Majority of Americans Reject Myth of “Man-Made Global Warming”


sno2

More conservatives than liberals know that the earth revolves around the sun, that astrology isn’t real and that neither is man-made Global Warming.

In a new poll, the majority of Americans sensibly rejected the man-made Global Warming hoax, while only 46% continued to believe in the discredited theory.

Democrats, who in another poll were shown as 20% less likely than Republicans to know that the earth revolves around the sun, were also credulous enough to believe in man-made Global Warming by 66% to 25%.

An earlier poll had also shown that 49% of Democrats believed that astrology was scientific and only 48% knew that the earth revolves around the sun.

Screen-shot-2014-02-27-at-9.42.00-AM

Republicans rejected the man-made Global Warming myth by 69%. Independents, who were less likely than Republicans, but more likely than Democrats to know that the earth revolves around the sun, also fell in the middle with only 43% believing in man-made Global Warming.

Screen-shot-2014-02-27-at-9.42.00-AM

As credulous as Democrats are, only 13% of them believed that ObamaCare was working well. Some things are so silly that not even a Democrat will believe in them.

snow

  • Andy_Lewis

    Idiot.

    • Nabukuduriuzhur

      As a scientist and former engineer with four degrees in three fields you’ll pardon me for not understanding why you believe a single perjorative word is appropriate as a rebuttal. It’s the type of thing a 3 year old would do.

      Calling someone wiser than yourself “idiot” makes no objective sense.

      This is a forum: explain your thought. Prove your point, if you can.

      ObamaYoMama made some excellent points. Indeed, to expand on one of them, the question comes to mind of how someone who gets their ideology from marx and the bong would fix any type of global problem.

      Marxism creates problems, whether Russia of 1917-1991 or Germany from 1933 to 1945. It does not solve problems.

      Consider that if Marxism didn’t exist, then at least 650 million people would not have died. And likely many more. When one adds in 400 million+ abortions in China, 30 million each in the Chinese Civil War, Great Leap Forward, and Cultural Revolution, plus around 30 million in the combat and concentration camps of the eastern European theatre in WWII, plus several million in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, 50 million for Stalin, etc, etc. you start realizing just how evil Marx’ government system truly is.

      Marxism is at the heart of “global warming”/”climate change”. It is not based in “best available science” but in ideology. NOAA, one of my former employers, libeled itself recently by taking one of the coldest januaries on record in the U.S., ignore more than 4200 records for cold, more than 200 records for snowfall, and they turned around and lied to the public with “Warmest January on Record”. Seriously, what kind of a person could do that?

      The answer is a marxist of one kind or another.

      Consider that we have 2,5 million seamounts. Of these some 650,000 at any time are active. And millions of smaller volcanic vents. A 37,000 mile long mid oceanic ridge that constantly erupts. 500 land magma fields erupting at any given time. Volcanoes typically spew out water vapor, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and other gases in excess of anything humans can even contemplate of doing. An example is the “dead zone” off of SW Oregon/NW California. 200x300miles. An inch of sulfur on the bottom. Sulfur dioxide and other sulfur compounds are typically far less than the amount of CO2 volcanic vents outgas. Human activities are like a flea on a supertanker in terms of CO2.

      If that wasn’t enough, carbonates cover 10% to 15% of the crust. The average yearly erosion is a staggering one inch. That translates to several QUADRILLION tons of CO2 released. A flea in New York City.

      And those are not all of the natural sources of CO2

      By the time you start looking at the natural CO2 sources, GW/CC ends up making no sense from a scientific standpoint.

      • 20pizzapies

        And why do YOU need so many words to prove you’re full of it ? IDIOT is a perfectly succinct , exact ,and direct description of the mentality this moron known as OBAMAYOMAMA exhibits day in and day out .

        • Drakken

          Oh look! Libtard thinking at its best! How quaint and special! You licked windows on the shortbus didn’t you?

      • Michael Ayers

        Clearly none of your 85 degrees are in political science, or you would have stopped reading at ‘Marxist’

        • Daniel F. Melton

          Can’t handle the truth?

          • Michael Ayers

            The truth that you and “the engineer with four degrees” are full of it and don’t understand what Marxism is? Yeah non-profit government agencies really love their Marxism

          • Daniel F. Melton

            I was interrogating communists in 1969. They love to infiltrate government agencies an implement their agenda under the guise of legitimate government. Where were you back then, running down your mother’s leg?

          • 20pizzapies

            Vietnam / Camp Anari- Pleiku 4thID /4thEng.Batt . Where were you ? interrogating communists huh ? Where ? Down your mom’s basement .

          • Daniel F. Melton

            the camp’s name was Enari.
            Remember that little compound within the compound at the back side of the hill? Machine guns and MP guards at the gate? All that concertina wire around the operations center? The 509th Group, 313th Bn. 330th Radio Research Co.? Wore the IFFV parches? We didn’t just listen to radios. When Enari was closed We moved to Engineer Hill.
            I was with the 330th from 1969-1971.

          • 20pizzapies

            You mean me and you were looking at Dragon Mountain at the same time ???? Dec.’68 – Jan.’70. How many “mad minutes ” did you have ?

