Global Warming

2949 Responses




Global Warming has come to be a hotly contested issue. Are there valid concerns that we should consider, or is Global Warming just the latest manufactured crisis to cash in on the public’s fears and generate new support for global governance, global carbon taxes and other oppressive policies?

On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:

“I try to look at global warming the same way I look at all other serious issues: as objectively and open-minded as possible. There is clear evidence that the temperatures in some parts of the globe are rising, but temperatures are cooling in other parts. The average surface temperature had risen for several decades, but it fell back substantially in the past few years.

Clearly there is something afoot. The question is: Is the upward fluctuation in temperature man-made or part of a natural phenomenon. Geological records indicate that in the 12th century, Earth experienced a warming period during which Greenland was literally green and served as rich farmland for Nordic peoples. There was then a mini ice age, the polar ice caps grew, and the once-thriving population of Greenland was virtually wiped out.

It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.

The question is: how much? Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well.

We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government “investment” in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all.

Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.

Now it turns out that corn ethanol is inefficient, and it actually takes more energy to produce the fuel than you get when you burn it. The most efficient ethanol may come from hemp, but hemp production is illegal and there has been little progress on hemp ethanol. And on top of that, corn is now going into our gas tanks instead of onto our tables or feeding our livestock or dairy cows; so food prices have been driven up. This is what happens when we allow government to make choices instead of the market; I hope we avoid those mistakes moving forward.”

After additional consideration and analysis and shortly before the release of the Climategate emails in late 2009, Ron Paul identified the artificial panic around Global Warming as an elaborate hoax:

“The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming.” – Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009

“[The Copenhagen treaty on climate change] can’t help the economy. It has to hurt the economy and it can’t possibly help the environment because they’re totally off track on that. It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history, this whole global warming terrorism that they’ve been using, but we’ll have to just wait and see, but it cannot be helpful. It’s going to hurt everybody.” – Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show, Nov. 5, 2009

For an environmental insider’s view on the “Green Agenda” and its background and motivations check out The Green Agenda. Also read Lew Rockwell’s Anti-Environmentalist Manifesto.


2,949 responses to “Global Warming”

  1. Pete

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/04/03/antarctica.ice.shelf/index.html

    A large ice shelf is about to break off the south pole – the SOUTH pole – after receding since the mid-90′s.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. other guy

      So I guess these scientist are irrelevant? We now know that temps go up, Co2 goes up… Temps go up do to solar activity…

      But where is the monetary gain if it’s a natural cycle… God forbid mother nature is the culprit like every other time temp change in history. What a missed opportunity for governments to tax if it’s not man made. Show me the money!!! Scientist need grants to continue their fundamentally flawed research…

      try not to engage in ad homonym attacks… These are scientist Phds who completely disagree with you…
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ_Gy3JzrMs

      yun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks:

      “The method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion”

      »crosslinked«

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      1. Pete

        Where’s the ad hominem attack? A huge ice shelf breaks off antartica.

        I know that scientists disagree with me. But it’s a tiny minority, most of whom are in the employ of “private organizations” that I don’t trust. If YOU follow the money, and think about what deep-pocketed industry might be funding any and all research to “disprove” global warming (oil), you’ll see there’s more to this.

        The paranoia about taxes has always struck me as bizarre. I can’t understand why anyone would need more than a million dollars a year or so, and we could do so much as a society with that money. You people just aren’t team players.

        As I understand it, the two major lines of attack from scientists are:

        * global warming and CO2 increase started before the industrial revolution.

        But that would just be the natural cycle. Perhaps it should have leveled off and dropped by now. In any case, we have no control over that, but we can control CO2 and thus the temperature, and save ourselves, if we can get the right to pull its head out of the sand.

        * solar activity causes temperature change.

        Again, so what? Yes it does, but we can’t control that. We can control CO2 levels by building CO2 sinks and cutting our output.

        Whatever you want to say about me – because to be honest, if you were as frustrated having this conversation with people who don’t understand the science we’re talking about, you’d be having a hard time holding your tongue, too – it’s ridiculous that you’ve sided with these rogue scientists simply because they’re rogues. You don’t have enough information or understanding to evaluate which side is right. And you’re just assuming that the right wing press has no agenda. I can’t understand it.

        The reason I side with the mainstream science is because a) I have a good scientific education, and it’s obviously true if you know what’s going on, and b) science is extensively cross-checked for errors, and breakthroughs, not conformity, make people’s names in science.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. other guy

    http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are-cooling-according-to-NASA

    See this article in the recent issue of The Register, “Japan’s boffins: Global warming isn’t man-made.”

    The Register link: or google it…
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/

    Unfortunately Western scientists have been trained by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to follow the trail of federal research funds, as Pavlov’s dogs were trained to salivate at the sound of a dinner bell.

    NAS obviously had no idea that public interest in the weather (climate) might expose the entire house of cards that they have fabricated since the US government started pouring public funds into research after the end of World War II.

    Many other untruths are identified in a manuscript that was published in Russia a couple of years ago:

    arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509
    arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609509v3

    “The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass,” Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, number 11, pp. 1847-1856 (Nov 2006); Yadernaya Fizika 69, number 11, (Nov 2006); PAC: 96.20.Dt DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Fred the Protectionist

    Awe how cute, the free trader Libertarian is going to ride the Global Warming bandwagon to oppose subsidies (oil companies). How is that any different then Democrats riding the Global Warming bandwagon to push for more taxes, it isn’t. It is dishonest, and a liberal trait, because Libertarians are Liberal.

    Long live Pat Buchanan.

    P.S. All the evidence of Global Warming points to the Urban Heat Island effect.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Pete

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

      “In any case, ground temperature measurements, like most weather observations, are logged by location; 19th-century United States air temperatures were often logged at Post Offices; early-20th-century temperatures added airfield observation sites. Both predate the massive sprawl, roadbuilding programs, and high- and medium-rise expansions contributing to UHI. More importantly, the logs allow sites in question to be filtered easily from data sets. Doing so, the presence of heat islands is visible, but overall trends change in magnitude, not direction.”

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. liberty

    I really enjoyed the discourse between Pete and Unsure… I also liked the random Pistol perspective. :) It was like reading a book of philosophy and that’s exactly what I enjoyed with Unsure… I think you have very logical reasoning and justified skepticism… I share your same beliefs.

    My question to Pete, since you seem to have a very strong understanding of the situation… For the first time you made me think we have a roll in this… My questions are… Do you think it is dangerous to liberty for the gov to just react wildly (like they will) and there will be misplaced energy and resources as the government tries to impose things like cap and trade?

    cap and trade seems like a ridiculous idea from either understanding of GW… If the companies are just going to pass the cost onto consumers, how is that an incentive to develop “clean” energy? The gov is the reason we don’t have clean energy in the fist place because they’re bought by big oil to keep it that way. Seems a bit ridiculous for them to impose new taxes and bad ideas… Thoughts on that please?

    Let’s say I accept your premise and we need to cut co2 emissions. The fear and scare tactics used?The pictures of melting ice caps and starving polar bears are a bit outrageous, no??? Justified? I feel like they are going to do what they always do, use a crisis to further oppress the people. I mean Obama has some large new taxes set up that will only punish the citizens. I’m mostly worried about the actions they will take. If the gov has anything to do with it, and they do, it will be tons of wasted resources and taxpayer money… What do scientist think about the solution and gov role. Links, articles???

    I hate pollution and can’t believe what is done to the rivers and lakes in this country… You have to understand why people reject GW based solely on the fear gov will abuse them with new and misguided taxes and regulation…. It’s superficial for gov to care about GW and not the other pollutants…

    thank you for your time…

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Pete

      I’m more or less unplugging from this as I’ve said everything I’m qualified to say, more or less. I feel like not trusting scientists is like not trusting calculators; they’re nerds and they have no reason to lie. I do think “fear tactics” are justified, if you look at it from another perspective. Would it be a fear tactic of your carbon monoxide detector to start beeping?

      I’m not worried about liberty. Liberty can restore itself if we’re still alive.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. liberty

        I appreciate the response… I can’t say I agree about the liberty issue mainly because we know from history how governments uses panic to oppress. It’s not that GW isn’t real or needs to be addressed, it’s that I don’t trust gov to do the right thing. To me it would be 90% their personal agenda and 10% dealing with the problem, al least that’s how they always operate. Recent, the sky is falling examples, the bailouts and Iraq….

        I clearly can’t write well but I do like to think I have some common sense. I don’t know if you saw Bill Maher last night (i have a love/hate with him) but one of his guest talked about how fear and panic will only produce negative results. He gave the example of Denmark and let’s say Germany (can’t remember the other one, sorry)… Denmark sharply curved their emissions and Germany in a panic implemented a 40% tax on carbon and it actually increased emissions over the year by 43%… I’m just saying, dead or alive we have to have a plan that actually attacks the problem and doesn’t line the pockets of big companies and Washington. If we use fear and panic I strongly feel we will get only the latter…

        take care,

        paul

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. fluidly unsure

      And I have enjoyed this also. Like running around the block, a little exercise (intellectual or physical) can be very invigorating.

      Besides, this is an emotional subject that usually doesn’t allow honest debate without both sides loading their arguments with personal attacks.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. James

    1] Is Global Warming “Real” ?
    2] If Warming is “Real” do we want to “fix” it? Do we know the consequences of “fixing” ?
    3] What is the casue of warming [assuming it's real and we want to fix it]?
    4] Is the cause able to be “fixed” by human intervention?

    Not to be a downer- but, Meth Hydrates are a far more potent green house gas – and humans have no ctrl over the release.

    Also, the Human Population explosion is largly a problem in itself; yet, the consequence of “fixing” the environment from a political POV will more often end in global conflict [nuclear even] with devistating consequence –

    IF, IF, IF “the world” agreed Co2 is the problem…and, “the world” agreed to “fix” it – 1) Human Birth rates would be restricted 2) The entire world would deploy Nuclear Tech as a means of 90% of power production – with dire urgency and disreguard to laws of zoning, construction red tape and burocratic bs.

    Reality is: Thinking the Gov. will “save us” from ANYTHIG is ignorant. To think humanity can save itself without realizing first hand “expensive and deadly” consequence of non action is naive.

    IMO the US and rest of the world are going to have it’s hands full dealing with the implied destability of diminished US influence and associated economic, political and cultural dynamics this will bring. I think the entire planet should think it best to try and avoid nuclear war first – “save the planet and CO2″ second.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Pete

    Actually, now that I think about it more, it’s a 33% increase over the natural level (1/3 of 75% is 25%), which is worse. Not ‘tiny’ in either case. There’s such a thing as right-wing spin, too.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    1. liberty

      A little help… I thought you might get an email if I hit reply… Questions below.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Pete

    I have looked at a lot of the deniers’ work. The science denying global warming is man-made all seems to miss my point. I will continue to insist that the case for natural, cyclical warming is excellent, and that it coincides with a man-made effect _over which we have some control_, and that arguing about the size of this effect is a red herring.

    If CO2 levels directly correlate with temperature changes leading to uninhabitable conditions, and we can sink instead of dramatically increase CO2 levels, this is the only responsible course of action. We may win, we may lose, but at least we didn’t give up and throw ourselves a big party.

