called him would agree.

    • Digli

      More like he’s 10 lbs of it………… in a 5 lb bag.

      • Docs357

        Outstanding ! Well said Be blessed

  • malachha avet

    Al Bore is very silent nowadays

  • Danny

    “One can only wonder when Americans will tire of the progressive lust for power wrapping itself as noble intentions.” Well, I suspect until Americans are exposed to a media that is not fully in the Leftist camp, they will believe what they are told to believe and demonize who they are told to demonize, and vote how they are told to vote. Far more Americans listen to Chris the simpleton Matthews than they do to Dennis Prager. And that, right there, is the tragedy.

  • Ojr

    pollution does’nt benefit anyone but the rich and corporations and is detrimental to all life .it will not benefit any class other than the %2. people who do’nt understand that are imbeciles and or traitors to life on earth

    • sprinklerman

      Please explain how something that we exhale and is used by plant life to survive is a pollutant?

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      Pollution and Anthropogenic Climate Change are two different things. Don’t conflate the two …

      I love your use of the term “traitors to life”. What is done with traitors, in real life? They are imprisoned or put to death. Is this your ultimate goal?

  • ObamaYoMoma


  • ObamaYoMoma

    The Marxist Left in essence is anti-capitalist, as they all hate capitalism with a passion. Global warming is a scheme to limit fossil fuel and at the same time capitalism, as the fossil fuel economy is the biggest driver of capitalism.

    Even if global warming were a reality you’d have to be a fool to trust the Marxist Left to save us from it.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Why call them liberals or progressives? Call them what they are: Marxists and anti-Capitalists!s

    • putthehammerdown

      Look up the history of Progressivism in America. Between Wilson in the 19-teens to the revival in 1948 [largely financed by The C P U S A], they all look alike to me and should to you and yours .
      They’re Communists, pure and simple.
      Call ‘em out and mark them for what they are : Your worst enemy.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Communists are Marxists too.

        • putthehammerdown

          Marxism is an ideology.
          Communism is the power, the hammer, the barrel of the gun, the unbridled force that drives Marxism and gives it, it’s supposed appeal.
          To me the holder of the power is what you see, fear and fight.
          Marxism is a ‘tell’, an indicator, and nothing more.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            The Dhimmicrat Party is comprised of Communists, Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, Socialists, and a whole host of gullible useful idiots, and the word Marxists encompasses the entire spectrum of them.

    • Doug Light

      Or regressives.

  • Nancy Albert

    My brother is in D.C. now to argue this case for the Southeastern Legal Foundation.

    Climate change is a theory that cannot be disproven or proven. It cannot be assumed to be good or bad for the future. It was pretty simple, in comparison, to prove indisputably the earth is round and orbiting the sun. So Christianity adjusted to accommodate “Natural Laws”. But the left will never need to admit this is a naked hoax.

    Unfortunately for the left, they have merely doubled the price of gas from $1.85, when they wanted to multiply the cost by 4x. The fracking revolution saved the poor and middle class from total energy poverty to moderate energy poverty, despite their objective.

    If we lose, here are the consequences quoted from a NY Times article:
    All sides agree… Applying the law as written would increase the number of covered sources under one program from fewer than 280 to more than 80,000, reaching commercial and residential sources and subjecting them to expenses averaging almost $60,000, according to the appeals court. A second program would reach six million sources, subjecting them to expenses of more than $20,000 each. The cost of the programs would rise to $21 billion from $62 million.

    The utter hypocrisy of the left is immeasurable. They ignore the dreadful pollution of The Third World. They wail over the fictional “War on Women” and ignore the hideous treatment of women elsewhere.

  • JuneUSA

    Kerry , Obama and Hillary. Three of the stupidest people on earth with the biggest egos ever. They only understand each other and will not listen to anyone else. What a corrupt little club.



  • tagalog

    “The science is unequivocal.”

