Democrats already politicizing tornado

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

Didn’t take long for sleezy politicians to jump right and and politicize the devastating tornado that hit Moore, OK. From Global Warning to sequester to scandals, the left showed no tact in using the tragedy to promote their pet agenda of choice.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1826062151 Joe Robinson

    Glenn the moment you decided to go down there you politicized it.

    Your tweets telling Obama and FEMA that they weren’t needed or wanted said it all.

    BTW Glenn why do you take pictures of yourself in Moore?  

  • http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm snowleopard (cat folk gallery)

    Remember the consistent core ideology of the Democrat Socialists under Obama:
    Never waste a perfectly good emergency
    Never stop blaming your enemies, real and imagined, as the cause of the emergency
    Never stop pushing the message of ‘you need the government as you cannot do it on your own,’ even though the people of Oklahoma already have begun to do so on their own.
    Use the emergency to punish your enemies by denying them resources and tying up all the private sector relief groups however possible.

  • Anonymous

    These two sound like ignorant children.  I’m sure many reading this will think this is some kind of conspiracy, but NASA states 97% of scientists attribute post industrial age climate change to human activities.  Remember this was their position under Republicans too.  http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    It is what they do to mass shootings to weather. They ignore the fact this was record low number of tornados. Lowest number in years but the liberals see this as an opportunity when people die they get their bills out from the file cabinet and say here is the bill that fixes the problem. They can care less about the dead.

  • Anonymous

    Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory: “we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years”

    Scientists at Russia’s famous Pulkovo Observatory are convinced that the world is in for a period of global cooling.

    So which one is it?
     

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    And don’t forget climate gate where the same so called scientists falsified data. You ever wonder why they changed the name from Global warming to climate change. Here’s a hint they were all way full of shit and when the temps where going the wrong way they change the name so morons like you will buy their books and make millions off of you.

  • Anonymous

    Well its obvious, it was to bring out his haters onto his site. How much money did people like Wold Blitzer show up and donate to help? Glenn is not a politician. He has raised over 1 million dollars from private citizens. It is his charity arm that has collected the donations. Why would he not go there? The Lefties just cannot stand seeing the Evil Right help his fellow man. They are a pathetic bunch.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rigoberto.serrano.39 Pachy Serrano

    Yep. Like Conservatives politicizing Benghazi . . . payback is bad, ah?
    And yes. Climate change is real and the studies are there to see . . . But Republicans and Conservatives do not believe in science because it goes against their religion or because scientists are “crazy liberals”. I think scientists are right because they are smarter and they know how to use the “scientific method” on their testing . . . Knowledge is power, folks!

  • Anonymous

    I’d go with the 97%

  • Anonymous

    You are referring to an exchange of emails at University of East Anglia where deniers claimed a conspiracy. That conspiracy was investigated and debunked as being taken out of context of a free exchange of ideas. That hardly discredits 97% of climate scientists. The issue has been called climate change ever since I can remember because early on scientists knew that the climate not change similarly everywhere. But I’m sure you must know more than all those PhDs.

  • Anonymous

     мy rooмαтe’ѕ αυɴт мαĸeѕ $61/нr oɴ тнe ιɴтerɴeт. ѕнe нαѕ вeeɴ oυт oғ worĸ ғor ɴιɴe мoɴтнѕ вυт lαѕт мoɴтн нer pαyмeɴт wαѕ $16054 jυѕт worĸιɴɢ oɴ тнe ιɴтerɴeт ғor α ғew нoυrѕ. reαd мore oɴ тнιѕ ѕιтe Zap2­2­.c­o&shym&shy

  • That Guy

    Yeah, climate change in and of itself is real. Global Warming, however, is not, and as an atheist Conservative I can confirm that religion has absolutely nothing to do with facts.

  • Anonymous

    How are Conservatives politicizing Benghazi?….What are they doing?

  • Anonymous

    There is no GW, it was made up for political purposes,but ignorance has no boundaries and no discipline

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    I am sorry to bust your bubble but because it gets hotter one day and colder the next has nothing to do with us. This earth does it all the time even before we humans came on the seen. The Earth started out as a big pile of molten rock. So please try not to follow people off a cliff that have their own agendas which has nothing to do with greenhouse gasses. if these so called man and woman of science actually cared for the truth they would not be pushing what is clearly a hoax and no climate gate was not disproven it was their own words talking about fudging the data I have not seen it disproved.

  • craigc

    Blah, Blah, Blah

  • http://www.facebook.com/jon.galt.5454 Jon Galt

     Yes, but only the scientists that agree, right?  Any that disagree must be destroyed!

    Did you know it was warmer during both the Roma and Medieval warming periods?  Long before “man-made” CO2? 

    Knowledge is power!

    Did you know that the earth went through similar cyclical cycles during every previous inter-glacial warming period over the last several million years?

    Knowledge is power!

    Did you know that NASA stated that the GW models largely underestimate heat losses from the Earth into space?

    Knowledge is power!

    Did you know the CERN Institute stated that GW models largely underestimate the effect of the sun on Earth temperatures?

    Knowledge is power!

    Did you know that every prediction of warming of every model has failed? 

    Knowledge is power!

    Did you know that “scientists” were caught red-handed covering up recent DECLINES in temperature, since that would completely destroy their theory, and their funding?

    Knowledge is power!

    How do I know that you will ignore ALL THE FACTS I JUST PRESENTED?

    Knowledge is power!

    ENJOY YOUR STARVATION, LIB-TARD!

  • http://www.facebook.com/jon.galt.5454 Jon Galt

    Almost forgot –

    Did you know that it was Karl Marx who first proposed using fake environmental concerns in order to control the people?

    Knowledge is power!

  • Anonymous

    Pachy is the perfect manifestation of the old adage that a little knowledge is dangerous.  Note that doesn’t cite any evidence or data, just parrots the same old leftist line that is designed to grow government power.

    O.K. nitwit, I’ll be sporting and give you a chance.  The whole “global warming” crisis hoax is based on a 0.35 degree Celsius increase in globally averaged temperature from 1978-1997 (since then it has flatlined at 14.5 degrees C).  Tell us all how CO2 is chiefly implicated in the one-third a degree C increase apart from solar activity, the earth’s elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, its precission wobble, the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover (Stensberg), and natural climatic variability. You may assign specific percentages to each factor if you so choose for extra credit. 

    If you pass that test, you will be placed in a isolation chamber to determine if you can detect a one-third a degee C variation in the controlled climate of the chamber.   If you fail the tests, a button will be depressed and you will immediately be sent down a shute and into a tub of warm horse manure filled with Al Gore and a gaggle of global warming nutjobs.

  • greywolfrs

    Yeah, Benghazi should just be left alone. We should never question why a diplomat was killed in a foreign country. We should not question why there were NO Marines there. We should just trust a hack like Obamao. If we question it, it means we are politicizing it.

    Climate change has been happening since this planet was just a rock, only a fool think that data that was manipulated to prove it is real. You never even bothered to question why it is that those idiots lost all the data prior to a couple of years before that happened. You really need to learn the definition of “science” before you spout any more stupidity. Scientific method does not mean changing the numbers to make them prove your point, which is exactly what happened. You probably also believe that buying a Prius is helping. You do realize that the polluton created to make the battery in that car is more than driving a 4 cyl. PZEV for ten years. (that does not even include the pollution created from all the graphite used in the car)

    You THINK scientists are right, if they are saying what you want to hear.

    See what you get for thinking…

  • greywolfrs

    Awesome, go off yourself and help the rest of us out.

  • greywolfrs

    They changed it to “climate change,” because the earth is no longer “warming,” it is cooling.

  • Anonymous

     I’ll go with, “They haven’t studied the Earth long enough to make a decision.”

  • Anonymous

     How about all of the pollution created to generate the electricity to charge the battery.

  • Anonymous

    And the explanation for the equal temp rise on Mars?

  • http://suzeraining.wordpress.com/ suz

    agorzeera…bullsh.

  • Anonymous

    Really, and we expected anything more from them.  They are not capable to caring, loving or giving in any kind of way.  They are takers and law breakers.  Only thinking about themselves and taking for their own good – they are not good people.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, I’m sure your research is more reliable than all the PhDs.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t understand your reply.