    But just indulge me as to the kind of effect we may be causing and may be able to prevent…

    Man’s contribution to CO2 is generally set at 25%. Deniers will say this is a “tiny” contribution, but that is bizarre. Consider what happen when your body temperature goes up just a few degrees, or your blood pH changes by a point. The change can be fatal. Homeostatic systems develop in response to a natural range of variation, and even then have extremes at which they fail. They are not designed to handle a 25% increase beyond their maximum levels. An increase of 25% in body temperature would be:

    273 K – Freezing point of water
    273 + (5/9 * ( 98.6 – 32)) = 310 K – Normal body temperature
    310 K * .25 = 77.5 K – a 25% increase
    (310 + 77.5) – 273 = 114.5 Celsius – new body temperature
    9/5 * (114.5 C) + 32 = 238 F

    This might sound astonishing or even impossible, but it’s correct. What you think of 0 degrees is probably -32 degrees farenheit, which is actually still a very high temperature compared to the absence of atomic motion (O Kelvin, the absolute 0). A 25% increase in our absolute temperature would obviously be fatal in short order.

    In the same way, a 25% increase in the absolute level of CO2 is a very big deal in a homeostatic system, especially one in which the sink for CO2 (trees) has been drastically removed.

    Just to satisfy those who will not accept that calculation, if the Farenheit scale is (incorrectly) chosen,

    98.6 * .25 = 24.65 F
    98.6 + 24.65 = 123.25 F

    Still fatal.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    1. Pete

      Just in case you find that discouraging, I want to point out that the right technology could remove, say, all the CO2 in the atmosphere in a matter of weeks or months, if that were a good idea (which it’s not). We theoretically have control, in fact, not just over our own contribution, but over the natural level as well. Which means we could prevent a natural ice age, if we had our ducks in a row. But these things take time and money to invent and model and such.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Pete

      Err, not -32 F, but just 0 F, which is 32 F (the freezing point of water) minus 32.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Pistol

    ok, thats cool, but i urge u to share your views on the eternal energy that comprises all things, (commonly referred to as god), as ur view may have a positive impact on others, encouraging them to look at things with an open and objective mind.. If your willing of course…
    whatever we have been doing ‘collectively’, certainly hasnt and will not produce the society in which we have always dreamed.
    global warming is not happening to us, its happening through us, because of us…. this is leading edge science, not religion…
    I understand there are some frightening issues at hand, that if not resolved, and soon, then life as we know it will come to a grinding halt.
    I believe that if we dont look at the metaphysical cause of things, and not the sympton (like failed modern medicine) then we miss the lesson.

    in the words of Neale Donald Walsch… this is for everyone…

    what you do to others, you do to yourself,
    what you fail to do for others, you fail to do for yourself.
    the pain of other your pain, and the joy of others, your joy.
    and when you disclaim any part of that, you disclaim a part of yourself.
    NOW is the time to reclaim yourself,
    NOW is the time to see yourself again as ‘who you really are’,
    thus, rendering yourself visible again.
    For when you, and your true relationship with yourself becomes visible, then we are indivisible, and NOTHING, will ever divide us again….

    Lets all put down our sticks and stones and join hands in celebration of life. In doing so, we will change this world before our very eyes….
    Love to all… P

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Fluidly Unsure

      I wish what you say was true. But I have found those that urge us to “put down your sticks and stones” will then hurdle weapon that are even more damaging– aka words, thoughts, and ideas.

      Becoming “indivisible” via honestly stating your thoughts will not cure the wounds caused by fights triggered by differing conclusions on the same body of evidence. Here, I’ve been debating/battling someone whose conclusions are different than mine.

      Thoughts are more powerful than any WMD known to man and claiming open discourse will solve the problems of humanity is like saying that the existence of the A-bomb makes the world safer because people would be afraid to use it.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Pistol

    oh my…
    i think ur missing my point…and not buying into the truth is a shame..

    if you think ur vote or money means anthing, then you are seriously mistaken. presidents are not elected, they are selected.
    and all debates eventually return to a spiritual perspective as that is where it all begins..and ends….
    until people remember ‘who they really are’, then their attempts to change anything will be futile. Change comes from within, you can vote and throw money at whatever u like until u exhaust your funds and ballot paper. It wont be until people stop seeing themselves as separate from everything that these issues will be resolved..
    Global warming is a sympton of a dis-eased human race. When we see the truth and heal, natural solutions will flood in thick and fast.
    Research Dr. Hew Len and Ho’oponopono and you will soon realise that nothing happens on the outside that hasn’t first happened on the inside…
    Action is the last step in any process, vital, yes, but the last step. If the thought processes are not in alignment with the outcome you desire than you have zero chance of achieving a satifactory result..
    Free peoples minds Peter and you will stop global warming, violence, disease, famine, and all the other side-effects of a sick human race.
    Cheers, Love P

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Pistol

    Listen precious,
    Its obvious u cant have a serious debate without getting emotional.
    For one, i dont take drugs, and assumptions are best left to ignorant people?? Secondly, you have no knowledge of my education or what i consider to be god.. i dont believe in a religious god or an angry vengeful god who punishes people. you are obviously very disconnected from the source if you believe that god is separate from ourselves, thus feels the need to punish us like some scorned, emotional human being, whose failed to obey.. pftt.

    Sorry, i dont have the ability to stop a bus with my thoughts, but that has nothing to do with the fact that our thoughts are creative, maybe not in the visible instance that ur suggesting, which by the way is completely absurd and ludicrous to take what i said that literally. Maybe u should ‘start’ taking drugs my brother.

    I realize that there are many sides to a story, in fact there are nearly 6.5billion versions of the truth. this is just mine. so when ur finished the failed feable attempts to drag others down into a sceptical, narrowminded view point then maybe we can get on with the real debate… I know its difficult at times, but there is nothing enlightened about making others feel bad, in order to make urself feel better… Let the ego go… it has no place in a debate.. Open ur mind to possibilities and stop listening to everything ur told my mainstream media, and what ur taught in government run schools.. your told only what they want u to know… not a lot of truth…

    There are many useful, green technologies that can replace fossil fuels and modern electricity, but they will not come to light until a brainwashed public demand a real solution… So, until certain ego maniacal, unconscious, global elites are brought to a peoples court, then how else are you going to allow these technologies to be made public. Centralisation of power is the problem.

    So, unless people are made aware of conspiracy ‘fact’ and the lies perpetrated against humanity, and the game being played, then the industrialists will continue their war on nature and you, whilst they fleece ur hard earned money with yet another tax (carbon tax). People cant fight a war that they are not even aware of…. So while u sit there at ur computer attempting to right off others for having a view different to yours i suggest you digest the following…. CONDEMNATION WITHOUT THOROUGH INVESTIGATION, IS THE HEIGHT OF IGNORANCE…

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Pete

      You don’t know my background.

      I know a lot about the theory you’re trying to push, and I used to buy in to it. But it’s not the whole story, in my experience or my opinion. I’m not here to talk religion.

      What I was trying to say was, if you think we can fix this problem with our minds, and not our dollars and votes, that is too surreal and too ephemeral.

      And if you want to talk emotional, you don’t call a stranger “precious” if your emotions are in control.

      I am not making others feel bad to make myself feel better. I am trying to get people to drop their misguided objections to well-understood science. If it makes them feel bad, that’s not my responsibility. Arguing with people always makes me feel bad, not better. I wish there were a peaceful, pleasant way to tell someone to his or her face that the things they have believed for years are patently false from a better-educated perspective. 2+2 does not equal 5. I’ve tried and tried, but the situation is relatively drastic to keep trying soft tactics.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Pete

        Also, the post you’re responding to wasn’t a response specifically to you. It was intended to cover a range of religious viewpoints, including yours. If you don’t believe in a God as described in the first paragraph, then that paragraph isn’t the one intended for you. My own beliefs, I prefer to keep to myself.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Fluidly Unsure

          You failed!

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Pete

            I guess since you say so, and are randomly casting doubt on my statements, with no argument or evidence to support your conclusion that I failed, you’re right. That’s how debate works, apparently.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. Pete

    Look…

    If you are someone who believes in God, you should remember that God helps those who helps themselves and punishes those who ignore the law for selfish reasons.

    If you are someone who does not, you should realize that science has a remarkable track record of being more and more right, ands that you are attempting to question your betters and derailing an attempt to respond to the real situation suggested by sophisticated models you could not even begin to analyze at your level of education in the subject, and even more so by science you should have learned in junior high. Hell, even common sense says the black smoke is going to mess up the planet.

    If you believe that the mind controls the physical universe, you should realize that your mind cannot stop an oncoming bus from smashing you flat. Quit taking so many drugs. There is more going on than that simple theory, as well.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Fluidly Unsure

      You really crack me up. Calling “green science” science is like calling “intelligent design” science.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Pete

        So you say, with no proof whatsoever or any other explanation of where CO2 is going.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Fluidly Unsure

          Isn’t CO2 a part of the cyclical process called nature and wouldn’t it be reused by such? Somebody above responded that we are dumping too much in too short a period of time. That makes sense to me and made my ears stand up to pay attention. So we should combat the problem, but those that claim it is the end of life as we know it put themselves in the same level as all other dooms day prophets.

          IIRC (I may be wrong here); as carbon looses its ionic charge and is no longer excited by an external source of kinetic energy it will break down into more basic elements.

          This is not my field of study so I’m not 100% sure, but this is my reasoning. Neither telling me to abandon my attempts at reason, or shaming or scaring me into compliance will get anywhere.

          Like I said, you may not agree with my reasoning but claiming no reasoning exists and using that line as a straw-man argument only weakens your line of reasoning in my eyes.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Pete

            But it IS the field of study of the people you’re claiming to correct! And they disagree with you! And you’re talking about elementary chemistry, and you’re wrong!

            CO2 is not a charged particle, and has no tendency to break down. Its natural sink is trees, and we’ve mowed down most of the rain forest already. Honestly, if you don’t know anything about basic climate science, why do you have such a strong opinion?

            It would seem NOTHING will get anywhere with you. I’ve already repeatedly explained the basic science, and you seem to have paid no attention at all.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Pete

            If there were a meteor headed toward the earth, and you could see it in the sky, and scientists were telling us we had to do something or it would crash into the earth with the force of 200 nuclear weapons and kill every living thing, would you scoff and call them doomsday prophets?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. Fluidly Unsure

            Since you only responded to 1/3 of my post, can I assume you agree with the rest?

            As far as your question regarding the meteor. Yes I would scoff if I couldn’t see the meteor but recognized the possibility that those who warn us are misusing the trust we’ve given them to increase their influence in society and therefore their pocketbook?

            Your choice of scenarios is rather interesting since there are scientists who claim catastrophe is imminent and human-kind will soon be destroyed by an alien object as the were dinosaurs.

            I scoff at dino theorists too so don’t feel so alone.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          4. Pete

            I responded to your entire post.

            The “we can see the meteor coming” correlates to “we can directly measure the CO2 level in the air.”

            I’ve never met a scientist who was hurting for money or had anything less than a nerdly and extra-pure attitude toward their research. The only ones you ever hear about who lie are industry scientists, and we are dealing here instead with tens of thousands of tenured professors who have nothing to gain by lying and being found out. Scientists check each other’s work. If there’s no work to be done, they teach. It pays the same.

