Andrew Klavan: The Fake Crisis of Global Warming


I’m Andrew Klavan and this is the Revolting Truth.

It’s time to take an hysterical and panicky look at fake global warming.  Fake global warming is one of the most serious fake problems not actually facing our nation today.  According to smarmy billionaire Al Gore, we must take useless and expensive actions immediately or the polar ice caps will be completely melted by two thousand and thirteen… which will be catastrophic when last year arrives.

And the polar bears — oh, the polar bears!  Studies reveal that over the last twenty years, as computer models of the climate have progressively damaged computer models of their habitat, the polar bear population has steadily increased.  But that’s only in real life! In the computer models, the poor creatures are dropping like flies.

Let’s examine the distorted facts. Between the years 1950 and 2000, the earth’s temperature increased approximately nine tenths of a degree Centigrade. Over the exact same period, the price of butter in Morris County New Jersey rose from 77 cents a pound to nearly four dollars.  According to climate change logic, this means that if we give government the power to lower the price of butter in Morris County, the temperature should once again sink back to the levels of the 1950’s.  And weren’t the 50‘s a fine old time!  Who wouldn’t want those temperatures back again?

I realize there are some superstitious troglodytes who don’t believe in science.  They insist we have to go on powering our country with oil and gas instead of using sustainable energy from the holy Vitraya Ramunong tree from that great, great movie Avatar.  We’ve explained to them that 97 percent of scientists believe in global warming, but it means nothing to them, even though the number 97 percent has been scientifically selected as the most panic-inducing random number available.

But fake global warming is not just a fake problem for a computer generated future. Even as we speak, it’s creating a pervasive and irritating whining noise that sounds almost exactly like the President of the United States. This must be stopped.

I’m Andrew Klavan with the Revolting Truth.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Abel Adamski

    Enjoy your future
    What is happening in the world and to the earths axis and why?

  • redheart

    The most dangerous creature on earth is a Liberal/Socialist/Communist/Progressive

    • EdytaHusseinmuo

      my Aunty
      Allison recently got a nice 6 month old Jaguar by working from a macbook.this website C­a­s­h­d­u­t­i­e­s­.­C­O­M­

      • J.B.

        I recently bent over your auntie Allison in a Motel Six and she paid me enough to buy a NEW Jaguar.

  • Bert

    IF there is no problem with burning coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear then we should continue. But doing that also enriches our petro enemies and funds Iran’s nuclear program which also threatens the U.S.
    Self described conservatives correctly claim that solar, wind etc. cannot replace coal, oil, gas and nuclear. They then conclude that there is absolutely no other alternative – end of discussion.
    But suppose breakthrough energy technologies exist that can totally replace coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear and which are clean, safe, abundant and cheap. Such technologies would bankrupt Iran and our other petro enemies and cut the U.S. energy costs by about one trillion dollars per year.
    To simply investigate that possibility costs nothing and risks nothing. I have researched this matter and compiled data to be investigated. I approached many officials among liberals and conservatives. Most show no interest in even reading anything. Some conservatives have also attacked me with ridicule and insult for even suggesting that we might advance beyond current energy.
    I believe in free enterprise and allowing American inventors to risk private funds and be allowed to compete in the market place. I though this is what all conservatives support but I’m still searching for any willing to just investigate.

    • Americana

      I agree, Bert. There is inertia facing the U.S. on the energy front as well as the fears of the huge American and international conglomerates whose business it is to be petrochemically-dependent. These companies have made every effort to pretend that PEAK OIL is a fallacy and that we’ll be able to have sufficient oil far into the future. Trouble is, they’ve got no clue when we’ll run out of oil or what we’ll do if we don’t prepare for that eventuality well in advance. We need to have an EXTREMELY GRADUAL CONVERSION to alternative energy sources for our society to make the transition as easily as possible.

      Good luck in your search for alternative energy sources.

      • Patrick Henry

        Global warming is a hoax (600,000 years of ice core samples alone prove that higher temps FOLLOW higher CO2) so I won’t spend much much time preaching to the choir.The Peak Oil argument, as I understand it, assumes current technology, rising demand and falling supply. Fracking has thrown all previous estimates about supply out the window proving once again that one cannot assume any variable. We will NEVER run out of oil because a rising price will affect supply (because it provides an incentive to bring new supply to market) and demand (because the incentive is to drive smaller cars, or hybrids for suburban dwellers or a new technology heretofore unknown).
        One last point: government should NEVER pick winners and loser, regardless of the potential, only the private sector, for reasons that I hope I need not cover after the Solyndra boondoggle.

        • Americana

          Not sure how you understand fracking is going to provide a guaranteed oil supply into the indefinite future because it somehow relates to “supply and demand,” but you should understand that ALL our natural resources are at maximum use at the moment in many parts of the globe. Fracking is dependent upon using ENORMOUS amounts of water and fracking chemicals to free the oil from the oil strata. In some parts of the country, it’s already been proven that the fracking chemicals are infiltrating into the layers where our deepest aquifers as well as where many homeowner’s wells are located. It’s also been discovered that in locations where fracking has gone on extensively there has been an uptick in the earthquake tremors that have been registered.

          Our government should perhaps never pick winners or losers in the business sector but our government should never fail to guard against unintentional commission of environmental disasters in the guise of allowing free enterprise. There are a vast number of Superfund sites around the U.S. attesting to the fact that business and government should work together from now on to achieve the best outcomes for both the private and public sector. It’s yet to be proven that fracking will produce Superfund sites or reduce American aquifers for the 21st century but I know a highly internationally ranked chemist who left 3M because he didn’t want to be involved w/fracking chemicals. He doesn’t believe they’re safe and he believes we are putting ALL our aquifers at risk. All we need in some of these locations for the infiltration to be complete is to have a few earthquakes of substantial size and those aquifers may be contaminated for the foreseeable future.