    Can Mr. Kerry then explain how it is that we are told that science shows that rising concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere mean rising atmospheric temperatures, while there has been no noticeable increase in atmospheric temperature in the past 16 years as the CO2 concentration is going up?

    Even the “climate-change” panic mongers recognize that fact. They just can’t explain it.

    If the temperature on the long term is going up, as I believe it has been since we’re still coming out of the last ice age (though we’re passing what the record suggests is the midterm of that interglacial period), how come that trend together with the increasing CO2 concentration haven’t involved continually rising temperatures? Could some unknown process be at work that might make the science equivocal?

    I mean, Michio Kaku has been quoted as saying that the Arctic Circle is warming and continuing to get warm to the point where warming will be irreversible. If he’s right, Earth is on the way to becoming a fireball. Anybody want to take bets on that? Michio Kaku is a well-known scientific authority – he’s on every science show in Discovery and the Science Channel, so he knows what he’s talking about, right?

    Certainly climate change is an ongoing phenomenon, and certainly it COULD be disastrous for humanity (as in the oncoming ice age a few thousand years from now), but I doubt that mankind is causing it, or can do very much about it other than try to protect ourselves.

    What if humanity actually COULD control climate, and we did things to cool things down, and in doing so triggered a new ice age a few thousand years early? All those pesky unintended consequences. “But we MEANT well…”

    I thought ALL science is intended to be equivocal, but I’m the artsy verbal type, so maybe I don’t know.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      What could we do? Let’s raise more cows, and have more barbeques!

      More Cattle = More Methane

      I do appreciate the flatulence of our vegetarian friends, however. Thanks for warming the planet.

  • Digli

    There was a time when the idea of a Flat Earth was “Settled Science”
    Those who questioned that theory were called deniers and worse.
    Mr. Secretary gets none of it right.
    Kerry is a dangerous moron.

    • bjedwards

      just like his boss

    • hiernonymous

      “There was a time when the idea of a Flat Earth was “Settled Science””

      Really? When was that?

      • EagleJim

        Think back in the early days of ‘science’ when, before Columbus, people generally thought the earth was flat. Back when early ‘scientists’ were trying to turn iron into gold.

        • hiernonymous

          The Greeks developed the idea of a spherical Earth in the 6th Century BC. Aristotle knew the Earth was round. Basically, the idea of a spherical Earth predates the concept of “settled science” – and it predates your medieval alchemist by about 1000 years.

          It’s a common misconception that pre-Columbian Europeans widely believed the Earth was flat.

          • Digli

            Pre-Columbian Europeans could barely walk upright.
            Imagine a person kind of like Nancy Pelosi or John Kerry but wearing a Gherkin.
            It’s a very common misconception that pre-Columbian Europeans widely believed the Earth was round.

          • hiernonymous

            “Imagine a person kind of like Nancy Pelosi or John Kerry but wearing a Gherkin.”

            The irony here is almost palpable.

            Again, the idea that medieval Europeans largely believed the world to be flat is a myth popularized in a couple of early American books, but which have no basis in reality. If you think about it, sailors watching mountains drop below the horizon had all the clue they needed, and we know that the Greeks had put it together centuries before Christ. IIRC, they’d even developed the math sufficiently to make a good estimate of the Earth’s circumference by about 200 BC.

            This is a pretty good example of why I’m skeptical of “common knowledge” and “common sense” on these boards.

      • Digli

        The 13th, 14th,15th, 16th century.
        You’ve read history maybe?
        You’re being funny right?

        • hiernonymous

          The only civilized state where general belief in a flat earth still held sway by that timeframe was China. As I noted, Aristotle knew the world was round. So did Augustine.

          Washington Irving, IIRC, popularized the notion that Columbus’s sailors were afraid they’d sail off the end of the earth. That was invented out of whole cloth. The various objections raised to Columbus’s voyage were all rooted in an understanding of a spherical earth.

      • Gislef

        Greek astronomy, 6th century BC, Pythagoras.

        • hiernonymous

          At last.