  • Anonymous

    You might want to consider what the experts have learned. The complexity and reliability of the observations, prehistoric records, and climate models used to study past, present, and future climate is well documented and peer reviewed and there is much consensus. I’m always puzzled why laymen think they know more than the scientists. Ego, I guess.

  • Anonymous

    You should present your research at the next climate conference. I think it’s in SanDiego. I’m sure your remarkable theories will be of great interest to the scientists there.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, here is a list of the attendees. They’ll be fascinated with your insights. http://www.climateleadershipconference.org/attendees.html

  • http://www.facebook.com/george.shuttleworth.75 George Shuttleworth

     Conservative is NOW a “Religion”  WOW.  Pachy…what country are you from?  You sure are not American … but then again if knowledge is power then you understandably are an Obama puppet with no mind of your own.  Go back to whatever country you crawled out of and stay there.

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    They are ignoring what is right in front of them it does not take a PHD to see that just a free thinker which sadly is not what you liberals are known for.

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    Looks like the only ones most going is big corporations, love the Earth kill a baby charities, and big liberal media. Where is the scientist?

  • Anonymous

    That’s why free thinkers like you should debate the experts. You should to enlighten them. Do it for those of us that are blinded by evidence like this http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

  • Anonymous

    Absolutely correct Grey.  Your statements are spot on.  Hatchy Milachy only uses the term “scientific method” as his buzz word ( as most of the “the sky is falling” libtards do).  He doesn’t understand that scientific method requires the investigative scientist to have an open mind; understanding that the data collected just may disprove the original hypothesis.  And, as we’ve seen, mountains of earlier data mysteriously “disappeared”. 

  • Anonymous

    Hilarious CT.  Only issue I have with your response to Hatchy Milachy is that you used too many muli-syllabic words, and too many scientific factoids.  His poor head will explode all over his mommy’s basement.

  • Anonymous

    There are various conferences just on science such as http://igac-icacgp2014.org/. There are many places to look at data like http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/index.html and http://library.wmo.int/opac/index.php?lvl=index.

  • Anonymous

    You sound like you’re very educated in atmospheric science.  On behalf of us ingorant people, I suggest you debate the experts.  You should enlighten them on how their data spanning 400,000 years is misleading them.  Do it for those those of us that are blinded by evidence like this http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    There has been little to none warming in the past decade.

    Here’s a list of a few Scientists who think Man Made Global Warming is a hoax.