          • Mark Luhman

            Fracking uses less than 1/10 of 1% of the water used in agriculture. That not enormous in anyone book, and average size town consumes more water in a year than all of Fracking. As to the aquifers, most oil resides below a salt formation that what keeps it from coming to the surface were that not true you fine it shallow two place in the US I know of is where that happens, Pennsylvania and California and is it wonder Pennsylvanians have problem with water, they drilled oil tin Pennsylvania first because it was less than 100 feet below the surface. If you drill a hole in Pennsylvania god only know what you will hit. Next when you drill an oil well you need to use fresh water in most places until you are well below the aquifers, in North Dakota that is 1500 feet, you than case it. Casing is were you place a non-permeable pipe down you then place a second pipe down the hole and you plug the end of the casing at the bottom so you pump concrete down that second pipe to force the concrete up the outside of the casing you do not stop until the concrete push up on the surface all around that casing. Next you pull out that second pipe and start drilling you will have a concrete plug on the bottom of the casing to drill through generally it is only a few feet, you than drill into the formation, The Bakken formation lays anywhere from 8000 feet to 12,000 feet below the surface, at that point you drill horizontal through to get to Bakken. To get there you had to drill through one or more salt formations which is self healing if you were to desert the hole at any time and did not plug it, which is required another words you fill it wit a non permeable substance, if you did not do that the salt would self heal and plug it. So now after drilling with drilling fluid far more caustic and polluting than any fracking fluid, you again run a casing the several mile of hole you now have and again pump concrete all the way backup the outside of the new casing to the surface so what you end up with is the first 1500 double cased at that point you are ready for fracking. The first step of fracking is putting dynamite in at the frack point to initially frack the rock and break through the casing all the fracking is done at the 8000 to 120000 ft level. the water and sand with some glass beads are than eject into the hold to further frack the rock and fill the fissures, the evil chemicals are thing that make the water slippery, like soap, there will also be something to kill the bacteria that lives down there because that bacteria does love to consume the soap like chemicals. If you think a properly cased well is going to contaminate the aquifer you are nuts, lastly a well has to be cased properly other wise it would leak oil and losing oil is bad for the bottom line as well as the environment. So I would suggest you get real get good numbers before you type the nonsense you did. Oh by the way fracking started in the 1860 and they do frack water wells.

          • Americana

            Salt is an extremely fragile natural geologic casing that is frangible both when the salt is drawn into the fracking solution and when cavities are left after the completion of fracking. It’s self-sealing but that’s because its crystalline structure collapses. If it collapses in on itself, where does all that extraneous remaining fracking fluid go? An indication of this process is what happening in Florida w/the collapse of enormous sections of the calcareous limestone when the aquifers begin to run low and near dry for too long periods and there is migration of saltwater into the freshwater aquifer voids. We can believe that fracking is simply dependent on the safety of a correctly designed and executed well-casing but that’s only the beginning of the fracking process in reality. The truth of the matter is that fracking is the beginning of the process and the completion of the process is when the final degradation of the fracking materials left behind in the drill site has occurred deep within the geologic formations.

            The fracking that was done to produce water wells in the 1800s was minor in size and power. They also weren’t done as a contiguous structural lattice through large portions of an underlayment strata. Those water wells would never have caused the issues that fracking for oil is causing. A friend who’s an organic chemist left the fracking business because of his concerns over the chemicals. He’s not a worrywart type of guy.

      • Popescu2

        The energy source for the future as far as electricity goes is still nuclear. Thorium is another candidate for nuclear reactors. For powering vehicles and airplanes we are dependent on hydrocarbons. Electric cars are just BS

      • Bert

        Notice that some responses are the angry denunciations that I cited in my original comment. Notice NO ONE showed any interest to read anything to investigate other possibilities. I contacted dozens of elected officials, environmental organizations, media, etc. I suggested that they simply investigate some of the large amount of research that is on the internet. I offered a list of related web sites to make their task easy. Yet NOT ONE official was willing to even read anything and most never bothered to respond.
        I know I have limitations but am willing to read new information in case my current assumptions are wrong. Many people act as if their self worth is connected to their beliefs. And to question their belief is to denounce them as a human. Hence they fight fiercely to protect their fragile egos.

        • Americana

          Yes, it’s very strange, isn’t it? I would send your solicitation only to those w/PROVEN INTEREST in your line of scientific subject. Keep on investigating whatever it is in which you’re interested. I have a friend who’s a scientific patent translator lawyer as well as a chemist and he’s invented a new system for (can’t mention it), and he’s sure there will be many more breakthroughs of all kinds. He’s got some ideas about nanotechnology and energy that are fascinating.

    • mccarthypk

      @disqus_4oZHUbAgLb:disqus you say ” To simply investigate that possibility costs nothing and risks nothing” — your statement is valid if only you and your venture capitalists spend your time and money researching new tech.. BTW, I am all for you doing it, just don’t take my tax dollars and flush it down old technology (wind, solar).

      • Bert

        Please do not put your words in my mouth. I said “private funds” but you evidently do not read English.

        • mccarthypk

          @disqus_4oZHUbAgLb:disqus But you cannot name any company today in this area that is not on corporate welfare. I did re-read your comment and did miss the private funds. However, you must be perfect and read everything perfectly EVERY TIME.

    • Dachs_dude

      You had better patent that perpetual motion machine attached to a generator before someone else thinks of it. P.S. Don’t tell Newton, I hear his 2nd Law is a b*tch to deal with!!

    • Popescu2

      So you propose what?
      As far as anything moving, there is no viable alternative to liquid fuel i.e. hydrocarbons

    • Mark Luhman

      Why does you people like oppose developing our energy supplies here than if you are so worried about financing our enemies, our proven reserves out strip there you about 80% are presently off limits. WE have the most oil reserve, gas reserves and coal reserves, yer people like you will not allow us to develop them. You are a nut there is nothing out there that can replace our present energy mix, I suppose you also have good photos of Nessie and Big Foot also.

  • LawReader

    It bears repeating that the ‘birth’ of the ‘modern environmentalist movement’ can be traced to a single event – Rachel Carson’s book ‘Silent Spring’ – which put forth the ‘scientific consensus’ (as bogus as the climate version) that ‘DDT was killing the planet’.

    The ‘green hysteria’ that followed this phony tome – egged on by such enlightened idiots as the UN (the IPCC guys…), resulted in a ban on the only substance on earth that could prevent Malaria for pennies – and 50 million people died as a direct result of environmentalism.

    Keep that in mind as stories start surfacing in the winter about the elderly and poverty stricken people freezing to death because they’re unable to pay what will soon be ‘astronomically skyrocketed’ energy costs associated with the quaint concept of ‘heating’…

    The flabbergasting stupidity of stating there is a ‘normal’ temperature for Earth’ pretty well instantly debunks the validity of any brain/mouth combo it emanates from…

    • Americana

      The environmental sciences were coming on the scene regardless of whether there was a book like “Silent Spring.” There has been a gradual and ever increasing growth of environmentalism science as a discipline which parallels the growth of those component sciences that play a role. Some of our increasing capabilities to interpret climate science come from newly developed abilities to delve into the depths of the ocean and take benthic readings of deepwater thermoclines and currents. There are tons of new scientific endeavors related to correctly interpreting our climate. Not every scientific insight is as clear from its initial concept as Newton’s Law of Gravity. To claim that any scientist ANYWHERE is claiming there is a “normal temperature for Earth” is not only nonsensical, it’s ignorance taken to the 12th dimension of stupid.