  • MarilynA

    Between 1985 and 1990, The Environment was selected as the cause under which the hard core militant Communist activists from the 1960’s Peace and Civil Rights movements could unite the most people, because just about everyone had some kind of big nasty in their areas at the time. After their planned communist revolution, using Blacks as their front line cannon fodder, failed in the 1960s, they regrouped. Sent paid canvassers door to door all over the county with questionnaires to identify what concerns people were angry about. People were then invited to attend local, state, regional, and national conferences, conventions and meetings where they were told they could network with others with like concerns and learn how to influence elected and appointed officials. Thus, local grass roots activist organizations were formed all over the country, each affiliated with national organizations run by one of the 1960’s hard core militants. Their stated aim was “to unite all dissident groups and empower them to overthrow the government.” The Ford Foundation, Ted Turner’s New World Foundation, and other liberal ultra rich foundations, plus leftist movie stars like Barbara Streisand, Robert Redford and their ilk, paid for the formation of most of the national organizations. At the time Hillary Clinton served on Ted Turner’s New World Foundation’s Board of Directors and as it’s President, and was a driving force behind this movement. Articles about Pseudo Environmental studies and global catastrophe were written by people with Doctorates in areas other than science (Psychology, religion, etc.) and presented as true scientific Reports. Their first phony scare was the Alar in the apples When that failed they came up with man made global worming which was picked up by their willing accomplices in public education and the media. Since scientists have know for along time that weather patterns are controlled by sunspot activities, when the period of many sunspot eruptions slowed down to very few and global cooling began to occur they changed their cause from global warming to climate change. Their real aim is to disrupt our capitalist system and prove that it is not superior to their beloved Communism which they believe will work “if practiced in it’s true form.” I was a part of this movement when they began this campaign. Take my word for it. It is a hoax designed to destroy our capitalist system and bring about a Socialist Utopia like they have in Cuba, China, North Korea, etc. Jimmy Carter, Bill and Hillary Clinton , Barack Obama, John Kerry and all the rest of these pro Communist/Socialist hucksters do not care one whit about the devastation they leave in their path as long as they bring about their dream of their version of Utopia on earth.

  • bjedwards

    The entire executive branch of the US govt needs to face Nuremberg style trials for their crimes against the people, and then swing from the gallows, every last one of them.

  • Dan Pangburn

    The two primary drivers of average global temperatures accurately
    (R2>0.9) explain the reported up and down measurements since before 1900 and
    provide credible estimates back to the low temperatures of the Little Ice Age

    CO2 change is NOT one of the drivers.

    The drivers are given at

  • Locke_V_Hobbs

    It is interesting to note that statistically speaking 80 percent of the comments below will have 20 percent of the significance (venting anger), and 20 percent will have 80 percent of the significance (thoughtful comments). Which are you?

    There are a lot of things we can argue about: cost effectiveness, timelines, winners and losers, etc… but, the central fact is that Carbon Dioxide works the way the Global Warming folks say it does and the Earth is retaining heat in the emission spectra that Carbon Dioxide radiates/reradiates in.

    The process if very complex, it is non-linear, and it is chaotic. So it does not lend itself to armchair analysis. The fact is that most of the heat and some of the extra Carbon Dioxide is going into water. It takes an incredible amount of heat to change the temperature of liquid water by 1 degree C (4.187 Kj/Kg). Likewise, it takes an incredible amount of heat to melt ice and to evaporate water (2270 Kj/Kg and 334 Kj/Kg). For instance, the difference between a kilogram mass of ice at 0 degrees C and a kilogram mass of water at 0 degrees C is that the water has 334 Kj more heat energy than the ice.
    While I agree that Kerry indulged in hyperbole with his WMD comparison, the fact is that the Earth is retaining more heat and will warm because of that.
    I don’t like Kerry very much and I don’t think he is a very good secretary of state, but his basic premise that Global Warming has a high probability of being very disruptive is not wrong. It is not an extinction process (as long as we don’t trip over into a runaway situation) like CFCs are/were, but it could get pretty bad – especially if it shuts down the gulfstream and we go in the cooling direction.
    On the other hand, assuming that the warm direction is the direction this process goes, there will be winners and losers. Russia with its 12 time zone arctic continental shelf, and control of the shipping off of its coast, is likely to come out a winner regardless of the issues of a swamp that covers a third of the country. Also, one might recall, that large volcanic eruptions lead to significant cooling, also many other complex interactions can drasticaly change the timelines, but there are facts that will not change no matter how much anger you have for liberals. So, vent all you want, nature will win end the end.