    Earl M. Aagaard, PhD, Charles W. Aami, Roger L. Aamodt, PhD, Wilbur A. Aanes, M. Robert Aaron, Ralph F. Abate, Hamed K. Abbas, PhD, Wyatt E. Abbitt II, Bernaard J. Abbott, PhD, David J. Abbott, MD, David M. Abbott Jr., Donald W. Abbott, Douglas R. Abbott, Eugene Abbott, Frank D. Abbott, Paul Abbott, Ursula K. Abbott, PhD, Refaat A. Abdel-Malek, PhD, Albert S. Abdullah, DVM, Alan E. Abel, MD, Jason Abel, Janis I. Abele, Joseph M. Abell, Robert E. Abell, Gene H. Abels, MD, Philip H Abelson, PhD*, Wayne Aben, Jerrold Abernathy, Marshall W. Abernathy, Grady L. Ables, Earl Arthur Abrahamson, PhD, Alan V. Abrams, MD, Carl M. Abrams, Robert C. Abrams, Paul B. Abramson, PhD, Jose L. Abreu Jr., Joe L. Abriola Jr., B. Steven Absher, Sally Absher, Ahmed E. Aburahmah, PhD, Joseph P Accardo, Austin R. Ace, David A. Acerni, John W. Achee Sr., Billy R. Achmbaugh, Daniel T. Achord, PhD, Ernest R. Achterberg, Ava V Ackerman, DVM, Gene L. Ackerman, John R. Ackerman, William L. Ackerman, Richard E. Ackermann, Terry D. Ackman, Donald O. Acrey, Lee Actor, Humberto M. Acuna Jr., Robert K. Adair, PhD, William G. Adair Jr., Brian D. Adam, PhD, Chris Adam, Anthony F. Adamo, Albert H. Adams, MD, Ann S. Adams, Anthony W. Adams, MD, Audrey W Adams, Brook W. Adams, Bryan C. Adams, Bryant L Adams, PhD, Charles K. Adams, Daniel B Adams Jr., Daniel Otis Adams, PhD, Dell H. Adams, Donald Adams, Dwight L. Adams, MD, Eugene Adams, Gail D. Adams, PhD, George Baker Adams, PhD, George F. Adams, Gerald J. Adams, PhD, Gregory A Adams, Harold Elwood Adams, PhD, Henry J. Adams, Howard J. Adams, James D. Adams, James William Adams, Jim D. Adams, John Adams, John Edgar Adams, PhD, Kent A. Adams, Lee A Adams Jr., Leonard Caldwell Adams, PhD, Lewis R. Adams, Louis W. Adams, PhD, N. Adams, Neil Adams, PhD, Opal Adams, Phillip Adams, PhD, Richard W. Adams, MD, Richard L. Adams, Richard Ernest Adams, Roy B. Adams, Roy Melville Adams, PhD, Stanley D Adams, Steve W. Adams, Steven W. Adams, William D. Adams, William John Adams, William M. Adams, PhD, William P. Adams, MD, William W. Adams, Wilton T. Adams, PhD, Verne E. Adamson, Wayne L. Adamson, Karlis Adamsons Jr., PhD, George Adcock, Robert E. Adcock, Rusty Adcock, MD, Lionel Paul Adda, PhD, Ben J. Addiego, Albert W. Addington, Tim Addington, William H. Addington, Paul Bradley Addis, PhD, Marshall B. Addison, PhD, Winford R. Addison, Joseph E. Adducci, MD, John K. Addy, PhD, Wayne F. Addy, C. William Ade, Albert H. Adelman, PhD, Barnet R. Adelman, Gary N. Adkins, L. A. Adkins, Michael F. Adkins, Ronald R. Adkins, PhD, T. Adkins, Wilder Adkins, Perry Lee Adkisson, PhD, Norman Adler, PhD, Jacques J.P. Adnet, Eric R. Adolphson, John H. Adrain, MD, Anthony J. Adrignolo, PhD, V. Harry Adrounie, PhD, Richard A. Adsero, Steve E. Aeschbach, Stanley P. Aetrewicz, Stephen B. Affleck, PhD, Siegfried Aftergut, PhD, Jack G. Agan, Frederick A. Agdern, Larry Delmar Agenbroad, PhD, Sven Agerbek, David Agerton, PhD, George Aggen, PhD, Vincent Agnello, MD, Kenneth Agnes, Mark R. Agnew, Nathan Agnew, Robert F. Agnew, MD, Sean R Agnew, Thomas I. Agnew, PhD, M. C. Agress, John Aguilar, Jorge T. Aguinaldo, Aida M. Aguirre, Robert Aharonov, Richard Ahern, Phillip S. Ahlberg, Kevin Ahlborg, Mark Ahlert, Terry Ahlquist, Richard G. Ahlvin, Edward J Ahmann, MD, Mumtaz Ahmed, PhD, Rafique Ahmed, PhD, Robert A. Ahokas, PhD, H. William Ahrenholz, Edward Ahrens, Rolland W. Ahrens, PhD, Robert M. Ahring, PhD, John J. Aiello, Robert P. Aillery, Brian R. Ainley, Alfred Ainsworth, Oscar Richard Ainsworth, PhD, Steven L. Ainsworth, Sol Aisenberg, PhD, John W. Ake, John Hvan Aken, Arthur W. Akers, David J. Akers, Stuart R. Akers, Gary L. Akerstrom, Wayne Henry Akeson, MD, Munawwar M. Akhtar, Frank Jerrel Akin, PhD, Thane Akins, Frederick I. Akiya, MD, John S. Akiyama, M. H. Akram, PhD, Philip R. Akre, MD, Zeki Al-Saigh, PhD, Zaynab Al-Yassin, PhD, G. James Alaback, Lloyd Alaback, John A. Alai, Robert J. Alaimo, PhD, Rogelio N. Alama, Greg Alan, Janet Alanko, Randy A Alanko, MD, Vincent M. Albanese, Henry Albaugh, Grant Alberich, Daniel C. Albers, Kenneth O. Albers, MD, Timothy A. Albers, Arthur Edward Albert, PhD, Edward G Albert, Eric K. Albert, PhD, James T. Albert, Tom J. Albert, William L. Albert, James L. Alberta, Leland C. Albertson, Roy A. Albertson, Frank Addison Albini, PhD, Allan J. Albrecht, Robert M. Albrecht, Rudolph C. Albrecht, Fred Ronald Albright, PhD, James C. Albright, PhD, Jay Donald Albright, PhD, Robert Lee Albright, PhD, William D. Albright, Marcus Albro, Allwyn Albuquerque, Evelyn A. Alcantara, PhD, Ernest Charles Alcaraz, PhD, Garrett D. Alcorn, John C. Alden, PhD, Ronald Godshall Alderfer, PhD, Thomas Alderson, PhD, Ben Alderton, Franklin Dalton Aldrich, PhD, Harl P. Aldrich, PhD, Reuben J. Aldrich, Richard John Aldrich, PhD, Samuel Roy Aldrich, PhD, Robert Aldridge, Gabriel C. Aldulescu, MD, Perry Baldwin Alers, PhD, Alex F. Alessandrini, Steven J. Alessandro, Andrew J. Alessi, Stephen R. Alewine, Joseph J. Alex, Danrick W. Alexander, Dave Alexander, Dennis J. Alexander, Fred Alexander, George C. Alexander, DVM, Harold R. Alexander, Ira H. Alexander, James F. Alexander Jr., James B Alexander, John C. Alexander, Kelsey Alexander, Kevin Alexander, M. Dale Alexander, PhD, Michael L. Alexander, Moorad Alexanian, PhD, Igor Alexeff, PhD, Charles D. Alexson, Rodolfo Q. Alfonso, Jennifer M. Alford, Mary E. Alford, Rex Alford, Robert L. Alford, Luis A. Algarra, Roger C. Alig, PhD, Mark J. Alkire, MD, R. Allahyari, PhD, Louis John Allamandola, PhD, Roger L. Allard, Joel W. Alldredge, William David Alldredge Jr., Fred A. Allehoff, John F. Alleman, Ben C. Allen, PhD, Charles C. Allen, Charles M. Allen, PhD, Charles W Allen, PhD, Christopher G. Allen, Clayton H. Allen, PhD, David M. Allen, David J Allen, PhD, Emma Allen, PhD, Eric R. Allen, PhD, Gary L. Allen, PhD, James L. Allen, PhD, Jason D. Allen, John L. Allen, Joshua C. Allen, Kenneth L. Allen, Kimbol R. Allen, Kristin L. Allen, Levi D. Allen, Madelyn H. Allen, DVM, Marvin E. Allen, Merrill P. Allen, Paul W. Allen, PhD, Randall Allen, Robert C. Allen, Robert G. Allen, DVM, Robert K. Allen, MD, Roger B. Allen, PhD, Stewart J. Allen, Thomas Hunter Allen, PhD, William Allen Jr., Robert T. Van Aller, PhD, George L. Allerton, Carl J. Allesandro, Robert Q. Alleva, Ernest R. Alley, Jonathan Alley, MD, William Edward Alley, PhD, George L. Allgoever, Robert W. Allgood, Robert H. Allgood, Richard Alan Alliegro, Mike E. Alligood, Craig Allison, Gary L. Allison, Kevin R. Allison, Randall W. Allison, Ronald C. Allison, MD, Terry G. Allison, Charles E. Allman, George J. Allman, Philip D. Allmendinger, MD, John J. Allport, PhD, Albert L Allred, PhD, Bruce W. Allred, Ivan D. Allred, Victor Dean Allred, PhD, Gary W. Allshouse, Arthur W. Allsop, R. A. Allwein, Ronaldo A. Almero, Frank Murray Almeter, PhD, Anthony H Almond, Kent A. Alms, Richard E. Almy, Jorge L. Alonso, Ramon J. Alonso, PhD, James A. Aloye, Ali Yulmaz Alper, Reevis Stancil Alphin, PhD, Allen A. Alsing, A. Frank Alsobrook, Robert C Alson, Albert W. Alsop, PhD, John Henry Alsop, PhD, Randy J. Alstadt, Sally S. Alston, Charles Alt, Greg A. Altberg, Vincent O. Altemose, Nicholas A. Alten, Frederick C. Althaus, George A. Alther, Howard W. Althouse, Timothy L. Altier, Ashton Altieri, Martin E. Altis, David Altman, PhD, Larry W Altman, Melvyn R. Altman, PhD, Ronny G. Altman, Peter Christian Altner, MD, Herbert N. Altneu, Sidney J. Altschuler, Edward E. Altshuler, PhD, Burton Myron Altura, PhD, Patrick Aluotto, PhD, Raul C. Alva, Anthony B. Alvarado, Antonio R. Alvarez, Raymond Angelo Alvarez Jr., PhD, Virgilio E. Alvarez, Dayton L. Alverson, PhD, R. Byron Alvey, Stephen Edward Always, PhD, Vern J. Always, James I Alyea, Bradley A. Aman, Farouk Amanatullah, Larry C. Amans, James L. Amarel, Charles David Amata, PhD, Carmelo J. Amato, Paul Gerard Amazeen, PhD, Ronald F. Amberger, PhD, Leonard Amborski, PhD, Joseph R. Ambruster, Donald Ford Amend, PhD, Marvin Earl Ament, Richard Amerling, MD, Edward J. Ames II, Lynford L Ames, PhD, Martin R. Ames, Donald R. Amett, Michael R. Amick, Wayne P. Amico, Dean P. Amidon, Pushpavati S. Amin, Duane R. Amlee, Kenneth S. Ammons, Moris Amon, PhD, Richard D. Amori, Lee Amoroso, PhD, Bonnie B. Amos, PhD, Dewey Harold Amos, PhD, A. Amr, PhD, Fred Amsler, MD, Robert L. Amster, DVM, Thomas A. Amundsen, Adolph L. Amundson, Keith L Amunson, James P. Amy, Barry M. Amyx, MD*, Raymond J. Anater, Sal A. Anazalone, Kenneth L. Ancell, Melvin M. Anchell, MD, Ernest J. Andberg, Kenneth J. Anderer, G. Anderle, PhD, John P. Anders, MD, D. Andersen, Donald A. Andersen, PhD, Donald R. Andersen Jr., Doug E. Andersen, Gene P. Andersen, George H. Andersen, Lawrence D. Andersen, Terrell Neils Andersen, PhD, Torben B. Andersen, PhD, Wilford Hoyt Andersen, PhD, Robert W. Andersohn, Alan J. Anderson, Albert S. Anderson, MD, Amos Robert Anderson, PhD, Amy L Anderson, Andrew S. Anderson, PhD, Anita Teter Anderson, Arthur G. Anderson, PhD, Arthur E. Anderson, Arvid Anderson, Barry D. Anderson, Bernard Jeffrey Anderson, PhD, Bruce Martin Anderson Jr., C. M. Anderson Jr., Charles R Anderson, PhD, Chris Anderson, Christopher Anderson, Conrad E. Anderson, MD, Corby G. Anderson, PhD, Craig A. Anderson, David W. Anderson, David Robert Anderson, PhD, David O. Anderson, PhD, David B. Anderson, David A. Anderson, David Anderson, PhD, David Anderson, Donald Anderson, PhD, Donald Heruin Anderson, PhD, Douglas J. Anderson, MD, Elmer A. Anderson, PhD, Eric Anderson, Fred G. Anderson, MD, Gerald L. Anderson, Glenn L. Anderson, Greg J. Anderson, H. C. Anderson, Harrison Clarke Anderson, MD, Ingrid Anderson, PhD, J. Hilbert Anderson, James Anderson, James K. Anderson, James P. Anderson, James R. Anderson, James R. Anderson, Jane E. Anderson, Janis W. Anderson, Joel Anderson, John C. Anderson, PhD, John O. Anderson, Jon C. Anderson, MD, Joy R. Anderson, PhD, Julia W. Anderson, PhD, Keith R. Anderson, Ken Anderson, Kenneth E. Anderson, Larry Anderson, PhD, Leif H. Anderson, Leslie Anderson, PhD, Louis Weston Anderson, Lowell Ray Anderson, Lynn C. Anderson, DVM, Mark Anderson, Mark A. Anderson, Mary P Anderson, Mike E. Anderson, Mitchell Anderson, Nathan Anderson, Orson Lamar Anderson, PhD, P. Jennings Anderson, Percy G. Anderson Jr., R. L. Anderson, Randall H. Anderson, Reece B. Anderson, Richard Alan Anderson, PhD, Richard C. Anderson, Robert J Anderson, MD, Robert E. Anderson, Robert Anderson, Rodney C. Anderson, PhD, Roger O. Anderson, Roscoe B. Anderson, MD, Ross S. Anderson, PhD,

  • Anonymous

    More ignorance.  Scientists have been calling the average surface temperature increase “global warming” since 1975, and they still do.  “Climate change” refers to global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.