            If CO2 did decompose at lower temperatures (and it doesn’t – things decompose at HIGHER temperatures), there would be no such thing as dry ice, which is solid, frozen CO2. When it sublimates, it turns right back to CO2 gas.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          5. Fluidly Unsure

            Congratulations! You found a mistake on my post! But what of the other counter-claims you so cunningly ignore?

            The “we can see the meteor” looks to me more like “you can see a speck of light through the looking-glass only we own.” Even if you agree that the speck of light is moving, whether or not it is falling is still in question. Whether or not the looking-glass is trustworthy is yet another open question. Have you read the page the OP refers to (re: green-agenda)?

            I don’t think anyone questions the amount CO2 in the atmosphere so why are you harping on it. But it is no more than dishonest to claim you’ve answered questions that you have decided to dismiss. For example; anytime someone asks about CO2 being caused by human you respond that it ‘doesn’t matter one whit’ (IIRC). It seems as though a strawman is being setup.

            You already pointed out that I am incorrect in thinking in how CO2 would react (I’ll bow-down to your knowledge in this case), but stating it again is as useful as flogging a horse that you yourself killed.

            Yes I spend more time on my own work and hobbies than I do economics, philosophy, latin interpretation, biology, ethnic musicology, anthropology, geology, … Even though there are too many arenas for me to play in all doesn’t mean I should be banished from the ones I don’t regularly practice in.

            Our debate is starting to sound like MC 900 foot Jesus’s song “Tiptoe through inferno”. I don’t know what you think of old-school rap, but this is a good one.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          6. Pete

            Again, you see it as a strawman because of your lack of understanding of the science involved.

            It doesn’t matter one whit because “whether or not” (as if there is any real scientific question about the huge release of CO2 by man, the decreased sink due to deforestation, or the corresponding greenhouse effect, which are all simple facts) man is a real contributor (in terms of, what, trillions of tons per year?) or the spike is “somehow” (despite the burning of hydrocarbons for two centuries and the deforestation) merely natural, the CO2 level is WAY UP, and every time this has happened, the temperature has gone WAY UP before plummeting into an ice age. “Whether we are causing it or not,” if we want to avoid extinction, we have to do something about it. This means DELAYING IT as much as possible by cutting our CO2 output, and developing a CO2 sink to replace the loss of trees.

            If you can admit that your questions arise, not from any meaningful countertheory or even any flaw in the model upheld by thousands of experiments conducted by people with PhD’s in this subject, but from your own ignorance on this topic, can you please stop claiming to have “real doubts and questions” and instead claim to be “ignorant of the science involved?”

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          7. Pete

            I’m harping on the CO2 level because CO2 levels and the greenhouse effect are the issue at hand. The science involved is simple, not some sort of guesswork but instead a common phenomenon that is easily demonstrated. You still continue to disagree out of, quite frankly, stubborness and lack of understanding. There’s nothing else at play besides the CO2 level, deforestation, and the greenhouse effect, but you still refuse to admit you’re “probably” wrong. So I continue to try to explain the basic science so you will stop “arguing” with me and I can get back to other things in my life.

            If you would like to post a list of questions I have missed (by accident; I have no hidden agenda, I am not secretly working for the huge don’t-kill-everyone conspiracy), I will respond to them.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. Pete

        Intelligent design is an extra-scientific explanation of history drawn from a religious text. Climate science at the level we’re discussing it is about basic, well-known and easily demonstrated phenomena. It’s not a meaningful comparison. What you’re talking about is the room for “error” (on the order of percentage points) in mathematical modelling done at the highest levels of the science. It’s as if you’re claiming gravity doesn’t exist because string theory involves guesswork and assumptions by quantum theorists.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Fluidly Unsure

          Or maybe that I don’t know that I have the ability to affect a particle light-years away from me.

          Like religion, there seems to be a reality (?) to quantum mechanics that I can’t put my finger on. But I don’t think the public theories I’ve read have done so no matter how smart or how well educated the Cern staff is.

          Should I jump/react/believe to the claims that the LHC will destroy the earth?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Pete

            You ignored my point, which is that whatever you want to say about quantum science, the more basic Newtonian concept of gravity, and the observable phenomenon of gravity, is more elementary and is not open to realistic questioning.

            You’re jumping/reacting to claims made on anonymous websites that the scientific establishment is wrong about something that is easily proven. You’re the one backing the crazy horse.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Fluidly Unsure

            All I was doing was correcting your claims about my conclusions (“It’s as if you’re claiming gravity doesn’t exist because string theory involves guesswork and assumptions by quantum theorists”).

            What would Einstein or Hawking say about previous scientific theories (newtonian physics) not being open to questioning or qualifications?

            Aren’t most scientific ideas a qualification or improvement on previously established ideas? It is the current establishment that I am questioning, not science. At best the assertion of sacredness of established ideas and claims that they can’t be questioned fuels my questions.

            I don’t care if you think my horse has phsycological problems or not. If my understanding is that its ideas are superior to those from your horses mouth, then I’ll believe my own– no matter which orifice it comes out of.

            Do the observable actions of CO2 in small closed systems proves anything on a macro level? From most anti-evolutionists I will take it as a simple but misleading mistake. From someone as educated, I take it as intentionally misleading and an indication that external motivations may exist.

            I may not have enough evidence to disprove established ideas; but like I tell Xtian evangelists, the burden of proof that pink pixies exist is not on my shoulders.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. Pete

            Quantum theory does not dispute or disprove the existence of gravity. It explains its behavior at extremes of observation. Gravity is an easily observed phenomenon.

            Quite frankly, you are making yourself sound stupid.

            If you had any relevant understanding of the basic physical sciences, you would understand that the box experiment DOES apply at the macro level. There is no sink for the CO2, it absorbs the IR light, the heat is trapped. That’s all. But you’re just SO SURE that your complete lack of knowledge in this area is adequate.

            Well, I say YOU CAN’T WRITE COMPUTER PROGRAMS AT ALL and that mine are better, even though I can’t program a computer.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          4. Pete

            If the burden of proof is on science, then we have CO2 readings, we have an easily demonstrated model, we have everything we need to demonstrate the greenhouse effect. We have, quite frankly, elementary chemistry that is in fact a routine consideration effecting most lab uses of IR analytical equipment. We have a huge release of CO2, we have deforestation. Every possible fact. All we don’t have is a huge disaster. Is that what you’d need?

            All you have are spikes in a trend that are meaningless at a higher level of analysis, and random suspicion. You have no meaningful scientific theory. Do you question every single thing? Do you question the floor? The BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE FLOOR!

            No, the burden is on you. The burden to create an equally scientifically meaningful theory to replace the one you haven’t poked one hole in is on you. This is silly and a waste of my energy.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          5. Pete

            You’re not so much “raising questions” as you are randomly disparaging something you don’t understand and forcing me to waste my time educating you about something you could easily learn in any college chemistry course. Your questions are at the “I don’t understand addition” level.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          6. Pete

            I apologize for the angry tone. I don’t mean to imply that you ARE stupid. My impression is that you’re an intelligent person who only reads right wing conspiracy theory blogs and has a weak understanding of the physical sciences.

            I hope you will consider how you would feel and react if someone came into your office, told you you didn’t know how to program and tried to discredit your work, and then didn’t (and what’s more, wouldn’t) understand the concept behind an if-then statement or binary numbers or something equally basic.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          7. Fluidly unsure

            I hope we are able to communicate better now.

            I didn’t mean to question your knowledge in these areas which is obviously more than mine. What I have, I remember from 30+ years ago the last time I hit the chemistry books and it is therefore subject to memory decay and “senior moments”. I doubt if I am going to hit those books again I have other work and hobby needs which take up my time like Computer Science, music theory, translating Hindi, etc.

            But when I am working with a businessman, if I expect them to act on my thoughts I need to communicate on their level and not mine. By using the computer logic that is so natural to me instead of translating it into business logic, there is a good chance the businessman won’t see the need and won’t pay me the money to do the work.

            In the same way, if you expect me to act according to your knowledge it has to be presented at my level.

            As an aside, this is the closest to a x-wing nut blog I go to. The only political blogs I read regularly are from these sites and BBC (not exactly a right-wing conspiracy site).

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          8. Pete

            It’s the sort of thing where I’ve already presented the science, you’ve already accepted it, but you don’t have enough of an understanding of the overall system to understand how important it is. It’s like you’re saying, “sure, I understand how an if-then statement works now, but SO WHAT? I doubt that will come up.”

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Pistol

    I understand ur frustration, as some things are still beyond our comprehension. Planets are living organisms made of nothing but energy, the same as us and everything else you interpret with ur 5 senses. Science is only just touching the surface here… Its not the sun as its actually cooled recently, its not the CO2, as recordings have shown that CO2 levels have been higher than they are now and the planet was actually cooler then…

    The superwave theory suggests that huge explosions at the galactic core send out cosmic rays that warm and or cool entire solar systems and they occur in periodic cycles all based firmly in mathematics. All energy moves according to numbers, we just need to interpret it better. Another theory supported by Richard C Hoagland is that the energy/heat comes from hyperdimensional space. But we are still at cause. We alone have the power to change this world completely. This is why scientists conduct double and triple blind experiments.
    To remove the human influence over the results… This is now accepted as impossible, yet is still contraversial and is opening up new doors for the science community. nothing exists without it first being thought. When we are ready, upon mastering our own minds, we will simply choose the CO2 levels to subside. Not the answer ur looking for but its all i can offer at this stage. Thanks. love P

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Pete

      All that aside, CO2 can be higher but be offset by other factors, and the temperature can be cooler at a given point. But the parallel between CO2 levels and temperature is as direct as direct can be. The graphs are literally nearly mirrors of each other. And even if we decide, based on silly superstition, not to trust those determinations, we can directly demonstrate the existence of the greenhouse effect and we can directly measure the levels of CO2 currently in the atmosphere; there is nothing else to figure out here.

      We need TIME to develop an adequate sink for the CO2. Individually and collectively, we have to buy in and do what we feel is reasonable to help the effort to slow the greenhouse effect, so that scientists can develop the tools we need.

      The spike may be both man-made and natural. Why does that matter, if we’re going to die? The underlying mechanism – the greenhouse effect – is easily understood and well-known. We can combat it with technology, both by slowing our own contribution to the effect and by removing CO2 manually or with more trees. So where’s the issue? Get’r'done!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Pete

    Many people seem to oppose this theory because it would require them to change their lives too much. First of all, that’s a terrible way to conduct science, even in your own head. Second, as most seasoned enviros will tell you, none of us are perfect. I recycle, and when I get a new car it will be a Ultra-Low Emissions Vehicle or a hybrid or something. I care about this issue and it effects who I vote for. But I still drive everywhere, because my life doesn’t include 2-3 extra hours a day to allow me to bike. I do what I can, and I am not being a stubborn fool about pretending it’s somehow “not happening,” like some kind of fool ostrich. It’s not about perfection, it’s about public perception.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Fluidly Unsure

      Or some don’t want to jump just because another says so. Boo! (Did you jump this time?)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Pete

        Simple stubborness when childrens’ and literally the entire planets’ lives are at stake. Throwing away all of human history’s march toward a better future because you don’t like being told that you’re wrong. That’s really hard to stomach.