          • Daniel F. Melton

            Enough. I was TDY a good part of the time. Ahn Khe, Qui Nyon, Dong Ba Thin, Dalat, Nha Trang, and a few other places I’d rather forget.,

          • 20pizzapies

            I stayed put except for R&R . Qui Nhon 1970 ? Hope you weren’t there during the race riot , it was a pretty big one . I was out of country by then . [ eating " 20 pizza pies" in Seattle with 6 of my Battalion buds ]

          • Typothetes

            Finally, you show your human side, 20pp. Why can’t you be more like this in your other posts? You consistently treat other posters like $hlt! I had seen this post in your list of posts on Disqus, and I was going to let you know that I respect your service. But, until you prove that you can be more human more of the time, I will reserve my respect. Don’t be mean, 20pp!

          • 20pizzapies

            I’m not here to gain approval and least of all to acquire “respect ” from you , you can stick it where the sun don’t shine , after all that’s where your head is . Don’t like my posts ? Don’t read’em , ahhh but you do read ‘em .
            As far as my service ? Give your “reserved respect ” for those of us that didn’t come home . I don’t need any validation from the likes of you .

          • Michael Ayers

            Yeah, weird veteran past or not, The fact that you think Marxism directly equals communism tells me everything I need to know about you and your lack of understanding and reasoning ability

      • 20pizzapies

        btw , get your facts straight , man made Co2 emissions are 130 x’s greater than volcanic Co2

        • Drakken

          Co2 is NOT repeat NOT a pollutant dumbazz, what do you think plants eat? More Co2 means more green and lush plants, thus more oxygen.

          • 20pizzapies

            Hey , I gotta a guy I want you to meet , by the name of Louie Gohmert , you know that elected imbecile from Texas . He doesn’t believe in the laws of Gravity . You two make a matched set .Dumb and Dumber .
            BTW , Co2 is NOT a pollutant , it’s a greenhouse gas you dimbulb . And the exchange by plantlife of Co2 for Oxygen is true , too much Co2 in the atmosphere does not mean “more oxygen “. You’re an ignoramus of superlative degree .

        • Daniel F. Melton

          Got studies to prove that?

          • 20pizzapies

            Yup :

            Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions

            Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

            The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

            In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

            There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.

            Want more ? Google it .

          • Daniel F. Melton

            You should really utilize more than one source, and cite those sources. The ipcc sycophants aren’t about to tell the truth.

            Oh yes, the math is pitifully done.

          • 20pizzapies

            And you should learn to look beyond your nose and your personal political biases . It is not surprising to meat all that a third of people asked think the Sun revolves around the Earth . tsk , tsk , tsk , .If you bothered to look you’d see there are far more than “one source ” .
            People aren’t born stupid , in most cases stupid is a choice .

          • Daniel F. Melton

            Buncha names, some gobbledygook figures and not a single source cited. Easy enough to do when one sits at a computer and time to dream up their supporting arguments.

          • 20pizzapies

            LOLOL….gobbledygook huh ? No wonder there are so many people in this country who think the Sun revolves around the Earth . Hey look dude , I’m not gonna treat you like a six year old and tutor you on how to gather and cross-check information , and if you’re as lazy as I suspect you are then no one can teach you . The only advise I’d give you is to type into Google CO2 EMISSIONS MANMADE VERSUS VOLCANIC , that ‘ll get you there , much, much more than one sources , hundreds of graphs from different quarters and different scientific disciplines . And if you’re gonna sit there and say ” not a single source cited , then you’re too dumb for me to be arguing with to begin with .
            Don’t hurt yourself thinking chump .

          • Daniel F. Melton

            And if you’re using google, you’ll be carefully steered to every site that proclaims that all global warming begins and ends with mankind.
            Google routinely blocks blogs and web sites that would be considered “right wing” or conservative. No explanation, no due process. They just pull the plug. They also tag sites as containing harmful viruses when that is flat out a lie. Google is probably the worst for censoring columns by writers. They simply don’t show up on Google.
            According to you “gorites” we’ve got to sacrifice our national economy to save the world from “anthropogenic global warming”; uh, “climate change”; no, wait, it’s “climate disruption”; well, maybe it’s “global climate weirding”; perhaps it’s the dreaded but ever popular “climate collapse”;…. Nope! It’s “Catastrophic Climate Disruption” which means something of an undefined nature might possibly occur at some unknown point in the future and maybe have unexplained negative effects, until they rename the non-phenomenon again. Never mind what we call it WE’VE GOTTA DO SOMETHING! Even if it increases the stranglehold of government regulations, makes rich liberals even richer, and collapses the global economy with no discernible effect on the climate.

          • 20pizzapies

            That’s right Daniel , EVERYONE’S lying except FOX . Oh wait ! FOX owned in part by the Saudis ? Oil+SAUDIS = ?? And yea those what ? ” Rich Liberals ” ? Gee , I didn’t know that ALEC was composed of rich liberals .

          • Daniel F. Melton

            pitiful little screaming monkey.

          • 20pizzapies

            yea , facts will seem to do that to the small underdeveloped brain . Bet that dog of yours has got more sense than you do . He even looks smarter .

          • Typothetes

            You provide as many facts as any dog I have met. ZERO!