  • Guest

    Like your reactionary propagandist hero, Glenn Beck, these “scientists,” if you’re not pulling names out of your rectum, are corporate shills.

    Over 97% of the qualified, specialists on climate change understand that humans and corporations are causing their own destruction.

    Just because reality is not what the corporate shills believe it is doesn’t mean that citing them matters for anything. You’re expressing classic denialism.

    http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    STALKING EVENT.

    Ref#5241203

  • Guest

    “While 2012 was the ninth-warmest year on record, all 10 of the warmest years in the GISS analysis have occurred since 1998.” The video makes a liar or a fool of your claim, “There has been little to no warming in the past decade.”

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    STALKING EVENT.
    Ref#5241218
    Stop your STALKING.

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere
  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere
  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    NASA scientists say 2012 was the ninth warmest of any year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. With the exception of 1998, the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record.
    Only the 9th warmest!  If the MMGW cults projected warming trends were accurate it would be the WARMEST. The polar ice caps would have melted already and NYC would be under water.

    Folks, the computer program isn’t working for these Global Warming freaks.

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    What is the optimum temperature of the Planet?

    Does mankind thrive in the coldest periods of the planet or the warmest periods of the planet?

    With the food supply at an all time record high, we even use one of our greatest foods, corn, for synthetic fuel.

    Ask any scientist this question “What is the optimum temperature for the Planet?” Let me know what his answer is, if you get a straight answer at all.

  • Anonymous

    Scary article. It states that the observed reduction in temperature increase rate is due to deep ocean heat absorption and that once the deep ocean comes to equilibrium they predict sharp increase in surface temperature. That raises two questions. What happens to the marine life and food sources once the deep ocean temperatures rise, and what effect would a future sharp increase in surface temperature do to our living environment. Thanks for the information.

  • Ron Brueske

    These same idiots of so-called science, wanted to put soot on the Glaciers to STOP the IMMANENT ice age in the 1970′s.  In 1986 they wanted to figure out a way to stop the  Hubbard Glacier from its all of a sudden advance into Disenchantment Bay, Alaska, because of the salmon fishing might be destroyed.These boobs do not have a clue on how the Earth, Solar System nor Universe operates.

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere
  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    It doesn’t state that at all (It suggests that).

  • Anonymous

    Trenberth seems quite convinced of his findings.  Does a suggestion from such alarming evidence make you feel better?

  • Amy Henson

    lik℮ Esth℮r r℮spℴnd℮d I’m amaz℮d that sℴm℮ p℮ℴpl℮ can g℮t paid $7451 in fℴur w℮℮ks ℴn th℮ cℴmput℮r. did you lℴℴk as of this w℮b pag℮……. Fℴx85.ℂℴm

  • Anonymous

    First, the rate of increase has slowed, but there is increase. Second, science continually attempts to explain observed phenomena. Computer models predict outcomes, but attempts to understand observed data is continuous. This article does just that, i.e. explain observed data. Whether you believe it or not, Trenberth presents a reasonable explanation supported by scientific evidence. The findings are consistent with vast consensus about global warming.

  • Guest

    More denialism: NASA: 2012 Was 9th Warmest Year on Record. The 9 Warmest Years Have All Occurred Since 1998.

    2010 was the hottest year on record. This isn’t a linear process; temps fluctuate year to year.

    You are a tool, as is Beck, of those fossil fuel corporations destroying the planet.

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    East Anglia depends solely on a computer model to analyze their data. If data doesn’t show their expected result, they omit it.

    It’s only a supposition not verified fact. If you read the paper by the “Geophysical Research Letters” (referenced in the article)they also include increased volcanic activity as a contributor to the warming trend. “The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.”

    The finding do not show the cause as being Man Made. Yes the planet temps change, it has been doing that since it’s inception but there is no proof that it’s caused by man.

    Sorry.

  • Anonymous

    Wait, aren’t you the one that brought to my attention an article explaining how the deep ocean is heating up from trapped heat in the atmosphere? Are you saying you don’t believe the article?

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    Ref#524203p
    STALKING

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    Yes I did but I read the complete article including it’s reference material. It’s an article of suppositions, not verified fact.

    It seems that you didn’t.

  • Anonymous

    I’m not going to pretend to be an expert in this field. I am going to trust that 97% percent of climate change scientists know more about the subject than I do. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    I can list 31 thousand Scientists in the field who don’t believe GW is man made.

    Eco Geek.

    NASA has been proven to be in error in it’s data more than once.

    Did you know that 96% of Scientist DON’T believe in Global Warming? You might be surprised to hear this if all you listen to is the mainstream press. Every time you hear a story on global warming you hear the phrase “almost all scientists agree” or “97% of scientist believe in global warming.” Last year a study came out saying 97% of scientists believe in climate change, but almost the exact opposite is true.

    The study in question surveyed 1,372 known working climate researchers. and found 97% of them still believe in global warming. I think this pool is tainted because these are scientist who get paid to study “Global Warming” which is a conflict of interest. That’s like asking PETA members if they’re vegetarian, but regardless we will use their number.

    On the other hand the Petition Project has 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying that they don’t believe in manmade global warming.

    So let’s do the math 97% of 1,372 is 1,330 who still believe in global warming compared to 31,487 who don’t. That’s only 1 out 24 or 4% of scientists who still believe in global warming.

    I think those of us who are on the skeptical side of the debate should use the other side’s tactic and repeat this over and over again ad nauseum. 96% of Scientists DON’T believe in Global Warming.

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
    28 Jul 11 – Earth’s atmosphere is releasing far more heat into space than
    alarmist computer models have predicted, reports new peer-reviewed study.
    See New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

    28 Jul 11 – (Excerpts) – NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBKwtvnfYZA Marys Image

    I’ll take that list SoThere…

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere
  • Anonymous

    Hmmm. Should I believe the agency that put a man on the moon, or should I believe a bogus Petition Project, which is a regurgitation of the Oregon Petition Project, which was exposed as not credible by the Washington Times and investigated and discredited by Scientific Ameircan. I’ll go with NASA on this one.

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    Ref#524203
    STALKING

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBKwtvnfYZA Marys Image

    Thanks, I had a project I was working on and this aids that endeavor, SoThere.

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    You’re going to believe whatever you want. Your 97% nonsense has been debunked. NASA has proven to be very inaccurate in their DATA.

    NASA’s major mission today is to try and convince Muslims that they have a role in space exploration.

    I also posted information from NASA disputing previous DATA that was reported by GW Hoax cultists.

    Like I said, you believe what you want.

    Here, from your NASA pals, “28 Jul 11 – (Excerpts) – NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.”

    Enjoy.

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    Tell me about I am right now sitting in 45 degree weather in the middle of spring but landree the moron wants me to believe the earth is warming. LOL! How gullible the left is.

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    Oh how gullible the left is. 

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    Good one. 

  • Guest

    My 97% FACT debunked your idiotic/deceitful claims. There is no debate about this in the real world. Only in the unreal world of GlennBeckistan is there debate. Glennbeckistan and in the fantasies of the wackier propagandist, Alex Jones.

    No adult believes their paranoid nonsense.