        You have no superior explanation, but are casting doubt where there is none so that you won’t have to do something you don’t want to do – change your mind.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Fluidly Unsure

          When I see reason I will change my mind. Why are you so against reason? Oh yeah, you are one of those neo-scientists that want us to preemptively react before the reason is clear to us. BTW: just because it is clear in your mind doesn’t mean it is in mine.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Pete

            Reason: Hydrocarbons react with oxygen at high temperatures to produce free energy, carbon dioxide and water. Carbon dioxide is a stable, relatively inert gas that is normally emitted by animal-type organisms and inhaled by plant-type organisms. It has an effect, when released into the atmosphere, similar to a one-way mirror, and traps heat in the atmosphere. When large amounts of it are released by two sustained centuries of hydrocarbon use, and large quantities of the world’s trees are removed, a huge overabundance of CO2 increases this effect, causing the temperature to increase resolutely over time, even if year-to-year data makes this less than obvious. Have you ever seen a chart where the “upward” part of the graph had lots of little spikes in it? It doesn’t matter if this man-generated spike coincides with a natural spike. It probably does. That’s all the more reason to respond quickly and without a bunch of whining because you don’t understand the science involved. I’m not responsible for that.

            There’s your reasoning. You have no superior counter-reasoning. So please admit you’re wrong. This is seriously, seriously nothing beyond basic, high-school-level chemistry.

            As I said earlier, if you don’t believe me, get a box and do the experiment.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Pete

            I should add that I forgot a component of the experiment, an IR light source. The issue with greenhouse gasses is that they transmit (“pass”) UV-VIS light, but when the UV-VIS light “bounces out” of the biosphere as IR light (having had some of its energy used by plants and animals, it is now lower-energy and lower-frequency IR light), the IR light has wavelengths that are absorbed and then emitted by the greenhouse gasses. Many of these emissions will be back down, and the more greenhouse gas there is, the more of these “bounce downs” will occur and the more heat becomes trapped by this barrier. Probably if you had to pick one light to get the experiment to demonstrate what’s going on, it would be an IR light. My apologies.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Pete

    I heard that MARTIANS STAGED THE MOON LANDING TO HELP ERNEST BORGNINE’S CAREER! I heard that JFK SHOT HIMSELF! I heard that GRAVITY IS GENERATED BY A SECRET GOVERNMENT TESLA COIL UNDER NEW MEXICO, WHICH IS BUILT ON A HUGE DOME! I heard that MATH BOOKS ARE WRITTEN BY A 2+2=4 SECRET ORGANIZATION! I heard for 40 years that NICOTINE IS NOT ADDICTIVE AND CIGARETTES AREN’T HARMFUL!

    Seriously, a lot of conspiracy theories are just insane and/or dumb, and this is one of them.

    Others, like Bildabergers, JFK being shot by the CIA or the mafia or something, chemtrails? Sure, I’m with you, the evidence seems to support that.

    But here, you’re backing the wrong horse. Where is the CO2 going? Answer me that. Don’t say “naturally back to the earth,” because that’s not what I want. I want you to explain some biological mechanism that is removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Or are you saying that CO2 doesn’t cause a greenhouse effect? Because that is extremely well-understood and agreed upon. So WHERE’S THE ISSUE? You’re drinking anti-left koolaid brewed by “industry scientists” and schizophrenics.

    If you don’t agree that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, then set up an airtight plexiglass box with a hose attached, crimp the hose with room air inside, set a UV-VIS light bulb over it and record the temperature for a week. Then get a bunch of CO2 bike tire chargers and pump the thing full of CO2, and see what happens the next week.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Pete

      See my post below; this would actually work better with an IR light source.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. galactis

      Pete i don’t like your attitude. why do you insist on insulting people. i thank god we weren’t born during the Salem witch trials. because you’d be screaming witch

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Pete

        I’m sorry, but that’s infantile. You’re the ones claiming some sort of supernatural occurrence. Where is the CO2 going? I’m trying to stand up for elementary science that’s easily proven and understood by anyone with a basic education, and that’s all.

        You don’t have to like my attitude. I think you’re dead wrong, I think you’re making a huge mistake, and I think it’s because you’re selfish and short sighted. Say whatever you want about me.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. Pistol

    Hi Andrew,
    Unfortunately, the computer that I was using when i was conducting my research on Tesla and others was destroyed by water and was unable to retrieve all my data, years of work lost. Yes, i know i should have backed it up… Google Tesla and you will find many references to the man.

    Also search for info on the ‘Superwave Theory’, ‘Dark Mission’, ‘The Enterprise Mission’, ‘The Bilderberg Group’, ‘Alex Jones’, ‘Dr. Len Harowitz’, ‘David Icke’. the list goes on…. Check these out… Its all the same story being told from different angles… The universe is not the place we have been led to believe… Global warming is not being caused by any activities of man or even the sun.

    If this were the case, then planets like Pluto (made of ice) that are moving further out of our solar system and receive little to no energy from our sun is melting, so too is a moon around Jupiter that was once ice is now liquid seas…

    Jupiter displaces more than twice the energy it gets from the sun which defies institutional physics and the status quo. Its because energy & heat are coming in from somewhere unseen. Tesla knew this too along with secret socities operating in the background. Its part of the reason why pyrimads and other structures are built on vortex points and ley lines around the globe, on the moon and mars.
    We live in a Hyperdimensional universe, made of nothing but energy, vibrating at varying frequencies, existing trans-dimensionally on an infinite number of levels…you only need look inside our bodies to see that the universe lies within us. when we look out into the night sky, we can gauge the scale of distance between the atoms in our own bodies.

    The vastness and infinite nature of who/what we are is incomprehensible to the analytical mind. It wont be until we fully understand the nature of the universe/us that we will truly discover the cause of things such as global warming. The superwave theory has it close, if you need to blame something outside of us for the warming… I put this to the reader… You, and I and everyone else on this planet with the ability to think, is the real cause of anything. Cause and effect. I/You/we are the cause. Our thoughts define/create the circumstances and experiences we have in this illusory reality we call life on earth…

    The fat controllers know this, which is why we are told what to think, how to act, what to wear, what to believe etc. There is a war on for your mind, coz they know if they can tell you what to think, then as a co-creator, you will play a role in creating the outcome they want..the world they want… We can end all of the nonsense by simply working on our own internal issues.. If we heal the inside we heal the outside….this is law…. In other words, its not the planet that is sick and needs healing, its ourselves… if you want to stop global warming, then go within… coz if you dont, you go without…
    thanks. love P

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. Andrew

    Would you care to provide us with links to sites and books that prove you sayings about this man?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. Pistol

    There is a solution to all our energy problems and it was first created over 100 yrs ago. The name of this genius was Nicola Tesla. He is the real electrical pioneer, not T Edison, who was a liar and a thief, (to put it kindly). Edison was just another illuminati frontman, used to discredit Tesla and prevent Tesla creating a free, unlimited, environmentally friendly solution to all our energy and communication needs. Tesla had planned and started building a gigantic tower that would wirelessly and safely power the entire globe (this is fact not fiction) until the financier, JP Morgan discovered Tesla’s plans and ceased funding the operation ( due to the effect this would have on special interests groups plans for centralization of power and globalization). Tesla was an electrical genius unparralled even today. His discoveries were and still are greatly hidden from the public. There is much to learn from this man, and the fat-controllers of this planet know this all too well. Do some research on this man and we will find a healthy, eternal solution to many of our dilemmas.
    Thanks

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. Fluidly Unsure

    About green tech and saving the day:

    http://xkcd.com/556/

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. fluidly unsure

    We are not all “self-absorbed idiots”. Don’t try to paint everybody here with the same brush that you use on me. It’s not sanitary.

    If I thought the argument was truly about the “safety of the world” I wouldn’t be hesitant to agree with you.

    While my facts and my reasoning may be flawed, I cannot “believe” until I see where those flaws exist. If anything, I need to go a step or two further than many. Please be patient, if you are correct I will get there. If you say “but time is running out” then my response is “no- I don’t believe”. This is the same argument I have with many “religious” evangelicals, telemarketers, and store coupons.

    It would be immoral for me to react if I believed that reacting would be our only chance for a positive result. But if I question whether the reaction would have the results that are claimed, it would be immoral of me to react. Deciding to react or not without thinking about it is ultimate immorality. Since the reaction involves how people are governed, it is a political question.

    I don’t think we “know everything … about anthropogenic greenhouse gasses …”, just that I don’t buy into the idea that the current strain of “experts” have the answer. Claims that they alone can know makes me be even more skeptical. I find “Keepers of the gate” arguments to be something to reject immediately.

    I know I am an idiot, but I don’t know of anybody who isn’t. In some way or another, we are all idiots and we are all geniuses in another. The big question is which our 15 minute time slot will focus on.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Pete

      It’s not that they alone can know. If you go back to college and get a PhD in climate sciences, you’ll be as qualified as anyone to speak. Do I tell you how to program computers?

      The reason there is so little disagreement within the scientific community about this, the reason that 99% or so of all scientists agree on this matter, is that it is extremely elementary climate science that can be proved at home. Keep breathing in and out of a paper bag, and you will eventually die. Case closed. It’s as if I told you that I think your method of writing Hello World is totally flawed.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. fluidly unsure

      Oops, I meant that it would be “immoral of me to NOT react if I believe” and “immoral of me to REACT if I don’t believe”.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Sean

        whos telling you to react? why don’t you just let the educated people do their jobs and not let it turn into a stupid argument. Who cares if you believe or not in global warming. Do you think the people who don’t believe in god argue against the church?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Fluidly Unsure

          Oops, my bad. Instead of “react”, I should have said “think”. Why are people attacking me as an “uneducated” and calling me a “self-absorbed idiot” for daring to think for myself? You seem to be upset because I’m opining here on a public forum? OMG, I guess I’ll have to conform and start eating the green wafers that Al Gore is force feeding us.

          I would have no problem letting college grads “do their jobs” if they could do it without my money, my support, or my agreement. So far that hasn’t been the case.

          It’s not whether or not someone is “educated” but by whom. I don’t value an education because of its affiliation with the standard academia anymore than I value a politician because of his/her affiliation with a standard party.

          Sometimes people who “don’t believe in God” argue against the church and sometimes we argue for the church. Sometimes people who “don’t believe” that climate change is bad (or is man-made) will argue for “green technologies” and sometimes we argue against it. I only know of a few “atheists” that “don’t believe in God” at all. What is called an atheist by most is usually a “soft atheist” or “agnostic” who simply doesn’t believe in the Xtian view of God or worship. Actually, according to some Islam leaders, all Xtians are atheists.

          I would write more about this but there might not be enough space on the “The New Tailor Made Servers” in Dallas, 2TB is clearly not enough. I’ll write about religion once this site uses ECC like Amazon’s.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Sean

            i’m not religious. i don’t care to hear your perception of god… you don’t have an opinion that matters and the college will take your money regardless what opinion you have. Go ahead and talk your head off about something you dont understand.. I really dont care.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Pete

            … but you DO trust an education in opposition to the standard academic position. Which is exactly the same, but paranoid.