      • J.B.

        The Chicken Littles are absolutely claiming the Earth’s temperature is abnormally warm. They have been predicting scorching heat, greenhouse humidity, flooded coastlines, monster hurricanes, superstorms, drought, famine and other apocalyptic conditions for over thirty years now. Every single one of their fake predictions has been proved wrong year after year. But hey, maybe this year they will finally come true. HAHAHAHA!

        You are an absolute idiot to write such an obvious lie. Stupidity is supposed to have limits but you prove otherwise. TROLLTARD.

  • truthtroll

    “Over the exact same period, the price of butter in Morris County New Jersey rose from 77 cents a pound to nearly four dollars.”

    Has this old fool ever heard of inflation?

    • Mark Luhman

      The old fool is tracking climate change against the raising cost of butter it correlates as well as the rising level of CO2. I questioning whom the fool is.

      • trapper

        WELL SAID.

      • Guest

        It’s tongue-in-cheek. A joke. Who’s the fool now?

  • Andy_Lewis


  • amiabledunce

    “In the computer models, the poor creatures are dropping like flies”-Outstanding.Loved the whole video-nice work.

  • herb benty

    Great stuff Mr.Klavan!

  • billyd1953

    This was so stupid that at first I mistook it for satire. No factual, scientific explanations will ever have any influence on the denialist community. For them it’s not about science or nature or reality, it’s about some kind of odd, paranoid, delusional personality disorder that sees bizarre, implausible, conspiracies under every rock and stone. How many of them realize that the science of global warming via greenhouse gases dates back nearly 200 years to the 1820s, when Fourier calculated that the earth wold be a frozen, icy rock in space if certain atmospheric gases weren’t absorbing and retaining a portion of the sun’s energy? How many of them realize that scientists calculated over 100 years ago that continued burning of coal would eventually lead to global warming? They think everything is about liberals and Al Gore and Obama, but in fact, global warming is a purely scientific issue. Nature doesn’t care about liberals or conservatives or what they think about anything. She will continue along with her inexorable physical laws, in this case the one where CO2 absorbs energy in the infrared spectrum and warms the planet. Denialists are utterly clueless when it comes to science. They’re all living in some sort of echo chamber where all they ever hear is their own myths and misinformation rehashed over and over endlessly, and their only means of processing it all is their hopelessly primitive, rudimentary misunderstanding of even the most basic scientific concepts.The denialist is fueled by unbridled hubris, remarkable ignorance, a mind incapable of critical thinking. And sadly, you just can’t fix these strange and stubborn creatures. We just have to plod forward without them and try to save the planet despite them. If you try to debate them you will find it the most annoying experience you can imagine. They’re not just wrong, they have no idea what they’re talking about whatsoever. They don’t use logic or empiricism, and have no regard for the facts. You’ll quickly see that they don’t phrase anything in a professional scientific fashion using empirical facts, observations, or anything resembling logic. Why? Because, for reasons I don’t fully understand, they have no qualms about ranting on and on endlessly about things they know nothing about and have no education, training, or experience in.

    • Libslayer

      I’m a scientist. Catastrophic man-caused climate change is a fraud, as are the many charlatans profiting handsomely from the deception, including Barack Obama.
      Get off your high horse.
      You are parroting nonsense

      • billyd1953

        I don’t parrot anything. I just use my brain. I couldn’t care less what politicians think about anything, including Gore or Obama. Why do you insist on making a scientific issue into a political issue. Do you honestly think nature gives a darn what politicians think, or for that matter what any of think about anything. She’ll have her way no matter what rhetoric you throw around. I’m a Ph.D. scientist, too. I got my Ph.D. in 1986 and a bachelor’s degree in Chemistry in 1978, along with a math minor. I’m also a professional computer programmer. It’s just like I said above you all think it’s about politics. Anyway, as long as you are a scientist, you tell me where you think the extra retained energy in our atmosphere is somehow magically disappearing to. At least propose something other than mere nay-saying and denial.

        • Libslayer

          As a computer programmer, I invite you to write a program that accurately simulates climate. You will fail, just as all “climate scientists” have repeatedly demonstrated. Climate change is a non-falsifiable theory and predicts precisely nothing of value to anyone but those who profit from the hoax. The promoters of the great global warming swindle are mostly liberal democrats, so it is a partisan issue due to the constant need for politicians to fleece the public. Opportunistic and corrupt scientists rake in big research grants to study a phenomenon over which mankind has little control. The is no linear relationship between temperature and temperature, tornado frequency, hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc, etc, etc. This is a fabrication. It is not possible to accurately model climate, and efforts to mitigate carbon use will have literally no measurable effect on climate, but will have devastating effects on the US economy.

          • ZincKidd

            At least you admit you don’t know anything about the climate.  As a computer programmer, I can tell you there are useful things that models can and do tell us.  But never mind all that.  You don’t need models to see that after some 8000 years of stable sea level, the sea has risen significantly in the last 150 years.  8 inches since 1900 and the rate is increasing.  If sea level had been rising at that rate since Roman times, many Roman built structures would be underwater now.  The rise is clearly a recent phenomenon, after a long period of relative stasis.  But go ahead, keep your head in the sand– I have some property in Miami you may be interested in.

          • Mark Luhman

            ZincKidd Sea level are constantly changing they have not been static for 8000 years, there are Roman and older Mediterranean culture structures under water where do you think the story of Atlantis came from? There is a castle in England that was built on the centuries ago on the sea shore, now it is a quarter mile from the sea. I don’t know where you get your information but I can tell you it is adult male bovine fecal mater.

          • Libslayer

            I defy you to name one SINGLE bit of useful information from the climate models.
            I am an organic chemist. I rely on sound science and empiricism. Writing a computer model that predicts that the climate will change is the height of idiocy. These models are completely useless. Refute that if you can.
            You can’t.
            Global warming/climate change/climate destruction or whatever they’re calling it now is a non falsifiable theory, that predicts precisely nothing.
            This is not science. It’s politics to enrich the federal government at the expense of gullible taxpayers.