  • Anonymous

    “Sam Fisher” doesn’t know the difference between weather and climate, and he’s “informed?”

    LMFAO!

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    Ref#524344p

    STALKER

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    There’s so many people who have bought into the Man Made Global Warming myth. It’s taught in our schools to our children.

    According to those Scientist predictions, the polar ice caps have already melted, NYC is under 7 feet of water and the Polar Bear is extinct.

    That’s what those Scientists predicted in the late 90″s.

  • Anonymous

    Both terms are used to refer to different things. see here http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html What proof do you have to for your claim that there was a name change?

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    Well moron don’t you find it odd that media changed the name when it was starting to get cooler. Of course not because you liberals believe everything that is spoon feed to you.

  • Anonymous

    I’m sure you’re smarter than NASA scientists and all of those scientific organization that have no doubt about global warming. Stick with your fake petitioners. That’s the intelligent choice.

  • Anonymous

    Again, how do you support your claim that there was a name change?

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    Yet more reason why science and politics should not mix. It is really sad that some people just refuse to see if their own eyes what is going on. There are astronomers and meteorologist the effectually disproved man made Global warming. Personally my theory is it is the sun causing this through solar cycles. The funny thing is the moon Titan atmosphere is made up nothing but greenhouse gases but it is cold as hell. If these liberals where right shouldn’t it logically be hotter than the earth even tho it is so far away from the sun?

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    NASA has had it’s problems with it’s data, even they admit to the errors in atmospheric measurements.

    Please list your 97% of scientists Landree, maybe you can change my mind.

    Here’s a couple more scientist who think it’s a hoax.

    The NIPCC is headed by two esteemed climatologists, each with a large body of work in the field.

    The first coauthor of the report is Dr. S. Fred Singer, a former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now part of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Dr. Singer received a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his outstanding work in the field. In the 1980s he continued to study the Earth’s climate as the vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA). He also taught as a professor at University of Virginia.

    Dr. Craig D. Idso also coauthored the report. Dr. Idso has a Ph.D in geography from Arizona State University. He has extensively studied the climate as a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University, and has published papers in the field of climatology. He also lectured on Meteorology at Arizona State University. His specialties include studying the growing season, the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2, world food supplies, coral reefs, and urban CO2 concentrations.

    Don’t try and convince me Landree, convince them.

    Climate models suffer from numerous deficiencies and shortcomings that could alter even the very sign (plus or minus, warming or cooling) of earth’s projected temperature response to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations.
    The model-derived temperature sensitivity of the earth–especially for a doubling of the preindustrial CO2 level–is much too large, and feedbacks in the climate system reduce it to values that are an order of magnitude smaller than what the IPCC employs.
    Real-world observations do not support the IPCC’s claim that current trends in climate and weather are “unprecedented” and, therefore, the result of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
    The IPCC overlooks or downplays the many benefits to agriculture and forestry that will be accrued from the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content.
    There is no evidence that CO2-induced increases in air temperature will cause unprecedented plant and animal extinctions, either on land or in the world’s oceans.
    There is no evidence that CO2-induced global warming is or will be responsible for increases in the incidence of human diseases or the number of lives lost to extreme thermal conditions.http://www.dailytech.com/Report+Debunking+UNs+Global+Warming+Alarmism+is+Backed+by+31478+US+Scientists/article15467.htm

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    Some prominent voices at NASA are fed up with the agency’s activist stance toward climate change.
    The following letter asking the agency to move away from climate models and to limit its stance to what can be empirically proven, was sent by 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts.
    The letter criticizes the Goddard Institute For Space Studies especially, where director Jim Hansen and climatologist Gavin Schmidt have been outspoken advocates for action.
    The press release with attached letter is below.

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4#ixzz2UFG4enXm

    “The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
    “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
    “We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4#ixzz2UFGIdjpt

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
    140 comments, 7 called-out Comment Now
    Follow Comments

    (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

    It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

    Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

    Warmists Display Cowardice and Hypocrisy In Avoiding Global Warming Debate
    James Taylor
    Contributor

    Is It Hollywood Or Washington? Global Warming Activists Control Government Climate Report
    James Taylor
    Contributor

    The Overwhelming Judgment of Science Rejects Obama’s Global Warming Claims
    James Taylor
    Contributor

    Fortified By Global Warming, Crop Production Keeps Breaking Records
    James Taylor
    Contributor
    The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

    According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

    The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

    The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

    Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

    The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

    The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

    Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

    One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

    Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

    People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

  • Guest

    Ad nominem flame war by the stalker Guest/gadamer_too/Victor Tiffany.

    You have no standing, no cogent remark nor an argument to debate. Therefore, you insult and attack while offering no substantative information.

    Typical reactionary response from the stalker troll.

  • Anonymous

    I thought it was HAARP.

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    They are the government guys who are making all the Tornado’s and earthquakes. :-)

  • Anonymous
  • Abdul Baseer

    Ad nominem flame war by the stalker Guest/gadamer_too/Victor Tiffany.
    The original Peckerhead Beckerhead.  Victor Tiffany.

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    “Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,”

    I posted thousands of Scientists.

  • Guest

    We’re on a crash toward a hellish landscape, and SoThere is a tool, like Mr. Beck, of the oil and gas pigs in Congress and their corporate masters.

    SoThere is a master of denialism, and there is no getting though to arrogant ignorance.

  • Guest

    “Fisher” wrote, ” I am right now sitting in 45 degree weather in the middle of spring but landree the moron wants me to believe the earth is warming.”

    That’s an articulation of confusion between weather and climate, but I don’t expect anyone who listens to Beck without laughing out loud at his ignorant rants to grasp something so “advanced.”

  • Guest

    Erick Erickson, Red State blogger, sent in tweet during the aftermath of the devastation. “I wonder when President Obama will find out about Oklahoma,” he tweeted.

    Republicans already politicizing tornado. 

    Hmmmm, Beck is cherry picking facts…again!

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    Because they did it is fact. Tell if we have a warming of the earth how come it is 45 degrees here in the middle of spring and tonight temp is supposed to be 30. This spring has been the lowest recorded temps since the 80s in my State. Yah sure moron Global warming and I guess you believe in unicorns as well.

  • Anonymous

    Making a conclusion on global trends from tonights temperature is like thinking the world is flat.

  • Anonymous

    Must be a conspiracy, right? All these scientists, governments, NGOs, universities, global organizations are in on it. That’s some impressive denial.

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    I’m not a conspiracy person but I do know how to read and think for myself. You did read those links you posted, right?

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    Ignoring the fact that the earth is cooling instead of heating is like calling Martin Luther King Jr white.

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    Or his intelligence.

  • Anonymous

    The bigotry on this website is incredible.  Scientists agree that global warming is an issue.  Not some scientists, not most scientists, a sweeping majority of scientists.  97% of all peer reviewed articles (that is, articles that are checked by other qualified academics) that expressed a cause for climate change said that it was man made.  Less than 1% of scientists said that climate change was not man-made (i.e., the pseudo-science idea that we are in a natural cycle).

    Climate change is a scientific fact.  Now, you can dismiss this and say “I hate Al Gore and the rest of those liberals” or you can admit that people who are extremely educated on a subject (these people have Ph.D’s) probably know a thing or two about how the Earth’s atmosphere works.  Yes, climate change is real.  Yes, it’s difficult to accept, because it does have ramifications on our lives.  No, we shouldn’t blame climate change for the Oklahoma tornado.  That’s fair.  But that suddenly doesn’t invalidate the argument for climate change.

    P.S.
    Here is the link to prove that 97 of all scientific papers that stated an argument about climate change believe it to be man-made.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

  • Anonymous

    Warming is good..if it indeed is happening, but I doubt it.
    It is much easier for life (humans included) to adapt to a warmer enviroment
    wthin the ranges we are discussing than a colder one.
    Dealing with a colder environment would demand the utilization of stored energy to produce heat in a residence for an individual or family to survive the cold weather,
    Wildlife would not have this luxury…..warmer is actually bettter from a GREEN perspective. (ironic isisn’t it?)
    Al Gore’s Video  is so flawed it is crazy,
    I’d love to debate this statement……someone repond if you have the gonads
    PS……Here;s a clue:    CO2 is heavier than the composition of what we call “Air”

  • Sandie

    That’s too bad. I bet there are a lot of Greenlanders who would love to grow grape vineyards again like their ancestors did hundreds of years ago.