            If you didn’t trust it, you would have become a climate scientist yourself. And in the process, you might have learned enough about chemistry and biology to realize the opposition to this theory is ridiculous in the extreme.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. Pete

            2+2 does not equal 5, even if the right-wing media conspiracy theorists tell you it does.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. sean

    This is so outragous. how can you argue against the safety of the world for future generations to come. This is a moral issue, not a political one.. I guess we shouldn’t listen to scientists because we know everything about the anthropogenic
    greenhouse gasses and the clausius clapeyron relation. You all are self absorbed idiots.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Andrew

      Some scientists oppose the lie of Global Warming, but because of this the scientific and political liberal elites ruin their lives and their jobs.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  21. Pffft
    1. Fluidly Unsure

      I think I might have seen him once or twice :-)

      The second time was a really mistake.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. Dfens

    Damn those liberals and their so called “global warming”! Conservatives should be happy to increase our trade deficit by buying oil from countries who hate us. Conservatives need to stand together to send money to countries that turn around and use that money to kill our troops. It’s the only patriotic thing to do!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Fluidly Unsure

      Are you aware that there are different kinds of conservatives? Not all want war.

      Are you aware that some are even closer to many “liberal” ideas than the current thread of “left leaning” pundits?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. Pete

    > It doesn’t matter if the problem is beyond man’s control?

    Whether we are causing it, in whole or in part, or we are not, it may be within our power to save ourselves. “Trust God, but wear your seatbelt.”

    >How can we avoid a problem that will occur whether we are
    >extinct or not?

    That doesn’t make sense. We are going extinct in this case because we failed to react to the threat in a rational, God-fearing way.

    >Are you suggesting we manipulate nature to our desires like the
    >desire to live longer?

    We already are manipulating nature to meet our desires. We take its resources to give ourselves the nice things we want. I am suggesting we stop being so childish about what we “want” and focus on what we need. Adults have adult concepts about utilizing resources.

    My information comes from climate scientists, whose understanding of the climate and the physical universe exceeds the weight of your amateur speculation in my opinion.

    >Maybe the roads leading to the cliff are like the roads on the side of a mountain where it seems that you are going off the road until the vehicle turns.<

    What roads? What makes you think we are on a marked road? We are proceeding into a wilderness, without marked terrain, without an example to go by. Those with the equipment and understanding to look ahead (unless you don’t believe in technology?) are saying we are going off the cliff. Why should I listen to your random optimism? “No, that’s not a cliff, let’s just gun it for our own enjoyment.”

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Fluidly Unsure

      This pissing contest has been going on for decades now. Oh well, here we go again:

      1) I see nothing wrong with “wearing a seat belt” when it is clearly needed. But when it is needed is in question, not whether or not is should be worn at all.

      2) I don’t think God is to be feared and reacting to man’s word that he/she/it must be feared is not rational. But then you are not the first street corner prophets to tell me I will burn someplace. What’s the difference?

      3) A minimalistic approach would solve many problems, including the current economic one. But maybe the problem isn’t my failing to react, but the green evangelists failing to make logical arguments beyond shouting previously repeated death threats.

      4) Usually, I have more trust in “amateur speculation” than the speculation of a bunch of elitists who are busy patting themselves on the back and take that pat to be accreditation of their professionalism. Many of the greatest scientists in history all bucked the model others bowed-down to.

      5) Your argument will be weighted the same whether you claim it comes from God, university graduates, or a layman. We both are using information from sources we accept and the other probably doesn’t. Claiming one is unquestionably right because their choice of sources is just a strawman that is commonly used to hide a weak argument.

      6) I was referring to the analogy you previously set up (“while our ‘leaders’ drive the bus off the cliff”).

      7) I never said we should “gun it”– literally or otherwise. I was saying I would not react with guilt, shame, and panic as others claim I should.

      One thing is clear, the materialistic life we’ve been living recently has unpleasant consequences. So why don’t we agree to live in a more minimalist/pragmatic way and agree to disagree on the details?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Pete

        If I claimed that gravity doesn’t apply to pets, and decided to use your pets to demonstrate off a tall building, and cited my source as “some guy with a grudge against nerds who goes to my church,” how would you feel about that?

        You seriously prefer the speculation of people without education in the field to the well-honed opinions of experts with post-graduate education and understanding? People with decades of real, mathematical experience to people who are just guessing based on their preferences? That’s bizarre. You wouldn’t prefer the car-designing abilities of a small child to those of a mechanical engineer. How is this any different?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Fluidly Unsure

          Speculation is speculation and is probably done better by people “outside the box” who aren’t inundated with the bias’ promoted by institutions.

          However, car engineering is a very different beast and is more grounded in displayable skills and practical knowledge. But remember that it is a much easier job than that of the mechanic who has to keep the cars running. Unfortunately, a mechanic has to put up with the mistakes made in the name of engineering.

          These scare tactics aren’t going to work and shouldn’t be used when there is an alternative. I’m not going to be shamed, scared, or panicked into acting. My standard reaction to that kind of sales pitch is “I’m not interested, please have a good day.”

          BTW: I don’t think I ever advocated anything even remotely analogous to throwing someone off of a tall building. If I am wrong in my views here, I would suffer the consequences also.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Pete

            No, other people’s children would suffer the consequences. You are throwing my children off the cliff.

            Mechanical engineering is not a “much easier” job than being a car mechanic. You have to go through eight years of very complicated Math and Science to be a mechanical engineer, and that’s just to get started.

            What advantage do I gain by trying to scare you? What am I selling? I reap no benefit here.

            Really, I don’t get the sense that continuing to talk to you is worth my time; you’re not an ‘outside the box’ thinker yourself. You’ve already decided.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Pete

            I know you’ll say, “You’ve already made up YOUR mind.” But that’s not strictly true. If someone I had any reason to trust presented me convincing evidence to contradict everything I’ve ever heard from a qualified source, I would be the first to admit I was wrong.

            What I mean is that you’ve already decided that scientists are untrustworthy. But science is built around the concept that other people HAVE to double-check your results, and continuous improvement of the theory is the underlying responsibility and duty scientists are just nerdy and nice enough to spend their whole lives tied to their labs pursuing, without so much as a beer. If you’d rather get your science from random people on the street than trained experts who actually CHOOSE to do hard science and math all the time, their whole lives, for the public good, then that’s very strange to me, and I’m just going to walk away.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. Pete

        Ooops, I said part of that backward. It should be “People who are just guessing based on their preferences to people with decades of real, mathematical experience?”

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Fluidly Unsure

          The only people with “mathematical experience” are cashiers and farmers. The rest of us is just guessing.

          You seem to want to give extra weight to sophisticated tools. I don’t care if you use an abacus, a slide ruler, an HP-12c, or an IBM370, it is no less than guessing and all are prone to human errors. The least accurate is using someone else’s mind.

          Even discreet mathematics which claims to be pure is useless unless it is converted to decimal based numbers which allows mistakes and wrong estimations to creep in even when the logic is “correct”.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Pete

            If you think cashiers have mathematical experience, but don’t understand that scientists have MUCH more, I don’t know what to tell you.

            Mathematical modelling of complex systems is a science, and an art, and one in which you have much less experience than the people you’re claiming to correct. Gravity is only a “theory” as well.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          2. Fluidly Unsure

            Being a professional computer programmer for over 25 years, I know how machines, simulations, and statistics are only as accurate as both the people that put them together and people who run them (garbage in, garbage out).

            I have a lot of respect for the scientific methodology but I don’t see it being used by “scientists” today. Instead I see scare tactics, dogma, demands that others accept their inferiority while complying to an elite authority. All the signs of an over inflated ego, a weak self-confidence, and a lack of logical conclusions exist.

            I’ll ignore the implication that I’m not good enough to be a RP supporter. Beside, computer programmers and system analysts (aka software engineers) are know to be … uh … different.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      3. Pete

        Also, when I say we should fear God, I mean we should fear the physical consequences of our foolish actions in a physical universe with rules that we have chosen to ignore at our own peril, which were originally set in motion by God.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Fluidly Unsure

          So you have these rules enumerated?

          You are the authority of these rules and are justified in warning people when they are in peril of breaking those rules?

          I guess I was right when I thought that “green science” was being presented with the same arrogant enthusiasm as most religions are.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Pete

            That’s weird; I thought Ron Paul supporters generally understood the concept of fiscal responsibility and not spending more than you can repay. How is it that you believe spewing wastes into the air and water over the course of 200 years across the entire planet couldn’t have had any effect whatsoever? We reap what we sow.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Fluidly Unsure

            A need for fiscal responsibility? What are you talking about? Maybe the cost of cleaning the same mistakes nature makes (with the exception of heavy metals like the batteries used in electric cars)? Forcing people to pay for energy that hasn’t been proven to be inefficient (ethanol)? Or making people pay for the ill side effects of environmentalism (corn ethanol recently and possibly methane in the future)?

            When I was a kid, plastic bags could be reused so they were more “green” than paper bags, white sugar (sucrose) was more harmful than the simpler fruit sugar (fructose), and the waters were rising because glaciers were too cold and growing too fast. I made a fool of myself by buying into some of these “scientific” ideas. Do you wonder why I am skeptical this time around?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. Pete

            I was drawing a parallel between debt and payment in a financial context and “spending” and “repayment” with respect to our resources and environment.

            And you’re not just being skeptical. I’m skeptical. You’re outright dismissing the opinion of literally quite nearly the entire scientific community without anything like proof or a superior argument. Where is the CO2 going? Why would it NOT be causing an increase in the greenhouse effect? I’m not buying it. I’ll get my climate science from professionals, thanks.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          4. Fluidly Unsure

            Ok, I missed the debt/repayment parallel but that might be because I don’t see it as a debt. In my view repayment is desirable but unnecessary.

            Where is CO2 going? Probably the same place it came from. We are only recycling hydrates pulled from another place on the earth.

            I doubt if many have questioned whether the greenhouse effect exists or whether the earth is warmer some years than others. What I am questioning is the significance of man’s contribution, whether we could actually change anything, and whether or not we should destroy our way of living for the sake of a weather forecast.

            You and I use different sources for information. So be it. There are times to listen to one and not the other. Maybe I’ve got the time wrong, but I doubt it. Then there is the issue of whether or not a wall plaque combined with name dropping is the true sign of a professional– “I got my education at * university and have had my papers published in * magazine.”

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          5. Pete

            The significance or insignificance of man’s contribution matters not one whit, as I’ve already said. When your nation or your planet raises a call to arms, you do not sit there complaining about the hardship and refuse to answer. I consider this train of thought (party hearty, no point in trying to stop) to be treason on the part of the conservatives.

            Your comment about CO2 illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of biology.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          6. Fluidly Unsure

            I only have one thing to say about your comments about my “fundamental misunderstand of biology”. I think you mean my “fundamental disagreement with your conclusions” and my “refusal to narrow my views to one discipline (biology)”.

            My conclusions may be wrong and I may have some details wrong by your understanding, but I am not ignorant of the issues or of the sciences behind them.

            I also think it is unethical to not weigh a call to arms against our conscience and common sense. Wouldn’t it have been nice if the crusaders and nazi soldiers did the same?

            In another thread I said that we can agree on some points even if we disagree on others. I agree that green energy can be efficient and the minimalist in me says that reducing our “fingerprint” on earth is desirable. I disagree that we are in dire-straights and that we all must be forced to act as if we agree.

            Why don’t we work together to advance green technology? RP said it well:

            “I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well.”

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          7. Pete

            If you think CO2 is being returned to the depths of the earth at the same rate we are pumping it out by some natural process, than I must insist that you pick up a biology textbook and get your facts straight.