          • Libslayer

            There is no linear relationship between CO2 levels and temperature, sea levels, hurricane frequency, tornado frequency, droughts, floods, etc, etc, etc. NONE.
            You are the one with your head in the sand. And CO2 is a bit player in the thermodynamic stability of the planet. Most of the so called greenhouse effect (95%) is from water vapor. Maybe we should spend gazillions to finally stop that diabolical evaporation. Or Obama can repeal the laws of physics by executive order. MASSIVE taxation is the plan, and it will have zero effect on climate.

          • J.B.

            Sea level has not risen by eight inches since 1900. Amsterdam, Venice, the Maldives, Florida and many other highly conspicuous geographical locations would be underwater if that were true.

            Trolltarded cretin

          • ZincKidd
          • Bklyn Farmer

            Never really thought of if-then-else statement as an acknowledgment of scientific insight and reasoning.

          • Americana

            Sorry, Libslayer, but you’re wrong about the climate models not functioning at all. They are BEING PERFECTED — over time — and are gradually gaining in accuracy as the correct scientific ingredients are being added to the models. The world’s climate is an incredibly complex mix of fluctuating, interactive elements that interactions aren’t quantifiable as a chain of single events as if it were a chemistry experiment. The more data streams they are able to add to the analysis, the more accurate the evidence will become. But there is INCONTROVERTIBLE evidence that the burning of fossil fuels by humans has changed not only the acidity of fresh water on the continents in certain regions but has also significantly altered the chemistry of the oceans. Even if you don’t believe in other aspects of global climate change, the chemical change in the oceans should concern you. We know from having corrected our air pollution and stopping acid rain across the northern U.S. that we’ve been able to stop acid rain from making our fresh water lakes and rivers too acid for fish, amphibians and other animals. The oceans are in need of that very same kind of assiduous control of our fossil gases production or the chemistry of the oceans will fail to produce the fish and shellfish on which we’ve all relied.

            No scientific system has EVER been understood without long periods of analysis and experiments designed to delineate the science behind what we witness. It’s simply NOT POSSIBLE to be right from the get-go. Even thinking of scientists long ago who developed theories about the planetary revolutions, they made numerous false theories only to have someone eventually arrive at the truth. In part, those scientists arrived at the truth by standing on the piles of discarded ‘truths’ they had shown to be falsehoods. But when scientists reach consensus on an issue, there is very little likelihood they are all wrong. There are just far too many checks and balances involved in the production of the science and everyone is looking for the flaws and the overview theory because it’s the golden ring.

          • Libslayer

            Just as the alchemists “perfected” the art of turning lead into gold, climate “scientists” are perfecting their models that always come to the conclusion that the situation is so dire, only more cash will help.
            This is the largest scientific hoax in history.

          • Americana

            Ah, very interesting that you don’t mention what your scientific credentials are, just that you are a “scientist” and that therefore your voice carries some weight. The fact that the British Royal Society took on the denialists and the denialists backed down and admitted they didn’t object to the science of global climate change but they were worried about the cost to the developed world is very telling. This is not the largest scientific hoax in history, it’s the largest attempt at doing COLLECTIVE SCIENCE across MANY SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES in history. I expect there to be missing data and glitches and bloopers until the scientists come to more final conclusions. In the meantime, I’m going to listen to what I hear from friends at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts and the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. They’re a lot more educated than you obviously are and they’re not doing the science to “make money” because they’ve got steady jobs. They’re doing the science because they know we’re in a make or break time period for humanity to make decisions that will affect humans for the foreseeable future.

          • Libslayer

            I have a Ph.D. In organic chemistry from UW-Madison, a dozen years as a medicinal chemist and I have about twenty patents on drugs I designed and synthesized.
            I am a real scientist.

          • Americana

            You are a medicinal chemist and you obviously aren’t reading the environmental science because otherwise you’d have disputed that. You bring on the scientific elements to this hoax as you understand them and we’ll discuss those one by one. I may have a chemist friend or two join us from 3M to facilitate the conversation. Please write up your list of questions and disputed date and I’ll see if they’re willing to answer them w/me.

          • Libslayer

            Here’s one: if we spend trillions of dollars, reducing CO2 “emissions” (along with the standard of living for billions of people), what will the “climate” be like once we’ve “solved” the diabolical problem?
            You will never get a straight answer, because there isn’t one. Humans can’t control climate. Period.
            I’d like to see an accurate cost/benefit analysis.
            But that’s not possible based on flawed science, and biased conjecture.
            And there is a fundamental problem here.
            No one, not even “climate scientists”, can predict the future. The models are completely useless. These are charlatans.
            “Watts up with that” is a great site for real scientific discussions about climate, without the pressure to promote a lie for political or financial reasons.
            Check it out if you dare.

          • Americana

            You’re a scientist and that is not what I mean when I say “bring on the science.” That is a sociological fear about what we’ll do regarding the financial aspects of this. Please bring on a legitimate scientific concern that you feel you’ve identified as a global climate change scientific snafu and I’ll see what I can do to explain/rebut it.

            We most certainly can INFLUENCE climate and climatological EFFECTS or we wouldn’t have succeeded in NEUTRALIZING our production of acid rain way back when. You remember that, right? Where all the lakes in northern U.S. and into Canada had begun to become too acidic for aquatic life and plants? We changed several things about our power production and we solved the acid rain problem. Now this example about eliminating acid rain might not be the grandiose “change/control the climate plan” that you’re envisioning is being advocated by these climatologists but that’s what I believe they’re after. I’m envisioning a gradual change toward emphasizing sustainable energy and good building design so that we’re not forced to heat our homes to a farethewell because they’re so inefficiently built and designed. Humanity is not impotent in the face of these issues and we can’t pretend to be impotent. We are facing peak oil and every manner of challenge stemming from that.

            I have a friend who just built a new home as a passive solar home w/exceptionally thick walls and some masonry interior heat storage units. His flooring throughout most of the house is that warm floor stuff which is run off solar panels. Everything about the house was designed for maximal heat gain in the winter and maximal heat perfusion in the summer. He pays NOTHING as far as heating/cooling costs go, winter or summer.

          • Libslayer

            Good for your friend. He’s obviously got some money.
            Most people, particularly now in year six of the Obama depression, don’t have the cash to blow on green energy.
            Have your own utopia. But don’t force me to pay for it.
            Your green schemes will make a few filthy rich, at the expense of millions of poor and middle class.
            And there will be no measurable effect on climate.