          • 20pizzapies

            I think most dogs would bite you rather than talk to you , even they know stupid and phony when they see it

          • Typothetes

            Yep, Dan has the same complaints against you that I have.
            No reasonable sources. No links to those sources. Then, ridiculous, moronic rants. I would add 3-year-old debating skills.”

          • 20pizzapies

            Some one’s got to bring it down to your level .

          • Typothetes

            meat? Nice….douche

          • 20pizzapies

            Coming from a phony P.O.S. like you , I’ll take that as a compliment .

          • Typothetes

            [LOL I notice that you are having the first reply to me moderated. I didn't get to read it. Did you use a nasty word? I hope you get banned.]

            You obviously have a sick, twisted desire to punish other contributors.
            I’m sure it gives you great pleasure to insult others and call them names, else you wouldn’t do it so much.
            I’m glad that you spent the time to reply to the other posts I made earlier. It will make it just a bit more obvious to others that you are a pathetic, trollish jerk.

            I’m sure it will bother you, but I want you to know that I did not read your post above and I will never read the other posts. I will never read another post that you write.
            HA! Douche!

            You are worthy of no person’s time or thought.
            I might respond in the future, if you repond to one of my posts, but I will respond with the single word: “TROLL!” Just to confirm other’s suspicions.

            I might add a few adjectives: ill-informed, uneducated, narrowminded, mean, nasty…if I feel so inclined.

            Be miserable…you deserve it.

          • 20pizzapies

            Not really nothing any worse than you and all your little parrot friends write . But the blog does have it’s favorites as there never has been any balance to their censorship anyway . That’s ok I can deal with , it is to be expected . I don’t tow the line . As far as WHAT I said , that is contained in the numerous replies already made .

          • Typothetes

            Why don’t you provide a link to your source? Do you think anyone believes that your are honorable and will quote properly? NO!

            You are a lazy SOB. Go google SOB.

          • 20pizzapies

            What , did you stupid all of a sudden ? Oh wait , you already were stupid . You cant find information on the web ? You need a link to know what’s going on ? LOL…but first you ‘ll need a functioning brain , and yours is broken , go out and buy or steal a new one schmucko .
            Oh and BTW- GFY , or let ObamaYoMama do it .

      • A Z

        You mention volcanoes and Warmists will say they know how much they add to global greenhouse gases and figure that into their models.

        Question is how good are their measurements and guestimates of volcanoes output.

        Also these same people dismissed Dr Roy Spencer’s paper on the cosmic ray cloud effect because he has a Phd in meteorology, which is a specious thing to do. If a person has learned quantitative methods (especially in statistics and modeling) in any hard or soft science, they might have something worthwhile to say. Of course it will have to be checked out. CERN did check out Dr. Roy Spencers work and it did check out.

        Which begs the question of how good the AGW model is that it never took cosmic ray cloud effect into account.

        I have taken modeling and design of experiment classes. In the last generation there are still engineers and scientist looking multi-factor problems and designing experiment wrong. They will literally hold all factors constant except one and vary it.They will rinse and repeat with all the other factors. they are shocked when they can’t predict anything due to interactions.

      • Canadave

        Those are interesting C02 sources I’d never heard of.

      • Lightbringer

        Excellent post — lucid, concise, and very informative.

        [sarc on}
        Some people also suspect that there is (really, I’m not making this up! Some people really believe this!) this great, big ball of burning gasses about 93 million miles from Earth and that it is responsible for global warming! Can you believe that? Earth, which is at the center of the cosmos and than which nothing is bigger or mightier, can be controlled by such a device from fantasy?
        {sarc off}

      • Daniel F. Melton

        They ignore the variability of solar output, orbital eccentricities, and the huge water vapor factor also.

        • 20pizzapies

          Solar output runs in 11 year cycles , orbital eccentricities repeat every year .
          Water vapor ? YOU BET , especially when it comes from melting ice sheets and glaciers , especially when it dilutes salt water and effects deep ocean currents . And ocean currents have pronounced effects on weather over land masses . Just like the Gulf Stream, which brings salt water to the North Atlantic near Greenland , where ice is melting and dilutes it. Heavier salt water dropping down through the lighter fresh water is the engine that drives the Gulfstream , and when it shuts down England will actually get colder . Gee , that’s counter-intuitive huh , a colder England with Global Warming ! But only to the ignorant and woefully misinformed . I would have suggested Scientific American , Science News , or the Website of Live Science , but that would require actual reading on your part , and THAT would require an attention span that exceeds your capabilities . But you’d rather sit in your chair and absorb the B.S. on Fox news or listen to the fossil fuel shills on right wing blogs ….after all that industry is paying BIG MONEY to buy out the Tea Party politicians and the conservatives .And most of those Companies are members ,heavy contributors to ALEC . That where you go for your erroneous comparison of Volcanic CO2 and man made CO2 ?

          • Daniel F. Melton

            You also neglect the Milankovitch cycles.
            http://wn.com/milankovitch_cycles
            The instruction video is slanted towards Jr HS, so you should understand.