  • Sandie

    Is Vic making up “Facts” again?

  • Sandie

    Other factors that can drive the global temperature are: volcanic activity, Tectonic plate movement, and the liquid outer core. Scientists that boundary between Earth’s inner and outer core to be 10,832 degrees F. Shifts in the plates can cause disturbances in the ocean floor where there are massive deposits of frozen gas (methane hydrate) which, when warmed rises to the ocean surfaces where it escapes into the atmosphere in great quantities. Each molecule of this gas is 20 time more powerful than CO2 as a green house gas in trapping heat. This gives even more reason for the US to exploit our natural gas resources, and use it as fuel to reduce it’s natural effects as a warming agent for the planet.

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    My favorite alterative is the solar maximum and minimum. Looking at the data and liberal relabeling. Like saying we were going to an ice age to a worldwide flooding and droughts to back to ice age I can imagine now that we are cooling some has to do with the solar cycles. It almost matches their crazy rants perfectly.

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    Really thinking for oneself is bigotry. Maybe you should look up the meaning of big words before using them. Don’t forget the majority of scientists in Nazi Germany thought Jews were subhuman I guess as long as it is the majority you liberals are ok with that.

  • Guest

    What in the hell did I tell about attacking me. I am sorry but that is still responding to me mental ill bigot.

  • Guest

    “Victor the liar Tiffany” said this “That’s an articulation of confusion between weather and climate, but I don’t expect anyone who listens to Beck without laughing out loud at his ignorant rants to grasp something so “advanced.” But at the same time that is what liberals are doing here with this tragedy. Taking a weather story and trying to pin it on the climate. I guess “the liar” is the one giving ignorant rants to grasp something so advanced. One more question about “Victor the liar Tiffany” if he is so smart why does he have to like his own post with his own screen name? Gee I guess he is lonely.

  • Anonymous

    What study proves the earth is cooling?

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    Don’t be lazy and look it up yourself.

  • Anonymous

    I didn’t make the claim.

  • Anonymous

    You said “Ignoring the fact that the earth is cooling instead of heating is like calling Martin Luther King Jr white.” Now back up your claim that the earth is cooling.

  • Anonymous

    I see that it doesn’t actually take long for an argument to turn to Nazis.  This is a very fallacious argument.  While it’s true, a majority doesn’t necessarily doesn’t prove anything, this is saying that a majority of people who have done scientific studies believe climate change to be real.

    Do you distrust scientists today?  Would you say to them, “I don’t believe in quantum mechanics, the science isn’t in on it yet?” When in fact, quantum mechanics has led to important technological revolutions?  A majority (but not all) of scientists would argue for that.  

  • Anonymous

    Good point, but your idea of drilling for our own natural gas here at home, only spoils all the fun that the liberals are currently enjoying, at the expense of every tax paying citizen no doubt. What ever would Big Al come up with next in order to afford his lavish lifestyle?

  • Anonymous

    Great post. Not to mention what even former president Lincoln understood and he was no scientist, that “those nations only, are blessed who’s God is the Lord.” I’m certain part of that national blessing, besides being the sol-recipients of the “most choice piece of real-estate on earth” I find it hard to believe that God wouldn’t also bless us with a perfect combination of weather. Spring showers bring May flowers. Funny how that works, especially when a people claiming that we trust in God, no longer allow him in our public places and are scampering for any believable answer to this latest so-called crises and instead of ever contemplating the idea that God may play a part in this, its much easier to obtain false reports from all your atheist friends who refute all other evidence, or suggestions.

  • Anonymous

    I think NASA (Need Another Seven Arabs) is curious in how those tightly woven Muslim carpets can fly without having any jet propulsion, not only that, its been rumored that they even carry genies.

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    I distrust science that is for political means only and I hate to tell you most so called scientist are using science for this very thing.

  • Anonymous

     democrats are idiots. like their leader is obumer.

  • Anonymous

    Sheldon Whitehouse is indeed an embarrassment to the State of Rhode Island, and himself. Like Al Gore, Sheldon is a true believer in the global warming crisis religion, one bred by an inability to grasp complex scientific issues and a penchant for currying favor with the forces of environmental extremism.

    Contrary to Sheldon’s suppositions, science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard scientific DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 is the cause of whatever warming has occurred during the 20th, or any, century, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate–solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth’s elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, its precession wobble, the El Ninos, etc. The earth’s climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered to any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. The fact that atmospheric CO2 is near 400 ppm doesn’t prove anything relative to climate, except that atmospheric CO2 is near 400 ppm. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the “global warming crisis” cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could scarcely have been a factor.

    The earth has warmed 0.74 degrees C since 1900, a figure provided by the U.N.’s IPCC. Half of that increase took place before 1945, so carbon dioxide could not possibly be implicated. It is only in the period from 1978-1997 that CO2 and globally averaged temperatures rose at the same time, 0.35 degrees C. Since 1997, they have stopped rising. By coincidence does not prove causation. Yet, radical environmentalists are convinced that CO2 is the primary driver. Why? Because of all the factors driving climate, CO2 is one of the only factors that government can use as a justification for growing its power. After all, it can hardly send Sheldon to the sun with a fire extinguisher.

    Britain’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research acknowledged the fact that temperatures rose just 0.07 degrees C from 1999-2008, but when adjusted for El Nino and El Nina, the trend was reduced to 0.0 degrees C. That said, the whole issue is: what hand man does man play on climate? The whole global warming alarmist case must be predicated on the highly questionable assumption that the small uptick in globally averaged temperatures, coming as they do in the period following the end of the Little Age (that ended about 1850), is a result NOT of solar activity and the other natural forces listed above, but primarily anthropogenic CO2. Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT characterized it best when he observed that

    “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”

    Yet, buffoons like Sheldon Whitehouse, anxious to curry favor with the environmentalist crowd do exactly that. But climate should not be driven by political considerations (propelled as they were initially by Al Gore’s presidential ambitions and the environmental movement’s desire for the mother of all fundraising causes), or evaluated based on short-term political goals. Indeed, it is the kind of issue that can only be understand on a geologic time scale since climate follows a long-term cycle based on naturally recurring factors. These factors include the 100,000 year elliptical cycle, the 41,000 year axial tilt cycle, the 23,000 year precession or “wobble” cycle, and, most importantly, the 1,500 year solar cycle. Historically, temperatures fluctuations have happened, often abruptly, regardless of CO2 levels. But, no, Sheldon blames it all on CO2, a trace gas, most of which is naturally occurring and consists of water vapor. Not only is carbon dioxide’s total greenhouse effect puny, mankind’s contribution to it is minuscule. The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere comes from nature, not from man. And, contrary to Gore’s ludicrous claims, CO2 is a long time lagging indicator of temperature rise, not its cause.

    There is simply no justification for draconian measures to limit CO2 production, imperil U.S. and world economic prosperity, increase family energy costs (ranging from $1,700 (U.S. Treasury Dept.) to $4,000 (Heritage Foundation)) by 2032, and damage the health of world’s poor (who will be the primary victims of such measures), over such minor, and naturally occurring, fluctuations in globally averaged climate. Indeed, CO2 rise is a GOOD thing, because it promotes increased crop yield, as any agronomist can tell you. This was the conclusion of the Copenhagen Consensus that rated climate change mitigation a low priority among the world’s problems. Billions, or trillions, of our limited resources would be far better spent drilling wells in poor regions of the world, or addressing malaria (whose rise may be directly blamed on radical environmentalists who drove the unscientific ban of DDT after 1970).

    Sheldon Whitehouse is a scientific illiterate who cannot grasp these complex issues because he is driven primarily by politics and worships at the altar of the global warming crisis religion. I can understand him wanting to please his environmentalist wife, but, please, keep it at home. For him to lecture us and have attributed the hurricanes in Oklahoma to the failure of Republicans to address global warming is not only absurd (since no serious scientist blames hurricanes on warming), but reflects a deeply troubled mind that has no business representing anybody.