          • J.B.

            “Watts up with that” is a good website. A bit on the overcautious side but a good source of factual information about the climate.

            Chicken Littles like Americretin fear it more than a bath on Sunday night.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            First you ask for his scientific credentials then when he tells you, you find fault with it (oh what a surprise) and finally you have the audacity to tell him of his reading habits. It is ironic that you are dismissive of his degree in chemistry but want enlist the help of your chemistry friends.

          • Americana

            That’s not exactly how you should interpret my post, BF. What I wrote previously is this:(Americana) You are a medicinal chemist and you obviously aren’t reading the environmental science because otherwise you’d have disputed that. You bring on the scientific elements to this hoax as you understand them and we’ll discuss those one by one.

            Then he proceeded to answer that not by bringing a real scientific question to the fore but instead focused on the economic effects of coping w/global climate change and humans not being able to influence the climate. I’m still willing to listen to what he’s got to say but I’d expect someone who’s an organic chemist to bring up a SPECIFIC issue, say something like what the differences are between the carbon sink activity of open, bare soil vs soil that’s got growing vegetation covering it. Or another thing on which his organic chemistry would provide EXCELLENT INSIGHTS is into how it is we controlled acid rain and what that means to controlling the shifting chemistry in the ocean. Humans in industrialized countries were able to change their practices to REDUCE/ELIMINATE acid rain.

            See the difference? I’m not slamming his scientific credentials, I’m simply pointing out that he’s not using them in ways that are answering my questions.

          • Libslayer

            I think you are making a reasonable point here. I focus more on the feasibility of CO2 reduction when discussing the issue than the science aspects. The logistics of a worldwide reduction in carbon dioxide is practically impossible, and would require a massive coercive top down enforcement program. It’s not gonna happen.
            As for the science, I don’t know many aspects of “climate science” particularly theoretical aspects. But, I can look at empirical data – which do not support the theory, and the sloppy way these people do research, along with some thermodynamic considerations, and come to the conclusion that reducing CO2 is a fools errand. So a cursory look at the theory shows a mess, the correlation is vague to nonexistent, and the “solution” is unworkable.
            The deeper I look, the more I’m convinced.
            Real scientists don’t fabricate data.
            Climate scientists do.

          • Americana

            Gotcha. Well, I regard regulating and/or reducing CO2 emissions a reasonable aim not simply because the climate science is not yet settled on all scores but because of having to face the status of PEAK OIL. Because we are currently at peak oil and the world’s population and oil/fossil energy use is increasing, we need to find alternative means of energy production REGARDLESS of other climatological fallout. To me, the solution is NOT UNWORKABLE. The fact is, having homes become energy-efficient and incorporating passive as well as active solar features is a no-brainer. It’s something which we have to achieve in any case over the next few decades in order to prevent any unforeseen shortages for our industrial sector. I don’t believe that climate scientists have fabricated data. They’ve crunched data in different ways to see what the data produced under different scientific scenarios. That’s a very different pursuit of the truth than what you’re claiming which is that they intentionally lied.

          • Libslayer

            They have lied. The Michael Mann “hockey stick” graph is a good example. The East Anglian emails, and numerous other frauds have been exposed. Good science isn’t cloaked in mystery and presented fraudulently to make a false case.
            Second, we’ve been running out of oil for decades now and we gave more than ever. We have massive untapped reserves of oil, gas, coal, and tars ands and shales. We have reserves that could last for millennia.
            The energy of today is oil, gas, coal, hydroelectric, and nuclear fission.
            The energy of the future is nuclear fusion.
            I predict we will have a practical fusion reactor within fifty years. Once we go fusion, oil, gas and coal will only be useful in limited applications, and the “fossil fuel” supply problem, AND the CO2 emissions will no longer be an issue.

          • Americana

            I don’t believe oil is that optimistically projected even w/the tar sands and fracking of shales thrown into the equation. As for what reserves might lie in the deep ocean, that is such a problematic environment and the possibility of messing w/the already fragile and /or collapsed fish stocks will likely be an issue, I don’t believe it’s going to be within our knowledge basis for umpteen decades.

            It’s hard to tell how close they are energy from nuclear fusion. Didn’t they just do a tiny fusion experiment that proved it could be done? Nonetheless, unless our present nuclear reactors can be renovated to work for nuclear fusion, we’re going to be at least a few decades out (between conducting all the research and being sure of the design methodology) before nuclear fusion plants come one line. Like you, I’m optimistic about that being one of the our future energy sources that will help save the day.

          • NfldCelt

            So just as Phil Jones admitted when asked why there has been no warming for more than 15 years, a period he said would make all their models useless… “We just don’t know all the things that affect climate.” In other words, we don’t know what we are doing. So as more data comes in they can tinker with their models, but still no idea how they will turn out and what or how many factors are involved. They might even conclude that we are going to have a cooling trend. Since they are still trying to figure out what affects climate, there is no way to know what the results might be.
            But yet somehow carbon is the culprit anyway. ” We don’t know what affects climate”, but they’re sure it’s carbon! So trying to affect political and social policy when they really don’t know what is going on is close to criminal.
            Incidentally I’m a geologist and I don’t know one geo who believes this nonsense. I’m all for a clean world as I see more of it than most anyone else. But I’d like to see some really defensible science at work. Not just alarmism. SInce Keeling(?) starting measuring CO2 levels in 1958, they have been rising. Meanwhile temps were cooling till 1976, went up for 20 years and now have gone nowhere for 17. You can almost certainly extrapolate before 1958, that CO2 was increasing during earlier years as well. Thus, the upshot is that increasing CO2 levels have a negative correlation with temps. There really is no other way to look at it. So CO2 either creates cooling or the more reasonable is that it is a rather unimportant contributor.
            Also of note, where I live we used to have frogs, even though they were never native. Then they pretty much disappeared. Lately they have made a serious comeback. Finding them all over the place now. Things aren’t as bad as it seems.

          • Americana

            I wouldn’t condemn the environmental scientists’ efforts to produce computer models simply because the system is so complex they can’t figure out all the moving parts. The fact is, they are in some cases figuring out moving parts in crucial ways that will lead to greater accuracy in the computer models. Besides, there are several aspects to the carbon sinks around the world that are settled science. One very important one is the growing acidity of the oceans which is causing shellfish populations to fail to thrive since they can’t form their shells. The oyster farming on the Oregon and Washington and California coasts have actually relocated to other countries in order to find less acid oceanic waters for their oyster beds. I’ll go grab a link for you… I found this very interesting.