          • 20pizzapies

            Ahh , my favorite subject for the past ,oh, 35 years or so ..Astronomy . Of course I know of the Milankovitch cycles . Now before you go googling again and try to dig something up that you have no understanding of , and then try to throw an insult in , hows about widening your knowledge of what you pretend to know – http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/seasons_orbit.php
            Btw Milankovitch wasn’t the first to notice precessional changes in the Earths axis over long periods of time . Scientists have been aware of these cycles of which there are 3 known – 9000, 41,000,and 100,000 years .Milankovich’s endeavor was to find a predictor for ice ages . Common sense should tell you that changes that are occurring are in much shorter time spans , but I guess you didn’t notice huh ? And EVEN before Milankovich , as far back as the 1820′s scientists knew larger amounts of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere would lead to warmer temperatures .BTW , this is a much better example http://www.skepticalscience.com/Milankovitch.html and will show you what you don’t know . [ and that the Milankovich Cycles are STILL inconclusive regarding Ice Ages as well as climate changes we are experiencing ]

          • Daniel F. Melton

            Keep telling yourself.

          • 20pizzapies

            no , I’ll go with the science , it’s non-partisan . You can fixate on Al Gore , and all the climate-denial talking points . You can cast your lot with the .003% of scientists world wide that agree with your politically based “science ” .

          • Daniel F. Melton

            You’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope in this particular case.

            http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

            ***Just how much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity?
            It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%, if not.***

            ***Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC’s, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).***

            Edit to add: I don’t use google. Maybe you shouldn’t either.
            Then there’s this:

            http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf

            ***Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of frequencies, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (μM)
            . This means that most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these “fingerprint” frequencies of CO2.***

            Now trot out your tired and already disproved allegations that “big oil” has bought the scientists who produce this information.

          • 20pizzapies

            here’s the really bad news for politically biased climate change positions , the oil companies are simply playing you , they prop up your denial with bad science while they get your votes to their chosen candidates , who legislate in their favor , all the while the oil companies are hedging their bets and quietly going Green . Electric Utilities are already doing it . Science is science no matter which side the political coin . LOLOL….water vapor can not be anything other than natural origin , unless another comet iceball hits the Earth . The amount of water does not change , only it’s form .The amount of natural CO2 is much less than anthropogenic CO2 . CFC’s are not natural occurring to any mentionable degree except the amounts emitted by man made sources . There are billions upon billions of tons of Methane locked just under the sea floor . They are held there by temperature on the sea floor , when that rises so will methane .Ocean temperatures are rising , hopefully the methane scenario won’t occur , if so you will realize that you’ve been talking out the wrong end .

          • Daniel F. Melton

            You’ve overdosed on the Kool-Aid.

          • 20pizzapies

            no Dan , you drank too much bad Tea . Get out of the echo-chamber once in a while , it’ll do ya good .

          • Typothetes

            Gee, 20pp, you treat everyone you debate with the same. You ignore the scientific links they provide. You don’t even read their entire post. You post zero scientific links yourself. Then, you post rants in response.
            You are an entirely unpleasant participant! Why don’t you go circle jerk with the other jerks at Reddit?

    • 20pizzapies

      Yes he is , and this is not the only subject he’s an idiot in .

  • ObamaYoMoma

    If manmade Global Warming were a reality, can anyone imagine the mentally deficient Marxists actually saving the planet from it? Me neither!

    Marxists are obsessed with destroying Capitalism, and the fossil fuel economy is the biggest driver of Capitalism in the world. Hence, manmade Global Warming is a concocted scheme cooked up by obsessed Marxists to curtail the fossil fuel economy and Capitalism at the same time. They must believe Capitalists are actually as dumb as they are. What miserable losers they are!

    • 20pizzapies

      Idiot extraordunaire .

    • Lightbringer

      Unfortunately, these miserable losers have somehow managed to attain positions of power over the rest of us. Be very afraid.

    • Daniel F. Melton

      Got it in one!

  • De Doc

    Of course it can be said that popular opinion does not necessarily reflect the truth. The main reason most Americans don’t believe the Global Warming meme is largely due to the source from which they get it. Scientists are not doing most of the talking in this case and that is mostly because scientists suck at communicating their ideas to the public at large. In addition there are some legitimate disagreements about the implications of climate change and how much humans have contributed to it.

    So most Americans get their ‘Global Warming’ info from the newsroom talking heads, Green Party nut jobs, or politicians, none of whom are particularly trustworthy in their ability to deliver an unbiased opinion. This naturally breeds a lot of skepticism, especially when radical social and economic changes are entertained as the solutions to global climate change. I keep an open mind about this issue and try as much as I can to review the unvarnished data, while avoiding the glitzy power points and films by certain washed up politicians that sell hype for purely selfish reasons.

    • Daniel F. Melton

      *** I keep an open mind about this issue and try as much as I can to review
      the unvarnished data, while avoiding the glitzy power points and films
      by certain washed up politicians that sell hype for purely selfish
      reasons.***

      Recall that algore is a failed divinity student as well. He apparently learned the sincerity* lesson while failing to grasp true belief.