  • Anonymous

    You’re right.  People who hold Ph.D.’s who understand a great deal about atmospheric physics and chemistry certainly are trying to be political, rather than just trying to address an actual problem.

    What is wrong with the source exactly?  Is that you don’t trust scientists whose work is evaluated by other experts before it’s published?  Do you have any evidence that scientists are trying to be political?  Or are you just speculating because it actually fits your goals?

    Think about it this way.  Big business has a motivation for not responding to climate change.  There goal (which I agree with more or less, excepting environmental regulation) is to make money.  Being considerate about climate change would make them spend more, and they don’t want that.

    What do these “liberal scientists want”? Attention and money? Their expertise could translate into similar fields which are less politicized.  Why don’t they?

  • Sandie

    Yes, solar cycles and earths orbit also play into it.

  • Anonymous

    Your leader was Bush.  Here’s a few brilliant things he said

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMCCkgACDkU

  • Sandie
  • Sandie

    I’m sure he will find something else to scare us out of our money.

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    Will do.

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    No just scientist in general not just liberals do it. Some do it for just the fame others money but some just do it so they can take money from the countries that have the most and give it to the poor countries like cap and trade was doing. Don’t get me wrong going green has some advantages like not being dependent on other people’s oil that hate our guts or any other country but it seems like the ones that are pushing for this green movement don’t really care about alternative fuel sources. When Obama bought GM through our tax dollars is a perfect example of this. they have a hydrogen fuel cell car that would of not only be green but fueled by the biggest fuel source in the universe and cheapest and the by product was water. But what did Obama’s pointed man do with it moth balled the entire project and want with the unreliable Volt. It would have been more cleaner for the earth than battery cars which have a lot of toxic byproduct but yet it was shut down. Think about no fuel crises and made it cheap enough we might have recovered by now and not getting it from countries that hate us. I will believe it if they did not do these things but stuff like this tells me they don’t believe their own hype. Not saying the earth does not warm or cool but I think it is many other things the cause it.

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    Sandie posted it for me look at it yourself.

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    At least he was funny stupid Obama is just stupid. 

  • Anonymous

    Obama was smart enough to work himself up from obscurity in Hawaii to being the president.  Bush’s father was the president.  Really?  Obama is stupid?  Maybe you disagree with his policies, but he’s not stupid.  

  • Sandie

    Obama cheated his way up – dirty Chicago politics – it’s part of who he is.

  • greywolfrs

    Yes, you are quite ignorant, since for the last several years the earth’s temperature has been COOLING, therefore “global warming” is a B S term. Those same scientists you are talking about admitted to this, yet you morons continue to spout this stupidity. Climate Change has been happening since the Earth was just a rock. If you are so worried about green house gases, off yourself and do all of us a favor.

  • greywolfrs

     Well, that is not as good of a point because it depends on which method is used to charge the battery. In a Ford Escape Hybrid the brakes actually charge the battery, the gas engine only augments the electric motor. In a Prius Hybrid, the gas engine is used to charge the battery. Totally electric vehicles must be plugged in, such as the Nissan Leaf….

  • greywolfrs

     WOW! You are one dumb M F er. Hey stupid, if you off yourself, that would be one less person doing those “human activities” that are creating “climate change.” Dunce.

  • greywolfrs

     Prehistoric records? If it was prehistoric, how are there any records? You mean the guesses made about prehistoric periods. Hey stupid, just because you lack common sense, does not mean the rest of us do.

  • Anonymous

    ummm, I was 20 in ’75 and global cooling was all the rage.

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    Obama doesn’t know what his administration is doing.  He gets his information from the MSM (so he says).

    Now either he’s a liar (my guess is that he is) or he’s stupid.

    Now if he’s just stupid then you can’t blame him but if he’s as smart as you claim he is, then he’s the most corrupt President in history.

    Either way, he has to go, he’s not good for the Nation.

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    No he is dangerous because if he is not a half-wit than he knew what was happening at the DOJ with the AP and the IRS with conservative movement. So of two things is true sir his is a blooming moron that has no idea what is going on or he is a fascist. Which would you prefer I call him?

  • Anonymous

    Oh, I just got it!! You work for NASA!!

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    Yes his mob mentality is clear to any free thinker.

  • Anonymous

    All the indicators show that global warming is still happening. You are referring land and atmosphere cooling, which is a fraction of the earth’s heat capacity. The oceans have far great potential capacity and are absorbing energy at the rate of 190,000 nuclear power plants. Here is an excellent explaination: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm

  • Anonymous

    It’s deplorable how you all resort to the most childish name calling.

  • Anonymous

    Skeptics take small pieces of the puzzle to debunk global warming, and ignore the whole picture that the larger science community sees by looking at all the pieces.

  • Anonymous

    The overall data is undeniable that the earth is absorbing a great amount of energy that will effect how we live. But you don’t need to worry since you’ll be dead by the time the world looks different.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t. I’ve spent of my career in business and some of my it at NGOs. I do have friends that work for NASA, DOE, NREL, military, and NSF. They are top notch brilliant people and I have the utmost respect for their integrity.

  • Anonymous

    Geologists study prehistoric records in a variety of ways including analyzing earth strata. The Pleocine period seems to be important to climate researce. Scientists look at indicators like oxygen isotope ratios shifts.

  • Anonymous

    In the 70s, ozone depletion from CFCs became understood. Ozone hole contributes to atmospheric cooling. Policy to phase out CFCs for HCFCs has had a positive effect on the ozone.

  • Anonymous

    You consistently call people “morons” and “idiots,” among other insults. You proudly trumpet your lack of higher education. Yet you rarely form complete, grammatically correct sentences, you consistently spell words incorrectly, and rarely make any arguments. Indeed, I recall you misspelling “college” in a post bragging about how you’ve never gone to college. Your screen name links to a video soundtracked (at least the first song) by rage against the machine, one of the most vociferously anti-capitalist, anti-corporate bands in recent memory. 

    Clearly there is room for debate on any number of issues, and it is clear that reasonable people can and do disagree. But resorting to ad hominem attacks and rarely proffering an argument isn’t debate; it isn’t even a discussion. 

    How can you talk about other people being idiots and uninformed when you can’t even write in complete sentences? 

  • Anonymous

    Which statement do you want to debate?

  • Anonymous

    Landree, this is how the Right argues on virtually every issue.  They mistake the part for the whole.  They also conflate the individual with the group, esp as it pertains to issues of public policy in morality and economics.  It’s a method guaranteed to get the wrong answer while quoting “facts” that support their position.    

  • Anonymous

    Landree, this is how the Right argues on virtually every issue.  They mistake the part for the whole.  They also conflate the individual with the group, esp as it pertains to issues of public policy in morality and economics.  It’s a method guaranteed to get the wrong answer while quoting “facts” that support their position.    

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    Hay moron first of all the song is by Johnny Cash not rage against the machine whoever the hell they are. Second I don’t have to defend myself against a moron who has no clue at all. You call me out for being a moron but yet you can’t tell the difference between a country song and heavy metal music. Who is the moron now?

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    I backed up my post. Victor isn’t allowed to post to me since I gave him official notice to stop.

    I’m referencing all his posts to me as I was told to do.

  • greywolfrs

    What a joke, you are a complete idiot and I point it. That is calling a spade, a spade, nothing more. With every post you prove your stupidity, I’m just straight-up enough to call you on it. Dunce.

  • greywolfrs

    Hey stupid, they are NOT records, that would mean someone wrote something down about climate change, which they did NOT. Studying particular things about how we got to where we are is NOT studying a “record.” And you have the nerve to act like anyone else dumb or doesn’t know what they are talking about. Wake up and smell what you are shoveling.

  • greywolfrs

    Larger science community is B S, the 97% of scientists you quote are the 30% of scientists that decided to take a poll, PERIOD. That does mean the entire science community on the whole, that is a left wing lie. By the way, did you miss the fact that the e-mails prove that they lied. (and don’t be trying to say that was debunked, it wasn’t.) Maybe you missed the fact that those same scientists claim to have lost all the data up to a few years before that scandal. How do scientists lose data? They are so smart and NEVER backed up the files? Are you joking?