          • NfldCelt

            Exactly my point. It is way too complex and the science is really in its infancy, yet we are to believe that it’s all about CO2 anyway, when they just don’t know. And then out comes another catastrophic prediction, after the first bunch failed. How many time do you get to cry wolf? So I wouldn’t condemn them for trying, but I would condemn the alarmism and the politicos and obvious leftists who try to use this as a club. Seems to be an agenda out there that has nothing to do with science. The UN really tends to highlight that. Ocean acidification and basically any type of pollution is never good. As a nation that grew up harvesting the sea, that ocean is important. But also I dislike anyone claiming “settled science”. It is only ever settled until someone observes things differently. Then it all changes. But I’d be interested in the link.

        • Popescu2

          And this does not qualify you as basically nothing more than other posters. As a chemistry degree guy you shall know that all the hype on “climate change” is a fraud. For once the atmosphere is not a greenhouse so the green house effect is not really valid for the atmosphere. You also shall know more about radiating vs convection heat so the whole BS from the warmsts shall be crystal clear for you unless you’re one of them!

        • J.B.

          You use your brain? As what? Toilet paper?

      • Americana

        Oh, what’s your scientific specialty? Perhaps you’d like to explain the carbon sink in the oceans and why there is an amazing shift in the acidity in the oceans such that shellfish larvae of all species aren’t able to form their calcium-based shells? Shall I go on w/a list of similar questions all relating to the human burning of fossil fuels of all kinds?

        • dontdoitagain

          Talking points. Here’s another little jewel for you to use! The polar bears are seen 300 miles from land as well. How terrible! Just awful! Except they are marine mammals, like whales, and have always floated, drifted or swam 300 miles out to sea. ps your computer is made from parts containing fossil fuels… The process to make it used…fossil fuels. The energy to send your message uses…fossil fuels. Save the planet, don’t write, and save us from your sillyness.

          • Americana

            Who ever disputed that polar bears floated 200 or 300 miles out to sea? I never would. But the fact there are polar bear populations that are returning to slightly more southerly regions where they are interbreeding w/brown bears is a sign they’re shifting their range.

            Talking points? They’re supposed to have content not be the old talking point about “there hasn’t been a temperature increase for the past 16 years.” Now THAT is a talking point that has NO VALIDITY given the present interpretations for the evidence behind that time lag.

          • J.B.

            If polar bears are heading South that means the Earth is getting colder. The inconsistencies of the global warming hoax are plsin for any simpleton to see. Only a complete douchetard could push such a ridiculous fantasy and expect anybody eith half a brain to believe it.

            Damn, you trolltards ate dumb.

          • Americana

            Boy, not sure why my comment about the polar bears rationale for moving around keeps being deleted. Maybe you’re a sacred cow… or a sacred bear… Some sort of sacred beast any way.

            The polar bears are likely following prey species as much as they’re moving w/the ice. It’s not a matter of the polar bears simply avoiding or following the cold. Only a complete dodgebrain would think up such a ridiculous fantasy of a solo causation factor and expect anybody else w/half a brain to believe it.

        • 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 look higher on graphs; 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 (during a visit to Australia to deliver a lecture at Deakin University in February 2013, the UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, acknowledged the 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed 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, three years ago, the National Solar Observatory published three separate reports stating that the sunspots are going to hit a low and may disappear altogether. 400 years of observation reveal a clear pattern: fewer sunspots, colder temperatures; more sunspots, warmer temperatures.

          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 lag). After several years of very changeable weather, the planet is 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.

          • Americana

            Suss, suss, suss, SussexGirl — The failure of the temperatures to rise for the last 15-17 years has been explained but you are looking at these events on a human timeframe as if we matter a hill of beans in the geological scheme of things. Whether you believe or not in global climate change, there are additional reasons for not pretending that humanity can continue on its merry way w/its use of fossil fuels. Aside from natural gas, which we have in relative abundance, the advent of PEAK OIL means that we cannot continue to depend upon oil as if it’s going to be available for the foreseeable future. So whether you believe it or not, humanity is being checkmate on the board and either we choose to get on board w/other modalities and energy sources or quite a few of us are going to suffer the consequences, from the bottom rungs on up. (Off to get some research material for you since you’ve obviously equipped yourself w/the least important aspects of the global climate change models while ignoring the substantive aspects that cannot be explained away.)

          • J.B.

            Stupid Luddite. Your Chicken Little nonsense is old news. You can only politicize science for so long before people catch on.


          • Americana

            Me, a Luddite? Get the lead out, political poseur.

        • J.B.

          I’ve heard more realisyic BS on the Sy Fy channel.

          Trolltarded buffoon.

      • A Z

        Big Bang Blunder and the Carbon Pollution Canard

        “what does this have to do with climate change?”

        “It seems there are some eery similarities between the gravity wave blunder and the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) debacle. Let me quote Dr. Steinhardt:

        …Yet some proponents of inflation who celebrated the BICEP2 announcement already insist that the theory is equally valid whether or not gravitational waves are detected. … “

        • Libslayer

          Thanks for the link!!
          Fascinating stuff.
          Never trust science with an agenda.

    • Popescu2

      Skate the nuclear powered submarine set a course for the Isle of Portland, England. Before returning home, she had also visited ports in France and the Netherlands.
      On 30 July, Skate steamed to the Arctic where she operated
      under the ice for 10 days. During this time, she surfaced nine times
      through the ice, navigated over 2,400 miles (3,900 km) under it, and on
      11 August, 9:47 pm EDT [2] (the week after USS Nautilus) became the second sea ship to reach the North Pole, and first to surface there, earning the Navy Unit Commendation
      award for “… braving the hazards of the polar ice pack….” Despite
      numerous surfacings through the icepack, the surfacing at the North Pole
      was notable due to the lack of ice around the pole.
      This is a fact reported and recorded. What do you think about this?

    • Americana

      Yes, billy, this was funny but funny in a TERRIFYING, ‘OMG, what can this fool be thinking’ kind of way. Of course, Klavin isn’t actually thinking. He’s merely the paid mouthpiece of the Heartland Institute or another of those sponsored political propaganda mills that can only ridicule the science not actually rebut it.