      * “The secret to success is sincerity, once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” Jean Giraudoux

  • 20pizzapies

    Scientists [not politicians or SHILLS for the fossil fuel industry or Tea Party bought and sold ignoramus' ] have been warning about Co2 emissions since as far back as 1976 . Scientific American , before the right had declared all scientists commies , socialists or leftists , had been publishing findings from around the world regarding the relation between fossil fuel emissions and gradual overall global temperature rise. But just like the Tobacco Industry which dredged up Doctors who claimed cigarettes did not harm , the sycophants of Big Coal and Big Oil have been finding their “experts ” to counter what the main body of science has been documenting . The climate worldwide IS changing , and in large part due to greater amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere . Any one looking at the overall graphs of Global temperatures can clearly see a rise in temperature , but far more serious and impacting is the rise in Ocean Temperatures , which also IS occurring .
    But hey .003 % of scientists agree with the naysayers of Climate change , and the ignorant, for political and ideological reasons side with them . At the end of the day ,even with the fossil fuel industry GREED will rule , as they themselves are already gearing for change . Cheaper renewable energy is coming , and the technology is ever improving , when that happens watch your masters start running for the bucks .

    • ObamaYoMoma

      You are addicted to propaganda, which is why you are a Marxist idiot as well!

      • 20pizzapies

        And you are one of the biggest brainwashed schmucks I ever saw on the internet . Not to mention a wind-up parrot . Now go back to bed and kick yourself to sleep .

        • Daniel F. Melton

          Speaking of brainwashing, yours is still on the rinse cycle.

          • 20pizzapies

            C’mon Daniel ! Admit it ! You hate Gore and Democrats …and that’s Ok . Gore did a bad presentation of scientific facts , but you were already ideologically and politically predisposed to be biased against that . And all it took to push deniers like you over the edge was the British “Graph-Gate ” B.S. story which if you bothered to follow up on would have proven to be no scandal at all , with just a little earnest reading of the facts involved .
            As for ObamaYomama , well he walks around all day foaming from the mouth . If the Earth turned into a giant frying pan he would be screaming ” It’s the Marxists ,it’s the Marxists ” . If you care to agree or approve a schmuck like that , ….LOL…that’s on you chum .

          • Daniel F. Melton

            NWMT

          • 20pizzapies

            YAAFI

    • Drakken

      Silly leftard, Co2 is not a pollutant nor does it contribute to so called global warming in any way, shape or form. Say global warming to the folks in my native MN, it is going to get 40 below zero tonight.

      • Daniel F. Melton

        Starting a car in this weather involves a charcoal fire under the oil pan. I live just East of Fargo and we’ve been getting temps of -20 to -30 with wind chill in the -50 range. Ya don’t even snowmobile in this weather.

    • Bodart

      Silly poster, pauvre petite.
      Don’t you realize that only 15,000 yrs. ago , a mere blink of geological time, the East Coast lay under a half mile of ice as far south as Northern
      New Jersey, and Wisconsin was equally as buried.
      Something called “warming” ( or you can call it ” climate “change”)
      occurred, and these glaciers actually melted as the earth warmed even though factories , cities and oil drilling had not yet appeared.
      So how does the mentally challenged liberal mind account for this fundamental occurrence. It can’t because the liberal mind is incapable of reconciling this reality, because, in the words of the great Mark Levin ,:”Liberalism is a mental disease”.
      Pauvre Petites indeed !
      Silly poster, pound some sand.

      • 20pizzapies

        Narrow minded ignorance , based in being a lackey and sycophant for the politics of the Fossil fuel industry is far worse than any liberal ideas . And of course the same such imbeciles must reckon science as “liberal ” . And WHAT ? ” The great “who ? Mark Levin ? LOLOLOL….surely you jest !
        Go pound salt , oh brainwashed sycophant !

        • Daniel F. Melton

          You’ve got the communist nomenclature down pat.
          We’ve got to sacrifice our national economy to save the world from anthropogenic global warming; uh, global climate change; no, wait, it’s climate disruption; well, maybe it’s global climate weirding…. Never mind what we call it we’ve gotta DO something, even if it increases the stranglehold of government regulations, makes rich liberals even richer, and collapses the global economy with no discernible effect on the climate.

    • Typothetes

      Why do you visit and comment on right-wing sites, 20pizzapies? [I checked out your last few posts after I got bored with you at NRO.] This is a perfect article for you to comment on: weak opponents who probably have as much difficulty as you with reading for comprehension. You are a sorry weakling.

      • 20pizzapies

        bitcoins , climate change denier , lol…. you are the quintessential talking point parrot . I knew your pontification on bitcoins was not based in pragmatism , but emotional politics and ideology . Don’t hurt yourself sucker .

        • Typothetes

          I’m a libertarian, 20pp. The fact that you classify me as a “climate change denier” is another example of your apparent tendency to put people into narrow boxes that they don’t fit into. You might be righ6t about some people, but not about me.
          It seems scientific fact that the our world’s average global temperature has increased over the last 130 years. And, it is more likely than not that that trend will continue.
          The question is not as much whether temperature will rise, but by how much will temperature rise? Do you agree that that is really the question? And, that is really what the scientific consensus tells us. The scientific consensus does not tell us that climate change disaster is looming! Let’s be calm and smart and prepare for, and/or inexpensively prevent, negative climate change effects.