  • William James Ward

    The global warming people have found the near perfect way to
    live a complete lie, I say near perfect because there is something
    they do not have a clue about and that is truth which overshadows
    their idiotic ramblings………………..William

  • AlarmedPigFarmer

    Man-caused global warming is a fictive reality.
    That is, something that’s not factually true being so widely
    accepted as factually that it effectively may as well be. The “science” on this is not settled, far from it. The science on this is crap, driven by variables in algorithmic computer models that seem like real lab research. The algorithms almost certainly bad, because with climatology less than a hundred years old, how can it simulate the fluid dynamics of a global atmosphere influenced by the oceans and the sun, nature itself? Then a tougher issue with the variables, are they bad too? Of course they are. The values are dreamed up by rent-seeking (grant-seeking) approval-seeking leftists on college campuses, and have consistently been wrong, all to the high side, the dire end-of-life-as-we-know-it side.

    Most top climatologists agree with that assessment, and have denounced the “settled science” of global warming. Then a lawyer in the White House
    misrepresented their evaluation in an important legal document to back
    executive orders and proposed legislation on carbon control. She was rewarded with an appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court… with approving votes from many RINOs in the Senate, who didn’t even bring up the touchy subject of her fraud.

    Global warming is a crap pseudoscience used as a con game to implement more central government control and more globalism, all with a higher cost of living and higher taxes.

    You could write a book on the Republicans’ efforts to expose this dangerous socialist fraud. In fact, I just did, cuz they ain’t said nothing on the subject, except to endorse the fraud.

  • Bill_H2

    The climate change movement or cult is actually a weapon of mass destruction aimed directly at the heart of global capitalism. And there can be no doubt that Kerry is socialist and part of a global movement to redistribute wealth to the poor of the world largely at American taxpayer expense.
    But the social contradictions around this movement continue to grow:
    1) Don’t you think its a bit odd that so called environmentalists are in alliance with socialist governments around the world (like the USG, EU) that are heavily engaged in amassing huge deficits in their quest for greater control over the masses, while these same deficits are actually artificially inflating their national economies and hence INCREASING the degree of environmental damage inflicted because of these same inflated economic activities.

    2) The call for more socialism to fight climate change has to be the ultimate denial, since its well known that socialism is the least efficient form of resource management on earth (look at the toilet paper and power shortages in Venezuela) and hence the worst means to combat the leftist chimera called climate change.

  • pupsncats

    There are two real mass weapons of destruction in the world today-Islam and Progressives.

  • dougjmiller

    Scientists usually look at facts. And when the facts don’t support the theory, the theory is discarded. Hopefully that will happen with the highly politicized “global warming” theory. This “global warming” fraud is not about climate change. It’s about redistributing wealth from the industrialized nations to the less industrialized nations. It’s also about power. The “global warming” hustlers want to transfer sovereignty from individual nations and give it to the UN. Even if “global warming” were true, and even if mankind was responsible, as unlikely as that is, their proposed cure is to stick their hands in your pockets.

  • Fritz Kohlhaas

    Kerry is an incompetent imbecile. He must go!

  • Clare Spark

    It is not just the far Left, but the moderate men who are signed on the global climate change offensive. See “Darwin and the Climate Change Debate: The Greens have it.”

    • Galtness

      OT, just had to say that your avatar is a work of art. Whether it is you or someone else, the subject and the photographer caught something painfully evocative. Well done…

  • Dan Pangburn

    Some of the mistakes of the consensus are described at . Even if they fix there computer models any output beyond a few days is computational ‘noise’.