      Perhaps one of the strongest indications of this propaganda mill’s activities was when the British Royal Society called together Lord So-and-So and a bunch of his hand-selected “scientists” to discuss global warming science. When Lord So-and-So arrived for the presentation, he had chosen to bring public relations people, a single SCIENCE JOURNALIST/WRITER, and no climatologists or other weather-related scientists of ancillary specialities like oceanography. During this meeting, Lord So-and-So made the admission that “they weren’t disputing the science behind global climate change, but they were worried about the COSTS involved if human societies in the developed world had to pay to mitigate global climate change.” The British denialists have been largely silent since they had their little heart-to-heart meeting w/the Royal Society. Perhaps it’s time for the United States to take similar steps w/the Koch brothers and the Heartland Institute….

      • Libslayer

        If you are referring to Christopher Moncton, you are wrong.
        If you were serious about science, you’d want to know about the east Anglian corruption and Michael Mann’s many lies.
        You are willing to force millions of Americans to pay more for everything in order to “save the planet”. Green extortionists like Obama will cram down this massive new regressive tax that will hit the poor the hardest.
        And for what?
        For nothing. This will have zero effect on climate.

    • dontdoitagain

      It is satire.

    • J.B.

      Sillyd 1953,

      Can you explain why the Earth’s temperature hasn’t deviated by a single degree for the past seventeen years?

      • Americana


        From that site:

        Evidence for the global influence of these La Niñas comes from an innovative model experiment by a team of scientists from Scripps Institution of Oceanography. When they forced a climate model to closely follow observed temperatures in the tropical Pacific—mirroring the repeated La Niña events—the model simulated no significant trend in global warming since 2000. This led the group to believe that global temperatures would have continued to rise throughout the last decade if not for the prolonged cooling in the Pacific.

        Just because the global surface temperature has not risen significantly in the past decade doesn’t mean the Earth’s heat energy imbalance has vanished, though. Excess heat energy trapped by greenhouses gases can have more than one fate in the Earth system; among other things, it can cause water to evaporate, it can melt ice, and it can be mixed into the deep ocean by overturning currents.

        That mixing coupled with water’s naturally large heat capacity makes the global ocean the Earth’s biggest absorber of heat; scientists estimate the ocean absorbs more than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases. When analyzing temperature patterns at different depths of the ocean, scientists observed that deep ocean temperatures—measured more than a half-mile down from the surface—began to rise significantly around 2000, while shallower waters warmed more slowly. This divergence took place at the same time that a natural climate cycle called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO, was shifting to a negative phase.

        • Libslayer

          Because the Government, particularly in the era of “hope n’ change”, always tells the truth.
          And if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor!

          • Americana

            This comment of yours isn’t a rebuttal of the above NASA info. It’s simply a conflation of some of the latest and greatest and most vapid talking points created by the Heartland ThinkNot Tank. I’ve got no problem w/the government making educated guesses on my behalf. There are enough constituent elements helping to move the climate science forward that I believe we are arriving at the truth bit by bit. In the meantime, I’ve got no problem at all realizing that BURNING FOSSIL FUELS, however we are presently doing it, is INJURIOUS to the environment. it harms our air, our water, our soil. We designed our fossil fuel energy technology at a time when we had no clue what it would cumulatively do to the environment. It’s time to stop pretending that we can continue to remain ignorant of what we’re doing.

          • Libslayer

            So we should plunge the US into the dark ages?
            How is CO2 harming the planet, and further, how will crippling our economy to pay for expensive intermittent unreliable energy supplied through a non-existent “smart grid” help the masses of people who have to, you know, PAY for the liberal genuflection to Gaia?
            Suck it up, little nobodies, the great Barack, healer of the planet has chosen your electric bills to skyrocket.

          • Americana

            No one is suggesting we plunge off the cliff into the Dark Ages. No one I know who’s beginning to incorporate solar panels into their homes and businesses is plunging into the dark ages. We have the grid system already. We don’t necessarily need to enact a smart grid. We can phase in systems and types of power sources as it’s feasible to do so.

            As for the “little nobodies” you mentioned whose power bills are going to skyrocket, why SHOULD they automatically skyrocket if there are lots of individuals whose excess solar power is being returned to the master grid? Why can’t that power be priced at a reasonable cost if it’s not power that the power company generated through its coal-fired plants or whatever?

          • Libslayer

            To start, there is no “smart grid”, and it’s unlikely there will be one in the future. Second, “cost” isn’t something set by greedy oil barons and the Koch brothers. In a free market, cost is determined by the laws of supply and demand. I’m sure there is a Harvard study somewhere that will verify that people prefer lower prices to higher ones for the same commodity. But here, the government is deliberately distorting the market, and as predictably as night follows day, they screw it all up at massive taxpayer expense. So, it’s natural to ask: What’s in it for us? For those of us who can afford expensive unreliable energy, what do we get in return? A tiny (probably undetectable) decrease in CO2? The false self-assurance that we’ve saved the polar bears from melting?
            What do we get in return?
            Answer: nothing.
            This is a hoax, and a swindle.
            Swindlers like Obama and his solyndra buddies get rich, everyone else pays for it.

          • Americana

            You misunderstood my previous post almost in its entirety. I’m not sure why, I thought it was very clearly writtten

            From my previous post which you misunderstood: (Americana) We have the grid system already. <<< (I meant the CURRENT electric grid system into which private homes w/solar are currently sending their excess solar energy.) We don't necessarily need to enact a smart grid. <<<>> We can phase in systems and types of power sources as it’s feasible to do so.

            I’m not sure what commodities you’re speaking of in your above post that are/aren’t being manipulated and by whom they’re not being manipulated. Are you complaining about the cost of oil and natural gas and what happened this past winter? That shortage of propane was linked to transporting oil from the Dakotas to refineries which displaced much of the natural gas transport. Although this last winter’s debacle doesn’t have a direct bearing on the fact we’ve hit PEAK OIL and that we must start planning for the future where the oil supplies keep dwindling, at the very least, we should be looking at what our energy mix should be in the distant future in order to plan effectively in the meantime and give people as much opportunity as possible to shift their homes into more sustainable forms.

          • Libslayer

            My point is that the free market should decide the prices, not government and environmental nitwits.
            It is expensive to outfit a house with solar panels, they only work well on sunny days, have about a twenty year working life, and auxiliary backup power must be on 24/7/365 standby. And savings? Maybe after many years they pay for themself, maybe not. And for what?
            We aren’t running out of oil, and CO2 “emissions” are absolutely not destroying the planet.
            So this is a vanity project for limousine liberals, not a serious energy policy.
            Years ago, I worked in a foundry. The molten metal furnaces were the size of houses and contained tons and tons of molten iron. These were electric furnaces, and had HUGE power requirements. I can’t imagine running a foundry on “alternative energy” because the power output of solar panels and windmills is not consistent or adequate. The future is fusion.
            I think future generations will laugh at the wind and solar lunacy of the early 21st century.