          • 20pizzapies

            Libertarian , gee I ever would have guessed it , LOL…it’s not as if one could not determine that . I chose simply not to overtly classify you out of respect , but now that you’ve admitted it ….you confirm my suspicions . I would term most bitcoin proponents the same as their distrust and disdain for a Central Bannk is a common thread . Of course there are also the thieves whose ideology is THEFT .
            In as much as climate change denier , let me qualify , even the most ignorant of the planet can not deny that the mean temperature of the Earth is rising , Glaciers and polar ice melting , and sea level rising . And there is no doubt that the amount of carbon /CO2 in the atmosphere is greater now than 100 years ago /500 years ago . The argument is whether or not it is natural or anthropogenic Since at least 1971 when I first subscribed to Scientific American , the science has been showing to be anthropogenic .And that is before it became dogma to the political parties to accept the facts or deny them . As a result very little has been done to address the problem . The Technology has been moving ahead begrudgingly to your lot , but now as a matter of cost rather than remedy , but that is changing .But as it always is with Conservatives , statism rules the day , and resistance to change a dogmatic requirement for the politicians . And there are agendas involved other than science . I guess you were not old enough then, to be aware of the same arguments regarding acid rain and destruction of Canadian forests due to toxic emissions from our northern industrial points . Well guess what ? You got a lot to learn and there is nothing you can “teach ” me .
            Smarten up bunky , you’re still wet behind the ears .

          • Typothetes

            You seem like an intelligent guy, 20pizzapies, but I do not understand your focus on conflict and disagreement. Look, again, at my last post! (I edited it several times and you might have missed my last edit–you are an early riser, like me…I was hoping all my edits would display before you read it. Maybe they did.)
            After you read my post, please reply by quoting a sentence with which you disagree, if it exists! My guess is that you can agree to 90-100% of the content of my post. Generalizing and categorizing me is bad debate tactics. Get specific! Do you really disagree with what I wrote? Prove it!

          • 20pizzapies

            I can agree with most of what you said . Sorry if I categorized you , but on this blog you are the exception rather than the rule . The “question ” as far as I’m concerned is , are we willing to accept that anthropogenic carbon is the culprit and if so , are we willing to do what is necessary to curtail the emissions . As for how much the Temperature will rise is an unknown , because we haven’t seen the full extent of the warming . And By that I mean if hypothetically we were able to eliminate all anthropogenic carbon emissions today , how long before the rise in temperature would stabilize . The problem is , that we see the effects of warming , and we know sea levels are rising , we are in fact experiencing climate change in several different but measurable ways ,yet the denial of anthropogenic carbon emissions is not based in science , but based on political , economic and emotional issues . An example of that is of course that great whipping boy Al Gore . It matters not if Gore was the biggest phony and liar on the planet , he is not the paradigm of the scientific studies regarding temperature rise globally and the resulting climate change. Ideologically rejecting the science is rejecting Gore .And that contentiousness goes back to Gore /Bush election . Do you think waiting to see how much more the temperature will rise , in view of the present observations , to be logical ?

          • Typothetes

            20pp: I think that the people on this site that deny anthropogenic global warming (AWG) are probably wrong. Though it is in the realm of science that AWG could be a MINOR cause of recently measured global warming. We shall see. The data and the science will get better.

            In the meantime, you ask “Do you think waiting to see how much more the temperature will rise , in view of the present observations , to be logical ?” OF COURSE I DO! Didn’t you read my post?
            What is illogical is to reduce global wellbeing by imposing costs on energy production that have a very good chance of being meaningless with regards to CO2 in the atmosphere. In other words, cap and trade and/or EPS regulation of carbon emissions might actually harm humanity overall. The regulations means less money in every American’s pocket, and higher energy costs for business and government. That means less consumer spending on other things, fewer jobs and less money for the government to spend on other things. We are talking about 10s of billions of dollars! Trillions of dollars in the long run. What will be the result of this spending? Huh? You tell me. Provide a link to a study that says how wonderful the world will be if we spend these billions. I bet you won’t find anything that is very impressive, especially considering the cost. But, hey, you are FOR regulating carbon, you must have read plenty of peer-reviewed studies that back up you scientific viewpoint about preventing Global Warming. Sure, you know what your talking about…just provide a link to that great study that you think proves your point…..go ahead….I’m waiting….still waiting….are you still there 20pp?
            So, the government should have to PROVE that reducing CO2 will be beneficial. “Climate deniers” have no responsibility to prove that reducing CO2 is pointless. The government should not spend a penny without very convincing evidence. That evidence does not yet exist, as far I have see. Prove me wrong, if you can.

          • 20pizzapies

            Why do you see reducing carbon emissions as negative to Global Wellbeing ? In the 70′s after the Saudi Embargo that caused people to wait in long lines on even and odd days , disrupting the economy , driving prices up for everything connected to oil , there was bi-partisan support for cutting dependence upon foreign oil . The strategy was Two-fold , develop more of our own sources and conserve energy while in the process moving ahead with alternate and renewable energy sources . WHAT happened ? There is no doubt that the more CO2 in the atmosphere , the warmer Global temperatures will get . There is no doubt that natural emissions of CO2 is 1 /130th approx. of anthropogenic emissions . There is no doubt that Ocean Temps are rising also as well as sea level and that is definitely due to melting Ice at the poles and glaciers . There is no doubt that the less ice on the poles the less of the suns heat is reflected back out into space and is instead absorbed . How much proof do you need ? Funny you should mention ” cap and trade “, the battle cry of the deniers . Luckily the government has went ahead with green technology because the rest of the world has moved ahead ,lol….people holding your position are like the frog in the pot of boiling water . Get your head out of right wing blogs , most of which are shills for big oil , as are most conservatives , and investigate the serious science publication which have no dog in the race .