  • CrossWinds

    Somewhat arrogant of humanity, to think we can even control the weather……

    Job 38:22-27……

    22 “Have you entered the treasury of snow,
    Or have you seen the treasury of hail,
    23 Which I have reserved for the time of trouble,
    For the day of battle and war?
    24 By what way is light diffused,
    Or the east wind scattered over the earth?

    25 “Who has divided a channel for the overflowing water,
    Or a path for the thunderbolt,
    26 To cause it to rain on a land where there is no one,
    A wilderness in which there is no man;
    27 To satisfy the desolate waste,
    And cause to spring forth the growth of tender grass?

  • American1969

    The only WMDs are John Kerry and Barack Obama.

    • ben t

      The last Glacial Maximum was 15-20,000 yrs ago. At that time the North American Continent had a glacier that was 10,000 ft. high, stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and was as far south as just north of where Phila is now (just s. of NYC). The entire British Isles. the Channel and half of France were covered by glaciation, not to mention Scandinavia and the rest of the world at that latitude. What happened to all that ice? Did the campfires of a million or so humans globally warmed them to their present northern climes? NO!! Natural global warming kicked in—as it had done countless times in the past. The Earth is still warming, but ever so gradually and will begin to cool again. Science, real science and not political crap, says another ice age is about due anytime in the next few thousands of years. This cycle has been repeated 100’s of times in the last billion years. But I’m not making money off of “greenery”.

  • ridesdressage

    This cannot be repeated enough: Liberals hate God because they want to be God and tell everyone what to do, how to live, what to think and etc.etc. Of course no liberal ever lives the way they tell everyone else to live: i.e. John Kerry, John Edwards, The Obamas, the Clintons, Al Gore, etc. They use stupid theories like global warming to prove they are smart and know more than everyone else and have the answers to “fixing” global warming. They want to be GOD.

    • Sugarsail1

      Indeed they exhibit megalomaniac personality traits. Look at Gore’s movie…he is pictured in space presiding over the earth while predicting doom unless we repent by reducing co2. Then he’s talking about his son that was “killed” by an evil automobile and then resurrected by the miracle of modern medicine (science). That’s the Father-resurrected son story right there with himself cast in the role of the Father. His megalomania runs amazingly deep.

  • Galtness

    I don’t know why I even bother to click on stories like this any more, I can never read them through to the end.

    These idiots are so obvious in their agenda that it baffles me that they fool so many people as they do. Why?

    I guess we need to face facts:

    Half of all people (by definition) have below average intelligence.

    Many people with above average intelligence exploit that fact.

    We, the honest and moral with the ability to comprehend, are a minority.

  • Dagwood

    The flat earth illustration is misplaced. Since ancient times the earth’s sphericity has been acknowledged by the educated, at least; with even arguable references in the bible. The myth got its biggest boost from Washington Irving in more recent times

  • Tab Numlock

    It”s not just that human-liberated CO2 is not harmful, it’s beneficial. The earth is in a CO2 famine and ice age. Crop yields are already up 3x and the deserts are greening. No detectable warming yet but that would be nice.

  • Sugarsail1

    The belief that the sea levels will rise and there will be wrathful weather as divine retribution for mankind’s moral infractions (in this case burning fossil fuels), unless we and the animals are saved by some kind of repentance (ark building, carbon tax, etc..) is a timeless religious motif that exists in nearly all culture’s religious folklore….it’s known as an apocalyptic flood myth and it is the underlying narrative of the global warming cult. It’s not science anymore than the story of Noah is science, although the holy Scripture that the global warming cult appeals to as an authority is Science (effectively their bible). But like any fundamentalist, it is selectively interpreted to suit their belief, whereas real science changes your hypothesis to suit your observations.

  • JohnnyRotten41

    Um… The Earth was warmer when Marcus Aurelius was Emperor than it is now. Just sayin’…