          • Americana

            Any future generations laugh at the simplicity of the previous generation’s technology. It doesn’t mean it wasn’t adequate and appropriate for the time. Windmills and watermills still serve their purposes remarkably well today. In fact, if you know any Amish or Mennonite farmers, you’d know that their technology is still going strong. You’re still claiming we’re not running out of oil right at this moment. My point is that we should conserve what oil reserves we have for future generations where we can, when we can.

          • Libslayer

            Future generations may laugh at us for conserving oil.
            They may have no use for it other than as feedstock for organic syntheses.

      • Libslayer

        I blame an offensive YouTube video.

    • AKFreedomLover

      “We just have to plod forward without them and try to save the planet despite them.”

      Spoken like a typical arrogant, narcissistic, totalitarian Leftist. Take a look in the mirror if you want to see the true face of “unbridled hubris, remarkable ignorance,” and “a mind incapable of critical thinking.” You trolls are all the same.

    • A Z

      Big Bang Blunder & the Carbon Pollution Canard…

      “what does this have to do with climate change?”

      “It seems there are some eery similarities between the gravity wave blunder and the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) debacle. Let me quote Dr. Steinhardt:

      …Yet some proponents of inflation who celebrated the BICEP2 announcement already insist that the theory is equally valid whether or not gravitational waves are detected. … “

    • Gerald Michael

      “…they have no qualms about ranting on…” And yet yours was the longest rant posted here.

    • vivek

      Science of global warming?

    • soccermom

      Umm. Where I live there was a severe snow storm just four days ago. I mean it was serious. A foot of snow accumulated in three hours on June 4th. The globe isn’t warming it’s cooling.

  • stefanthedenier

    in the 50’s was EXACTLY the same temp as it is today – because: in the 60-70’s they were massaging the numbers ”for Global Cooling by year 2000” so it looks as if it was colder than now; because now they are massaging the numbers for the phony Global Warming -so it only appears that is now warmer than in the 50’s

    the TRUTH: even if it was warmer or colder -= nobody would have known, because nobody is monitoring on 99.99999999999999999999999% of the planet. The planet is a big place. b] planet’s atmosphere is NOT as a human body – when is one degree warmer under the armpit = the whole body is warmer by that much. In the atmosphere the temp is different on every 50m and changes every 15minutes:

    • J.B.

      Good point.

    • DrBukk

      8th grade science: The Scientific Method: an hypothesis cannot be proven unless the experiment is contrasted with a control and proof is established by different results. There is no possible “control” with the earth. Computer models are not “controls”. The hypothesis of Climate Change is unprovable and unable to be disproved. It’s junk opinion, not science.

  • Laser1

    What does Global warming and going green have to do with
    Agenda 21? About $890,000,000 Dollars’
    worth that Obama allocated for the pushing the Green agenda = Agenda 21. It was on PBS (Public broadcasting Service)
    today. They used some fancy words for
    the social engineering to convince us that all the things they are say is true.
    True brain washing. Don’t forget that
    the EPA will make sure that all of the details about Agenda 21 are
    followed. The subliminal messages are in
    a large portion of the media being display on your TV.

    Subliminal = existing or operating below the threshold of
    consciousness; being or employing stimuli insufficiently intense to produce a
    discrete sensation but often being or designed to be intense enough to
    influence the mental processes or the behavior of the individual.

    For those of you who are not familiar with Agenda 21 Here
    is the name of the book

    global biodiversity Assessment

    Link if you would like to own one.

  • Albert Darringdon

    A lot of warmist trolls on here. They’re worried.

  • RepublicansSuck

    It amazes me that in a world as scientifically advanced as it is today, there are still idiots that deny climate change. Luckily, you deniers are the minority. I hope all of you moronic deniers get cancer.

    • teamglock

      Sorry Skippy, YOU are in the minority. Take your LINK card and go get some Kool-Aid.

    • Thomas Taylor

      Nobody here denying that the climate changes. “Climate Change”, however, is simply the vehicle for one-world socialism. Socialism ends in mass murder, so your hope that people unlike you all die, reveals you as the monster you are.

    • UCSPanther

      Ah, the tolerant left in action.

      We’re here to stay, and there isn’t a thing you can do about it…

    • ServosT

      With Leftoid heroes like ALGore and John F. Kerry having the “carbon footprints” of small Midwestern cities, you’ll have to excuse my lack of enthusiasm for your desire to transform America into green utopia. And how bout getting behind nuclear power….no carbon there.

    • DemocratsSwallow

      Nobody is denying climate change. Most of us were learned about it in high school. The climate has always been changing and always will be changing. In fact I’d be worried if the climate weren’t changing!! This article is about global warming specifically not just climate change. It amazes me that in a world as scientifically advanced as it is today there are still people afraid of climate change. Silly leftard.

  • solidspine


    Honesty and truth seriously needs to be tempered well at
    least here in the upper mid-west.

    Nobody with a positive IQ ever believed in man-made global
    warming, come on, it was been sold by Al Gore.

    But aside from that, if you live in Minnesota, even if you
    have a positive IQ, real hope and change exist in the myth of Global Warming.

    Seriously when it is 60 below and you are listening to
    Garrison Keillor it is heartwarming to think that in a mere thousand years Lake
    Calhoun will become the new Laguna Beach,

    Perfect weather and 70 degrees year round. They need that hope and change, how can
    intelligent people send a negro muslim convert to congress and import Somali terrorist
    to live in the heart land.

    Brains easily become defective at these lower temperatures so
    let us dream about the hope of a changing climate here in Minnesota

    • ServosT

      I used to swim in Lake Harriet as a kid. I assume it’s been boiled off by the angry sun since I’ve been there last.

  • Joe The Gentile

    Good job Mr. Klavan, but I don’t know why you are claiming that global temperatures rose 0.9 of a degree centigrade when the Holy Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change is claiming a SMALLER figure closer to 0.6 centigrade…. Andrew Klavan trying to encourage climate panic???

  • meanpeoplesuck

    Google Andrew Klavan and Exxon and you get 182,000 hits. That’s pretty much all you need to know about his credibility. Bought and paid for by carbon belchers.

    • Bklyn Farmer

      Looks like global warming has made Al Gore a billionaire.