          • Typothetes

            20pp question: “Why do you see reducing carbon emissions as negative to Global Wellbeing ?”
            My Answer: I don’t. I see wasteful government spending and/or pointless, expensive government regulation being harmful to human wellbeing. What is the cost of reducing carbon emissions and how much will it affect global temperatures? If you can’t answer that question then how can you support government action? Did you hear voices in your head?

            20pp question: “How much proof do you need ?
            My answer: proof of what? That there is such a thing as AGW? I agree that AGW exists. Are you not reading my posts?

            Question to 20pp: What do you think is the best policy to reduce AWG? How much will it cost and what is the benefit? (Cost should be in US dollars and benefits should in the expected decrease in AWG in degrees Celsius.)

            I bet that you can’t come up with a cost effective plan. You probably will find it hard to even get a cost benefit analysis for most schemes. Proponents tend to hide those facts since they tend to look ludicrously expensive for very small benefits.

            Since you appear to support government action, you must have some scientific, rational basis for your support. You certainly are not irrational like the “climate deniers.” Right? Prove it!

          • Typothetes

            Check out the link below to an article by the Cato Institute. Yes, it is a libertarian organization. The article includes a “calculator” function that shows how much AGW will be prevented under multiple scenarios. How much temperature rise do you think we can prevent by immediately reducing worldwide carbon emissions to zero? The calculator gives an answer based on values from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) along with values that have higher and lower climate sensitivity to CO2.

            The results are pretty depressingly small. It seems that eliminating all CO2 emissions in the entire world (under the IPCC sensitivity estimate) immediately will result in:

            Global Temperature Rise Averted
            2050: 0.104°C
            2100: 0.278°C
            That’s not much, eh?
            How much money are we willing to spend to make this happen? How much suffering would be caused by shutting down every CO2 emitting power plant in the world?

            Here is the link…keep an open mind.
            http://www.cato.org/blog/current-wisdom-we-calculate-you-decide-handy-dandy-carbon-tax-temperature-savings-calculator

          • Typothetes

            This is funny:
            “Democrats plan all-night ‘talkathon’ on climate change”
            http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/09/senate-democrats-talkathon-climate-change/6172647/

            Excerpt: “The Democratic effort is cause for some confusion because these senators are calling for action in a chamber they control but without any specific legislation to offer up for a vote, or any timetable for action this year.”
            My guess is that offering actual legislation would be political suicide to the sponsors: massive cost, little benefit. But no actual action should make voters feel good: no cost, about the same global temperature rise.

          • 20pizzapies

            I support action thay atleat denotes acknowledgement of the problem . If science indicates higher amounts of CO2 emissions are causing a rise in Global temperatures , which is causing sea level rise and changes in climate which are not beneficial but costly , my first reaction is NOT to continue full steam ahead with the same technologies that are emitting carbon , but rather to develop alternative technology , and to encourage conservation . Using your rationale we should all just sit here and wait for consequences that we very well be unable to rectify , indeed be even more expensive to deal with .. As to Government action ? This is why we have a SCIENCE COMMITEE in Congress , albeit , it is regrettable that some sitting on that committee think women have a built in mechanism to prevent conception when they are raped . That bespeaks volumes on how we choose such members to make decisions based on science . Science is a matter of Observing and predicting , Government’s responsibility is to make decisions based on science . Well the observations have been ongoing for over 4 decades , the predictions have been correct , unless of course you do not recognize or reject the results . If you think glacial retreat , and polar ice melting have nothing to do with the rise in global temps , then there is no sense arguing with such a position . And your position of waiting for temps to go higher , just about sums up such an attitude .It is the same argument of denial heard in the 70′s and since then sea levels have risen , temps have risen , glaciers have retreated , and polar ice is melting at 5 times the normally recorded rates . You deny the connection , As a result you support the government doing nothing .
            Oh well .

          • Typothetes

            Well, 20pp, you pretty much changed the subject, apparently since you are unable to name a single government action that would significantly reduce global warming. That is the most important part of this discussion. WHAT SHOULD BE DONE! And, you don’t answer.

            Instead, you criticize me for having a position I do not have: you seem to think I don’t connect global warming to melting ice and rising sea levels. You are mistaken.
            Now, back to the CAUSE of the melting and sea rise…WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT IT!

            Just because I think that GOVERNMENT can not do much, if anything, to reduce global warming at a price worth paying, that is not the end of the story!
            We the people, can do much that doesn’t require government action. We can conserve We can also support green businesses if we think it’s worth paying a little more.

            Further, BUSINESS is working very hard to invent the world-changing, clean and renewable energy at a competitive price that, if patented, could make that company the most profitable company in the history of the world. Even if global warming were not an issue, businesses still have huge incentives to create these alternative energies. AND THEY WILL BE CREATED no matter what the GOVERNMMENT DOES!
            Why will business to this? Because we, the customers, want them to! We want clean air and water! We also want cheaper energy. People are so smart, we will figure this out, especially if government gets out of the way, and keeps taxes low.

          • 20pizzapies

            You should either brush up on your reading comprehension OR remember what you write .