            If your conscience doesn’t tell you it’s wrong to attempt to stop destroying the planet so we can have a big wing-ding for ourselves, and your common sense doesn’t tell you that pumping greenhouse gasses by the millions of tons per year into the air without any way to remove them would have an effect on the system, than I am at a loss.

            I fail to see how a temporary delay in our quality of life to buy ourselves time is in any way similar to killing all the world’s Jews or using violence to force a particular religion on others. This is a time for sacrifice, like World War II. I just don’t get where you’re coming from.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          8. Fluidly Unsure

            Where did I say we were returning CO2 into the “depths of the earth”? Maybe you misunderstood my statement that CO2 would go to where it came from … nature. Nature will make use of the carbon and oxygen, c’est la vie.

            If I thought the earth was being imperiled by my actions, it wouldn’t be very conscientious of me to not do something about it. But what if I don’t swallow the first premise?

            “Time for sacrifice”? Is Al Gore a cross between the Sierra club and GWB? Will he use the powers as wisely as the previous administration did? *smirk*

            I’m glad to hear that you acknowledge that it is only a temporary delay of the inevitable. If we are at the crest of destruction without these actions, we are not far from destruction with these actions (assuming they are true). Like Greenspan, Gore’s actions will delay the inevitable and make the “bubble” even bigger and much more painful. To loosely reword RP; we must let the eco-system readjust.

            I wasn’t comparing Nazis/Crusaders to the system you are trying to sell to us. I did say that I feel I should question the “authorities” and that Nazi soldiers should have done the same thing. The comparison is not of their actions but of their lack of questioning those actions.

            Why are you ignoring my request that we agree to disagree? We can go on and on about our disagreements but we have enough agreements to end it here.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          9. Pete

            CO2 is not being returned to nature, because it never left nature in the first place. Nature constitutes the entire system.

            CO2 is currently trapped in the biosphere. Plant life converts the carbon in CO2 into carbohydrates, and animals then convert it back into CO2 as they breathe out. Roughly speaking, the amount exiting mouths and the amount consumed by plants would have to be equal for the system to be in homeostasis. A mass extinction put the carbon deep under the ground in the form of carcasses that were never consumed, where it lay uninvolved in the biosphere until we struck oil. Pulling it up and releasing it creates a massive oversupply, while turning forests into cattle grazing diminishes demand. You are not correct that there is a drain on the system that can match the oversupply.

            You are also not correct that the bubble must burst. Scientists are hard at work trying to find ways to remove greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere. Massively reforesting the earth would also contribute enormously to this effort. We need time and money, but antiscience fools and evil businessmen, combined with the “woo-woo” tree-hugging hippy destruction of the reputation of intelligent environmentalism, have stalled the project to save life on Earth in its tracks.

            Your opposition to the concept of sacrifice would surely shame the many generations who preceded you, who gave up so much so that you could be so spoiled as to smirk at the very idea.

            What makes you think I haven’t questioned environmentalism? But the questions lead to extremely obvious conclusions. If you take out more than you put in, you run out. I’m not willing to agree to disagree; this is a public forum and I would prefer that you eventually admit your argument doesn’t hold water.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          10. Pete

            Also, I didn’t say we were delaying the inevitable; I said we were delaying to buy ourselves time. If we learn to balance CO2 levels technologically – to perform medicine on the planet – we may be able to prevent extinction, whether it is cyclical, man-made, or man-accelerated. But these things take time and public buy-in.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. Pamela Johnson

    The TRUTH! The TRUTH!
    The TRUTH!
    Jesus Christ/YHVH is here on Earth, he has the cure for AIDS/CANCER…
    :
    I am a Biblical Truthseeker, I researched for more than 2 years to find out the truth, and God. I woke up to my past life as Mary Ruth in the spring of 2007, I had dreams of his crucifiction, as i was present at the cross, when he was crucified. I had an aura show up on my cross, on my living room wall. I saw a Devil’s aparition, which threatened to “clean my plate”, meaning wipe me out financially. This same figure came into the George Webb restaurant I was in @ 0130 AM, his walking in was preceded by the song on the speakers “Very superstitiuos the Devil’s on his way” by Stevie Wonder. The Devil’s apparition had an abnormal looking face, pale waxen and sweaty, he had a inverted pentagram on his hand, an inverted pentagram necklace on. I asked him where he was from, he said he was from under the bridge, that he was hungry. The guy I was with, who is the Apostle “Timothy” reincarnated detected he was a Demon. The apparition, wanted also to touch me, he was hungry, so I let him finish the food and drink I had not finished. “Timothy” wouldn’t let him touch me. So when we stepped away from the table, this Demon wolfed down my food and soda and stated “I’m going to clean your plate”. The night manager called 911, as the Demon looked abnormal, but as we were walking up to the front register to pay the check,the Demon walked to the front door, walked through the threshold of the door, and literally vanished, in thin air, there were plate glass windows and a full lenght glass door. I also had a white peace dove fly in front of my car to keep me from getting into a car accident. I used the St. Michael Prayer card to help me in the first few months until my Holy Spirit got fully reved up. I am a healer, and have many important dreams, the Angels are around me to protect me, I am immortal, I am an elect of the 144,000 Saints spoken of in Revelations. Look @ the Brian’s videos, and the one entitled 12/21/2012. After i foundhim in June 2008, he read me in the stars, and knew that I was Mary Ruth, and that “Timothy” was Timothy the Apostle. In the Christ timeline, I was an Essene Jew from the Tribe of Judah. I lived a perfect life, remained pure, I was single, never had sex, or children, I taught the WAY, as Jesus, my brother did. He chose me to come back to help gather the Lost Tribes of Israel, and gather the 144,000 Saints. It is also my responsibility to turn the United States around from Sodom and Gomorrah, get this country to change it’s ways.
    Jesus came to Earth in the Christ timeline to Teach the WAY, how to live our lives according to his (YHVH’s) commandments, there simple, love yourself, love others, and thou shalt not kill are the principle ones that keep Humanity @ peace, and having compassion/caring for eachother. The Darkside knows who I am, and when I first woke up they would bother me with cellphone calls. These calls “Timothy” had a premonition about, they would sound like a “Devil’s Whisper”, both Timothy and myself got 3 each of these calls. These calls when taken come accross as 000-0000, or unknown caller, when taken they leave pain over your ear, and lower mid forehead. The calls are done by the NSA, they were trying to burn out the Pineal Gland, which is where your ability to connect with the hAngels/Heavens, your arua demonstrates your life energy/Holy Spirit if you are following the right path, your soul is in your blood. YHVH/Jesus confimed my identity in the Stars, I have a special name, I was born on a certain date/time/location. But the Darkside as well knew who I was, and knew that I would wake up, and do my mission for YHVH. Look @ the internet site: educate-yourself.org, then the section on Mind Control then the subsection illuminatis-Mind Control, learn how organized religions were created by men, under the influence of the Satanists/Free Masons/Illuminatis/Ashkenazi/Khazarian Jews. Their intention was to divide and conquer. Jesus is the WAY, the Truth, and the Life! No one comes onto the Father except through me!” (That’s because he is the Trinity) “The Truth Shall Set YOu Free” Call upon him, literally you can call him on the phone or message myself or him on You Tube. Don’t hesitate to call me, don’t be afraid, for you can be assured that the man “Brian Leonard Golightly Marshall” is our Lord Jesus Christ/YHVH, ABBA, our Divine Creator, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, our Savior, and Prince of Peace. Now look @ the information and confirm it in your own heart. Brian (Tree) Leonard (Lion) Goligthy (Tribe of Judah), Marshall (Key of David), his videos are on You Tube @ Michelle Nye; his archived documents are @ http://www.holyconspiracy.com; my sites are @ peacenowwhitedove@myspace.com and on You Tube. My phone number is: In the USA CST 1-920-941-0395.
    Jesus Christ/YHVH”S phone number in Australia is: +61 394 352 120 YHVH allows you to do self defense in a time of Tyrany, you have the right to bear arms, to defend your families and the rest of humanity that you love, against the forces of the Fallen Angels/Satanists/Free Masons/Ashkenazi/Khazarian Empires. The 50 States in the USA and the Provinces of Canada need to secede now!. Some have already seceded viewn HCR 6 NH on You Tube. We need to decentralize the government, to escape the Tyrany and oppression. Google: 4647773, to find out how the U.S. Health Dept. and the U.S. Military created the AIDS virus Genocide, they also created Cancer. We need your help to spread the Word that Christ Jesus/YHVH is here on Earth, and to contribute money to the curing of humanity from the Satanists created deseases. Listen to online radio @ infowars.com. Read the books: “Is George Bush the Antichrist?” by R. Stephan Hanchett; “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder” by Vincent Bugliosi.
    You Tube: illuminatis; HAARP; Chemtrails; ELF Towers; Wexler Impeachment Hearings, Dennis Kucinich Articles of Impeachment; Skull & Bones; Free Masons; Bilderberg Group; CFR,;Trilateral Commision; “The Antiterrorist” video series, look @ “The Corporation”; “Think Free: Bursting Bubbles”; FEMA Prison Camps; Martial Law, NWO.
    Internet: educate-yourself.org; apfn-apfn.org, then type in apfn-apfnbcolony (how we never won the American Revolution). Don’t take any vaccinations, that is one method of how they spread diseases like Autism, Cancer, and AIDS. There will be an AVIAN Flu scare, do not take the vaccination, for it will reformulate your DNA, and kill you!

    DEPLOYED SOLDIERS, YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU @ HOME, WE THE PEOPLE NEED OUR FELLOW AMERICANS HERE TO DEFEND US AND OUR SOVEREIGNTY, FROM DOMESTIC TERRORISTS, our government is going to go against it’s people. YHVH gives you the right to defend yourself and the rest of Humanity that you love, you have the right to bear arms to protect yourself and others.

    Peace and Love, Pamela Johnson (Reincarnation of Mary Ruth, Sister of Jesus, Tribe of Judah, Teacher of the WAY) WAKE UP YOURSELF AND OTHERS, SPREAD THE WORD.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Eric

      This seems like a reasonable thing to post on a global warming discussion board…

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Andrew

        ————————————————————————————

        Indeed … I believe in God and Jesus, even the Holy Spirit.

        But I also believe that Pamela Johnson is a little insane, if only because she posted it on the Ron Paul website.

        ————————————————————————————

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Tyler

      You need serious help, for your own sake and for those around you take a visit to your local psychiatrist

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    3. KC

      I don’t even know what to say to that. If Jesus is here I don’t think he would be using Youtube to spread his message and its hard for me to believe his sister would be leaving comments on a Ron Paul website. Jesus can make miricles… so why didn’t your friend get Ron Paul elected as president and not Obama. Crap like this is what makes everybody else think we’re all crazy for thinking differently. I feel crazy for taking the time to read your post. It barely mad sense for starters and at this point… I’m lost for words…

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. fluidly unsure

    It doesn’t matter if the problem is beyond man’s control? How can we avoid a problem that will occur whether we are extinct or not?

    Are you suggesting we manipulate nature to our desires like the desire to live longer? Green “science” (I use the phrase liberally) seem to be saying the exact opposite.

    Aren’t the icecaps receding in the north but increasing in the south? Isn’t most ice in the south which would mean it would have a bigger impact on water temperatures?

    Isn’t the “greenhouse effect” based on the effect of both visible and invisible sun rays on our environment? It doesn’t seem reasonable to ignore the light that would not be blocked by clouds or the fact that what is blocked by the ozone layer is converted to heat below in the lower atmosphere. Maybe getting sun burn on a cloudy day is a modern phenomenon.

    How do we know what the temperature has been? We haven’t been recording temperatures for more than a couple hundred years, computer simulation is no more accurate than a video game, and the analysis of tree rings and fossils is almost a speculation.

    Why should we jump when it would not help steer the bus, there is still some possibility that the bus will break or turn. Maybe the roads leading to the cliff are like the roads on the side of a mountain where it seems that you are going off the road until the vehicle turns.

    The fact that the screamers are becoming a hegemon of doomsday profits doesn’t help their message. Suddenly, what is studied by science and how it is studied depends on the hidden agenda of the institute funding the studies. It looks like the outcome of the studies are already rigged and calling modern scientists a scientist is like calling a witch-doctor a doctor.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. Pete

    It doesn’t matter what’s causing climate change. That’s a red herring. What matters is that it’s happening. Look at the ice caps. They’re going fast. The weather’s getting worse.

    CO2 traps light in the atmosphere; that’s science. There’s more CO2 in the atmosphere now than ever before by a wide margin; that’s science. So where’s the debate? Stop toeing the party line and admit the conservatives got this one wrong because it came from the hippies.

    If it were due to sun spot activity, the upper atmosphere, not the lower, would demonstrate the warming.

    So what do we do to avoid dying? Where’s your survival instinct? We do whatever it takes, we don’t just look the other way while our ‘leaders’ drive the bus off the cliff.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Jim Comorley

      Actually the warning came from Scientists.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Andrew

      Some parts of the ice caps are going. Some parts are growing. The media loves the glacier thats melting, but meanwhile the glacier next to it thats growing is oh sooooo lonely.

      ————————————————————————————

      As for the sun, look at a graph of Antarctica’s average temperatures. Compare it to a graph off CO2 emissions and sun spot activity both spanning over the same amount of years as the Antarctica temperature graph. You will see the truth.

      ————————————————————————————

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Pete

        Think with your brain instead of drinking the anti-left kool-aid and YOU will see the truth. Where is the CO2 going? How is it not causing global warming? There are many less trees and much more CO2. No one’s saying there’s no sun spot effect; no one’s saying some glaciers aren’t growing. Some years the temperature might dip. Some years the oceans might lower. But the CO2 in the atmosphere is spiking through the roof, the drain for it is vanishing, and the planet WILL continue to get hotter. This is elementary, as in elementary school, stuff.

        The climate is a COMPLICATED system. The dramatic changes overall can create effects in the short term that even seem to contradict the presence of the effect. And yes, other variables like sunspots are at play. But the CO2 issue is NOT IN QUESTION. The doubters are “industry” scientists, like the tobacco scientists who claimed nicotine wasn’t addictive for forty years.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. B Berry

          Appealing to logic doesn’t work well with some people; they don’t have or don’t seem to want the faculties for it. But take your point to the next level. The science can tell us a lot, but it is not strong enough to make bold predictions about much. At least climate science can’t. Logic however dictates exactly what you’ve written: Atmospheric [CO2] is increasing exponentially and there is no better explanation than for man’s hand to be at the root of it. Acknowledging this, I’d have to ask how anyone can know an increase in [CO2] would be deleterious for humanity. I understand the greenhouse effect, but I understand the complicated nature of the system that you allude to as well. Burke in Reflections on the French Revolution makes an anti-progressive argument which basically says that man is not God, not omniscient, and so we always have to be careful about pacing any change on a societal level. We aren’t as smart as we’d like to think we are so making a huge decision like resetting the economy which some people are so sure needs to be done, has to be viewed with equal skepticism that you seem to be applying to the tool you just replied to. I think we can agree there will be an effect, but whether the effect is positive, negative, or neutral… that’s where science consensus ends.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. KC

          Wasn’t Al Gore the one serving the Kool-Aid.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. Steve Matthews

    The earth appears to have had some warming and this is an observation based on science. The claim that the warming is caused by Greenhouse gases is a belief not an observation and not science. The claim that man is the principle cause of increased greenhouse gases is partially observable because man is releasing C02 but not complete science because the total population of greenhouse gas and the amount created by man is only a belief.
    Today, claims about what is observable science and what are actually beliefs are mixed together and only partial truths result at best. The same is true by scientists who insist that there is no creator but molecules-to-man evolution is a “fact”. That is not science that is a religious belief falsely posing as science. But how about this one, sun activity has caused the earth to warm. Is that one science or belief? Many scientists observe sun activity and show theories of cycles based on magnetic solar energy which certainly appear to be documented observations. They are ignored by those religious man-made global warming religious believers. The past 2 years have been colder throughout the globe. Are we now in a cooling period? The solar magnetic believers tells us this is their prediction. What if they are right and the man-caused global warming preachers are wrong? Before one give Al Gore another award, one may want to become a real scientist and make some observations of fact.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  28. James

    The Problem with Climate Change – it’s a political tool, not a problem to be solved – Realize this, and you are at least being honest with yourself.

    Environmentalist, Economists and Statisticians are the hired guns of the PR outlets that employee “tools” for political battles.

    Was Ethanol not really about winning Senate Seats from the Corn Belt? From a science point of view, Ethanal is an “energy transport mechanism”; a very inefficient one…. The Ethenal product is produced from Natural Gas + Chemicals = Ferteliser + Lots of Water [water shortage] + Lots of Land + Trains, Tractors, more chemicals, fuel and man hours, etc and in the end, you can “burn your food supply” to save the planet [assuming you have Food and Water left for Humanity to survive] So, a “great PR idea” ends with environmental damage, global starvation and water shortages. Summary: MASSIVE misdirection of limited resources by Government results in damages to both environment and all humanity. We should demand energy content labeling at the pump in Price per Joule standard / BTU by volume sold – that would make ethanol look even worse [after subsidies]. If you want a car fuel from Natural Gas – burn Ammonia; it has a high energy density [unlike LP] it’s the most pure form and a simple conversion process. Most Important Nat gas is plentiful in the US. How complicated is this?

    It is possible the source of Climate Change relates to Methane Hydrates. It is possible hydrates have become destabilized for many reasons. Fact is, even if you look at effect, the cause may be totally unanticipated.

    But, you know, in the end I don’t think its about Green, clean, etc energy – or high taxes on the rich and social programs, etc – all of this is just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic…. It does not matter. What does matter is long term strategic planning to carefully allocate public resources [when absolutely necessary] to projects that are too big and in areas too regulated to be taken on by the private sector – this is what the Fed gov. is supposed to do. Higher standards of living for the masses are provided by best uses of limited resources and efficient deployment of resources in promoting productive long term gains. In general the Free Market Win – unless the Government has already regulated the Free Market out of a certain space – Nuclear for example.

    “Clean energy” is not “cheep” energy…
    Cap and Trade is just a TAX that adds a level of complexity and inefficiency to a problem. You can not “force” Clean to be economic – if it simply is not – you [someone] pays the price in degraded living standards [as do more taxes lowers GDP (regardless of who pays)]. If the public should know they need to live in an apartment [rather then afford a house] to “save” the world – someone might want to tell them – instead of originating more home loans at below market interest rates. [High density housings is much more energy / environmentally friendly]

    Boon Pickens is building a $7Bill wind farm that will generate 1,000 megawatts of power… based on utility mandates for 20% renewable sources – this is not “cheap power” – We Texans are going to pay the increased cost + Boon’s profit margin. WIND WILL DESTROY THE US WEATHER PATTERNS. Average wind speed is dropped 7mph behind the turbine. The Blades reduce air pressure leading to condensation [AKA Rain] at the wind farm site vs down wind. I guarantee a panhandle wind farm will produce a lake in West Texas and a Drought over DFW area. I think Boon plans to sell water back to DFW from west Texas – last I knew, he was buying right of ways to do it. Not to mention, wind is not an efficient form of power production at 350 mile + remote locations.

    Oil is no good either – We have turned Texas into Swiss Cheese with Frac wells all over GOD’s creation – pumped with Billions of Gallons of Salt water – no doubt, it’s just a matter of years before the leaching and erosion surface with heavy metals in the water supply, break through surface leakage and 50 other environmental problems – Great to be a environmental lawyer 20yrs from now –

    I do not understand why Nuclear is not THE solution – end of story. The US has one of the largest natural Uranium reserves in the WORLD. We have the technology [that other 3rd world countries dream of], the ability to protect and safely manage it…
    The problem with Nuclear is no private company wants to take the risk [and expense] of building a new plant due to the approval / application process – 3 to 11 yrs [a Government man made problem]… and then it could get killed – The REAL cost [outside the political / regulation is possibly as low as $3Bill for a 10,000 megawatt reactor.. Projects could be fast tracked: start to finish 9mo each – build 100’s if that is what it takes. I find it ironic that we send our kids to die in a war [knowing some will not return] (4,000 or so now) – in the name of combating the middle east. Yet – we can not seem to use a PEN and PAPER to sign a bill that FAST TRACKS a solution that will END the middle east once and for all – shut them down. We allow nuclear aircraft carriers in NY Harbor -yet, we are “too scared” of a nuclear power plant any place near the city or populated areas. SO Cali. San Diego– with the rolling blackouts after Enron – wanted to plug into a Nuclear Battle Ship in the harbor [they asked] to power the city – but, when was the last time Cali put a Nuclear plant on line [much less mothballed one]. Right now we have Nuclear Weapons pointed at us from Russia, yet, we are [supposedly] afraid of nuclear Breeder Reactors that give off almost 0 emissions and re-processed waist? Right now we have nuclear silos [thousands] around the USA with armed warheads, yet, Nuclear energy production “scares” US? We just contracted to sell Nuclear Technology to both India and Saudi Arabia [don’t they have the oil] … and YES we are AT WAR – so, AMERICA wake up or the living standard and way of life will be eroded.
    The stock market is one of several barometers that represent American Wealth and global influence– I assure you it is heading lower unless we come to terms with America’s Resource Allocation problems. If China is more efficient at supplying power – WE LOOSE – that simple./

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    1. B Berry

      I’m not sure what “GOD’s [sic] creation” has to do with problems to be solved by men, but you have framed the debate the way it should be framed. Energy is economics and economics is national security. Fix one (and I happen to think nuclear energy could solve the problem immediately as you do but I would still diversify with solar/wind/geothermal/fusion-research) and you fix the other. We essentially are funding the threat which warrants 100k+ troops in Iraq/Afghanistan. Without our influx of money for oil, the entire Middle East loses both economic and political power (i.e. we could finally bring democracy to parts of that area since we’d have economic leverage or at least they would lose theirs over us).