            If I’m reading the King’s English correctly , this was your question-
            quote-

            “Since you appear to support government action, you must have some scientific, rational basis for your support. You certainly are not irrational like the “climate deniers.” Right? Prove it! ” -end quote

            Then you went on an “off subject rant ” . So since you actually NOW insert the question , I’ll answer it . I can name several that the government has done , initiated or is attempting to enact . Cutting down carbon emissions from out of date plants -they must update equipment ,insisting and compelling car manufacturers to comply with higher mpg cars , discouraging any new coal fired electric producing plants , employing green technology where possible , that is renewable energy sources , and please , don’t recite any Solandra Mantras , it was a bust , yea the taxpayers got screwed , but in the event you haven’t just fallen out of a Christmas Tree , you know well that was not the first nor the last Govt. screw up . Even the US Navy is employing energy conserving technology and green technology on it’s ships .And there are Govt .subsidies for green technology research . If you want to know more , look it up , you’re a big boy . BTW , US Miltary Strategy for the present and near future incorporates Global effects due to rising sea levels and climate change .

          • Typothetes

            Yeah, 20pp, you did quote my last few sentences accurately. BUT YOU MISSED THE FIRST QUESTION!

            HERE IS WHAT I WROTE, that you did not answer:
            “Question to 20pp: What do you think is the best policy to reduce AWG? How much will it cost and what is the benefit? (Cost should be in US dollars and benefits should in the expected decrease in AWG in degrees Celsius.)”

            I BET YOU CAN’T ANSWER THAT QUESTION!
            And blabbing on and on about policies and programs without citing their costs or benefits is a very weak argument.

          • 20pizzapies

            Nor can you answer what the costs will be if we do nothing . As far as what to do ? If you accept the fact that the rise in global temperatures are in fact caused in large part due to anthropogenic sources , then the cost will be whatever is incurred in reducing those emissions . Will that in and of itself lead to higher taxes ? Maybe , maybe not , but the cost of doing nothing will be higher , and the least of your worries will be your tax burden . As far as your other part of the question , it is facetious on it’s face , no one can answer that because by all scientific standards and measurements , it would take at least 10 years to see any change if we were to hypothetically cur emissions to Zero this day …..but I’ve already stated that in a previous post . So your position is , if you accept that carbon emissions are the cause , and we are in fact experiencing the effects , that we are to do nothing in the way of reducing those emissions ? And then you demand a balance sheet when just about all the politicians who can effectively work up a plan are in a state of denial ? Get serious man , and talk like an adult . You worried about taxes ? Get the government out of the business of subsidizing oil companies and research for fossil fuel technologies and stop building bridges to nowhere , stop buying 35 billion dollar jet fighters that don’t work , stop Big Corporations from relocating to a P.O.box in Ireland or Switzerland to avoid paying their taxes , if it’s such a big deal get the legislation to lower the 35% corporate taxes to a level that will bring them back , or just simply MAKE them pay their fair share . Iraq cost us 7 trillion and BOTH sides are to blame for that fiasco . You are selective about where your money is wasted eh ?

          • Typothetes

            You are incorrigible. You accuse others of being irrational, yet you produce no links to scientists who believe that ending global warming will be inexpensive.

            Here is a link that shows that completely ENDING ALL CO2 emissions TODAY would have very little effect on global temperature over the next 50 to 100 years. Refute it!
            http://www.cato.org/blog/current-wisdom-we-calculate-you-decide-handy-dandy-carbon-tax-temperature-savings-calculator

            I thought that we were having a dialogue, but I’m pretty sure that you are just an irrational troll.

          • 20pizzapies

            Oh Gee , ambiguous ? LOL….never would have known . Editing your posts after you allege a question and already received a reply is a pretty childish thing to do .
            And I find it no surprise that your estimation of me is ” an irrational troll ” , what else could be expected from a brainwashed ignoramus like yourself , who repeats talking points like a trained parrot . You think you sound intelligent to yourself and your lot in this echo chamber , but out in the real world amongst educated people you present yourself as quite an uninformed idiot .
            Good Luck chump , you’re gonna need it . Go get a room with ObamaYoMama -you both would get along fine .

          • Typothetes

            Wow, you are mean and obnoxious. Further, you don’t base your posts on facts. I edited my post prior to your response, you douche! I edited and made sure that everyone knew I edited it! Yet, you make the false claim that you replied prior to the edit? How can you make such a stupid and baseless accusation? Because you are a jerk? Probably.
            I’m done with this thread. Go ahead and post something stupid in response. It only will make you look like a worse fool than you have already made yourself out to be.

  • The March Hare

    The temperature was fluctuating up and down for thousands and thousands of years before the population of men increased much beyond the small tribe stages. That alone completely discredits the global warming theory. Did most of the people forget this? Oh, yeah, that’s right! A large number of people don’t even know the earth revolves around the sun. It figures.

    • Daniel F. Melton

      *** A large number of people don’t even know the earth revolves around the sun.***
      This dumbing down is a primary indicator of the “success” of the government mandated “publik eddykashun sistum”. They don’t teach Civics, the Constitution, or History either, but they can take a simple 30 second to solve addition problem and complexify it into a near ten minute multi step exercise in liberal logic, complete with drawing symbols and combining groups.