      I would only add that we should be very wary about Boone (sp) Pickens and others like him when they suggest Natural Gas is the answer. Any fossil fuel is an unbelievably limited resource (do the math yourself instead of letting members of the media tell you). The best I could make for domestic coal assuming an exponential increase (not steady or plateaued) in demand is 200 years and natural gas is even less than that. So instead of just procrastinating the problem off to our grand kids or great grand kids, we have the opportunity to solve the problem right now. There is enough fissionable material on earth to provide power for us (even at an exponential growth of demand) until our sun dies. Moreover, if fusion were viable as we continue to be told that it will be “in the next 50 years” then all of these problems disappear; so continue with that research as well. I realize fusion is only theoretical right now, but I’m amazed at how not once has it been brought up over the last two years in a time when we are in a supposed energy crisis. It is a testament to how truly uneducated people are.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. Fluidly Unsure

    What I got from Ya’s response was that the existence of CO2 is a natural phenomenon and a fact that we cannot change as long as nature exists and all animals are breathing.

    Nitrates of oxygen occur in other environments without human influence. I’ve heard of natural occurring CFC but I have no reference. I can tell when an animal around me is making methane or hasn’t been making carbon-dyoxide for a while.

    Aren’t we putting what used to be in the atmosphere back into it? What makes nature so unnatural? Isn’t man claiming to have the exclusive power to create xyz like Microsoft claiming they invented the right-click?

    Just because we are on a side of a natural cycle we don’t like doesn’t mean it isn’t natural or healthy in the long run.

    In another light; Brahma, the creator, couldn’t do his/her work without Shiva, the destroyer.

    C’est La Vie

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Jim Comorley

      Oil (or petroleum) as you may know is made up of the dead bodies of countless trillions of plants and tiny sea animals. As the animals, including algae, died and sank to the bottom of the ocean, they took carbon with them. Under immense heat and pressure over hundreds of millions of years, they eventually formed oil and their carbon content was locked away underground.

      You’re correct when you say that we have only re-released CO2 back into the atmosphere, but by doing it intensively and only during the last 100 years, we have re-released that stored carbon in a very VERY short space of time.

      We know there have been previous large releases of CO2 in the atmosphere from now dormant volcanoes (by studying ice core samples dating back millions of years) but this happened when there were few people and no civilizations on Earth.

      Btu to put things in perspective, lets say the a moment that global warming is not happening or is at least not caused by humans, despite this we still face the huge problem of the acidification of the oceans caused by greater CO2 quantities in the atmosphere.

      Where the excess CO2 comes from is no longer debated. It is not from volcanoes or animals – it is from burning oil and coal.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Fluidly Unsure

        My reason for stressing that point is that man is considered by many to be beyond nature and his footprint on earth was proof that he was evil.

        I can see the problem with heavy metals and plastic. But when man’s “waste” is biodegradable (breaking down into mostly harmless elements) I don’t see the problem. When I am on a nature hike, I leave with more plastic waste than I come with (I pickup bottles etc) but I have no problems leaving an apple’s core or an orange rind on the ground, or leaving some fertilizer on the trunk of a tree.

        I am tired of being told how evil I am because I am human. From college professors that claim man is a cancer and the population must be capped to those that don’t allow us to occasionally escape human society. The message is clear: man does not belong in nature and nature must be protected from man.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. Mazer

    “There is only one way to ensure that you produce no more greenhouse gas; i.e., stop you from breathing out carbon dioxide. Are you ready for that remedy?”

    Breathing does not contribute to the net gain of CO2 in the atmosphere. The CO2 that you exhale comes from the sugars, proteins, and fats from the cows, chickens, other meats and vegetables that you eat. The cows and chickens, in turn ate plant material (or you ate it directly). The plants converted CO2 from the atmosphere into the sugars and proteins via photosynthesis which began the entire process. The cycle from CO2 to plants (possibly to animals) to humans and back to CO2 takes no more than 12 to 24 months. At the extreme range (drinking some very old wine), you are looking at a few decades. This has no impact on the net CO2 concentration of the atmosphere.

    However, the cycle is considerably different for fossil fuel usage (oil, coal, natural gas) since carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere as a result of burning these types of fuels originated in the atmosphere hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago and by pulling the carbon out of its geologic reserves, we are fundamentally altering the atmospheric make-up.

    Take a look at the NASA Earth System Research Laboratory for the overall trends of the various “greenhouse” gases (CO2, NO2, CH4, and CFCs and according to the site, “These gases account for about 97% of the direct radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases since 1750″)
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

    Before making decisions, make sure your facts are straight.
    Cheers!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Retired Air Force Disabled

      Mazer, NASA is a Gov agency run by the Vice-President. Their budget depends on producing results. Those results influence their budget. In Gov you do not make statements or findings contrary to your boss or you will find yourself “downsized” quickly. All you have to do is ask the FORMER NASA scientists who spoke out against global warming. Scientists (and I am one) will tell you NEVER let your feelings get in the way of science. We need to add politics to that saying as well.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      1. KC

        awesome.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. Fluidly Unsure

    As I understand it, the question is not whether or not the climate is changing but whether or not man caused it and whether or not man can prevent it. If the human factor is true then action is called for.

    But climate change is being used as one of the many attempts to make people feel guilty for existing. However, we humans are a part of nature and cannot destroy it. Our attempts to survive by manipulating the environment is no less natural for us than using claws and teeth to kill “innocent” prey are for a mountain lion.

    That said, alternate energy makes a lot of sense to me. After moving to the Inland Empire in California, I learned that alternate energy can be self-sustainable.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. Ya

    Global warming is a myth if not a lie. And it is another form of terrorism. Soon we’ll be paying taxes just to breathe due to this scare-mongering.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. John Balzer

      Ya. You are right on. Global warming, climate change is happening, not the warming as much I heard the other day the planet has not increased in tempurature since 1998, it is either the same or less. I wanna punch al gore in the face.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Jim Comorley

        To put things in perspective, lets say for a moment that global warming is not happening or is at least not caused by humans, despite this we still face the huge problem of the acidification of the oceans caused by greater CO2 quantities in the atmosphere.

        Where the excess CO2 comes from is no longer debated. It is not from volcanoes or animals – it is from burning oil and coal.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Andrew

          Ha!

          Did you happen to know that humans produce about 3% of the world’s CO2, and alot of that comes from our breathing?

          ——————————————

          Carbon Dioxide is natural people, what we oughta be worried about is real pollution (not the myth of Global Warming!) and the fact that the Global Warming lie is being used to gain more governmental control over us all!

          Seriously, look at the European Union. They agreed to cut CO2 emissions with the Kyoto protocol. Not to my surprise, their emissions are actually rising in all but 2 EU countries, and even in those countries the decline started before Kyoto! Also, their economies are getting worse.

          ——————————————

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. KC

          everything is made of carbon.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. Al Fata

    Derrick,

    There is only one way to ensure that you produce no more greenhouse gas; i.e., stop you from breathing out carbon dioxide. Are you ready for that remedy?

    Heavy metals and atrazine do not create carbon dioxide like you do, right? The issue here is global warming; not other kinds of pollution. You confuse the issue with discussion of other pollutants and polluters. I hope you did not mean to do that.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. brandon

      One way to solve this is by legalizing hemp, and using it as a fuel. The exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide from hemp-based bio-diesel are 47% lower than carbon monoxide emissions from diesel. Any CO2 that is released from burning hemp as a fuel is equal to the CO2 the plant had beneficially taken from the environment while growing, creating what is called a closed carbon cycle that could slow down global warming.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    2. sarah

      The problem is the carbon that has been stored for millions of years underground is released into the atmosphere, not what we exhale. The polluted air that is spewed into the atmosphere in Texas doesn’t stay in Texas and pollution TREADS ON ME. How can the states be the watchdogs of the environment? State governments are as corrupt as the lobbyist-owned federal system. But I certainly never understood how the government had to pay for Superfund toxic sites while polluting businesses filed bankruptcy and reorganized, or just disappeared and the culprits weren’t jailed,and assets seized for damages for harming the health and property of others.As for nuclear energy, who gets stuck with the bill of an expensive source of energy when the exponential growth of solar, wind, etc. might make it outdated before it comes online as a major source of energy? who gets stuck with the bill for storage and accidents? I really would like to know, because if I lived in North Dakota and I relied on wind, I might not want to pick up the tab for Georgia’s mistakes.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. That's Odd

        Get a bicycle.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. Derrick

    I have been more supportive to you and your campaign than anyone I know. I put out signs, attempted to spread the word, attended one of your rallies, and even contributed to your campaign. This issue ,however, is one which I wish you would reconsider how you look at it. I agree with you that government is a poor substitute for the market but the government still needs to govern.That means that when Autism is rising in the developed world at a much quicker rate than in the underdeveloped counterparts and we know that heavy metals can act as a trigger we don’t take the sky is falling approach we take the common sense approach. When we find atrazine(a herbacide known to cause birth defects and change the sex of some species of fish)in the breast milk of Inuit mothers that there is no escape for any American and we must act. Allowing Multi-national corporations or big lobby farmers to spread there disease to every citizen is not just. As far as global warming in specific we know what it may do. We already have alternatives so I agree with you on the market approach but it won’t be possible without the legislation to stop unjust polluters. Allowing them to do this is the equivalent of a subsidy that we will all have to pay the bill for when it affects our health. I pay for my garbage to be disposed of properly so should “they”.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. sam

      Spot on!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. dave

        The sad reality is you believe global warming is caused by humans. At one point in time people would throw virgins into the volcano so it would rain as well… Carbon Credits, taxing carbon and other moronic get rich schemes that people are buying into is tantimount to throwing a virgin into the volcano.

        Researchers for clear air turbulence, that is caused by rising air caused by differences in temperature from ground to air have found some interesting information that is suppressed. For the last 30+ years studies have used Mars as a control point for research and amazingly Global Warming is going on at the same rate (by distance to Sun) as here on Earth. I am sure the Martians have outlawed SUV’s and sold carbon credits to those rich white guys on Jupiter.

        Don’t take my word for it. Google Sam Kerr, he is the researcher. Oh, then look up all his patents he has sold the military and Boeing.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        1. andy

          if global warming is not what the scientific consensus makes it to be, then i think it’s probably because of the limits of technology and science right now. but i doubt that it’s a conscious effort by policy-makers to cash in on the cries of “wolf.” if it were, we’d have evidence of it: secret-keeping within the government (and even within business) is quite poor and we can find out what they’re doing quite easily because of all the leaks and also thanks to the freedom of information act and so forth.

          there’s no evidence that this is a conscious effort by people to exploit a lie or a misunderstanding. the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming is made up of the world’s best scientists and academics who have accepted a consensus on an issue – consensuses in science do not happen so easily.

          show me the evidence that there’s a conspiracy to profit off of “the lie.” and please give some links to sam kerr’s work – i couldn’t find him on google sorry.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          1. That's Odd

            Are you serious?

            The answer is not in your navel.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. KC

            Yeah.. and then they’ll say you’re a conspiracy theorist that wears Reynolds wrap hats if you say there are leaks. Real scientist (not paid to make up crap to validate Al Gore’s garbage scare tactics) say that the “warming” has to do with tectonic movement and increased solar activity around all of the planets in our solar system. This isn’t even the warmest period in time for our planet mother earth. We are well below those temperatures those temperature and that was way before there were cars, farting livestock, and industrial parks. It was even before there was a country called the United States of America and our temperatures now are just like the “Medieval Warm Period” that occurred around A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1350 according to Paleoclimatology(the scientific study of ancient climate). The Holocene Period (over 6000 years ago) had temperatures well above those today. It all just doesn’t add up.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  35. Benjamin

    Word.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

1 2 3 26

Leave a Reply