    Look, for once in your life, stop being a complete idiot. Use some critical thinking skills and stop believing everything you are being force fed. Or continue to believe the B S and be a good drone, the choice is yours.

  • Anonymous

    The term “record” is commonly used to refer to geological evidence. Here’s an example: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/~/media/shared/documents/policy/Climate%20change%20-%20evidence%20from%20the%20geological%20record.ashx

  • Anonymous

    You probably think Time Magazine’s in on some conspiracy, but: “The truth is that the e-mails, while unseemly, do little to change the overwhelming scientific consensus on the reality of man-made climate change.”

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1946935,00.html#ixzz2UXZKLuSt

  • Anonymous

    More childish tantrum.

  • Anonymous

    There is no lie there, buy lame try at character assassination, or more of the same.

    The Moore, OK tornado is just one of many. Weather events alone are evidence of nothing. Increasingly more violent tornadoes, large hurricanes, increasing droughts, melting ice caps, increasing ocean acidification, increasing ocean levels: these add up to changing climate. 

    THAT is what make Moore a climate indicator, not the tornado itself.

    As usual with the sleazy character assassins here at GlennBeckistan, there is no factual assertion about dishonesty, just a baseless claim that one expects from reactionary followers of the cult of personality, Glenn Beck.

    Oh, and Beck is a liar! Unlike regressive cultists, I prove my assertions with examples.

  • Guest

    You’d be more successful trying to persuade a rock. They deny what science is conveying to us, and don’t really care about the repercussions of what their denialism might lead to: a planet unable to sustain life.

    Go talk to rocks: they are smarter than the Beckerheads who are gullible and ignorant enough to believe that utter nonsense spewed by the cult of personality, Glenn Beck:

    “Look in my eyes, what do you see?
    the Cult of Personality
    I know your anger,
    I know your dreams
    I’ve been everything you wanna be ohhh…
    I’m the Cult of Personality

    [...]

    I sell the things you need to be
    I’m the smiling face of your T.V. ohh…
    I’m the Cult of PersonalityI exploit you;
    still you love meI tell you one and one makes three ohh…
    I’m the Cult of Personality”

    Try to explain that one and one makes two, and they hound you, call you a liar, assassinate your character, etc.

    Do you really want this s$$holes tracking your comments to attack you all the time?

  • Guest

    Unlike serious students of climatology, Victor Tiffany has attempted to pass off his theories and suppositions as facts, without any reference to actual research.

    How can one who lies, and claims to be a critic of what he calls a liar, presume to have even a working knowledge of meteorology? Tell me, what part of the social sciences does ‘climate’ and ‘weather’ explain? It doesn’t, unless a government wishes to politicize at atmospheric event.

    Victor has yet to prove his assertions with any examples or proof.

    Victor, the Liar, is a fraud. It is only in his own mind where mere speculation becomes fact. Whereupon, in repetition of those suppositions, they become his litany of lies.

    These are not statements of character assassination. These are statements of observations of Victor’s behavior and writings over a period of years. He has not wavered in his delusions or lies. He merely repeats them in his flame war against those who dare dispute his claims.

  • Guest

     You are 100% correct. Anyone who has been exposed to his display of ignorant self righteous opinion will agree.

  • Guest

     Funny how the majority of scientists are finally saying thet Man Made Global Warming is a myth. The only global warming is part of the natural variance the earth goes through.

  • Guest

     “THAT is what make Moore a climate indicator, not the tornado itself.” So, according to you Moore, a town in the US, is an indicator of MMGW. What other towns are indicators? Saying such a thing confirms what a loon you are.

    Oh, and Victor Tiffany is a liar!

  • Guest

    It’s climatology, dip s$%t, not “meteorology.”  Again, you confuse weather with climate.

    There’s plenty of facts to help me make my case, but you’ll deny them. Facts and reactionaries are like oil and water. They just don’t mix well. 

    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

    This is not the first time I offered proof on this webpage, so you are LYING. You have gall to accuse me of lying when you lie in the previous sentence.  THAT, dillweed, is called hypocrisy.

    And calling me a liar IS character assassination. If you knew a damn thing about delusions and lies, you would not listen to Glenn Beck. He is a liar, and that is easily proven!

    No one is talking about “an atmospheric event.” Climate change is about a series of events over time. 

    When you attack me and I have not written to you or about you, THAT is STARTING a flame war, freaking hypocrite!

    You will not be persuaded because with you, facts backfire.

    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

  • Anonymous

    True. Many of the Beck believers quickly pull conversations down to the lowest level if you don’t agree with them, which usually involves childish name-calling. I’m not worried about being tracked or slander. I’ve come to expect this kind of behavior from people hiding behind the internet. I engage here more as a social experiment.

  • greywolfrs

    From dictionary.com

    re·cord
    [v. ri-kawrd; n., adj. rek-erd] Show IPA

    verb (used with object)
    1. to set down in writing or the like, as for the purpose of preserving evidence.

    2. to cause to be set down or registered: to record one’s vote.

    3. to state or indicate: He recorded his protest, but it was disregarded.

    4. to serve to relate or to tell of: The document records that the battle took place six years earlier.

    5. to set down or register in some permanent form, as on a seismograph.
    noun, rec·ord.
    9. an act of recording.

    10. the state of being recorded, as in writing.

    11. an account in writing or the like preserving the memory or knowledge of facts or events.

    12. information or knowledge preserved in writing or the like.

    13. a report, list, or aggregate of actions or achievements: He made a good record in college. The ship has a fine sailing record.

    adjective, rec·ord.
    23. making or affording a record.

    24. surpassing or superior to all others: a record year for automobile sales.
    Idioms
    25. go on record, to issue a public statement of one’s opinion or stand: He went on record as advocating immediate integration.

    26. off the record,
    a. not intended for publication; unofficial; confidential: The President’s comment was strictly off the record.

    b. not registered or reported as a business transaction; off the books.

    27. on record,
    a. existing as a matter of public knowledge; known.

    b. existing in a publication, document, file, etc.: There was no birth certificate on record.

    Now, as ALL of those definitions show, using the term “record” is incorrect. As I stated before, try using some critical thinking for once in your life.

  • greywolfrs

    Yeah, it’s childish tamtrum because it does not fit into your stupidity. I know you left wing dolts hate the truth….

  • greywolfrs

    So, continue to ignore all the things I said and you wonder why I would call you a moron.

  • Anonymous

    It is indisputable fact that geologists routinely use the term “record” to refer to geological evidence recorded in ice cores, strata, sediment, etc. Your defense of semantics is irrelevant to how the term is used in science.

  • Anonymous

    I’m not ignoring with the things you said. I simply don’t agree with them.

  • Anonymous

    Truth to you is something you believe to be true. I don’t believe what you call truth to be true.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff8jDkOHp3U Sam Fisher

    Can you tell me how you did that? It would be nice to get that creep off my back.

  • http://TheConservativePush.webs.com/ SoThere

    You first file a complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center. It’s called an IC3. It all starts there. http://www.ic3.gov/complaint/default.aspx

  • greywolfrs

    How does one disagree with the fact that those scientists claimed to have lost the data they presumable collected? They said it, not I. They said they lost the data, all but a couple of year’s worth prior to the time that Climategate was happening. So, you trust these scientists that don’t even back their data? That is quite foolish, to say the least.

  • greywolfrs

    Not really, and it is not semantics, it is a bunch scientists that you choose to follow without even questioning their grasp of the English language. They are so smart, yet use term which obviously contradicts what they are saying and you find no problem with that.

  • greywolfrs

    Really? I point out a fact and you simply keep believing what you have been told. Seems your Psychological Projection or Freudian Projection, as it is sometimes referred, is showing. You are more than willing to believe what those scientists says, until they are shown to be lying, then you keep believing them. That is quite ignorant, but keep thinking it’s everyone else that is dumb.

  • Anonymous

    It seems you’re still having difficulty believing that the term “record” commonly to refer to geological evidence, so perhaps this definition Encyclopedia Britannica:

    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/229712/geological-record

    If you’re still not convinced the term is used in science, perhaps this will help:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_record

    Still not convinced? Try this citation of a book with the term in its title:

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309095808

  • Anonymous

    From the Time magazine article I reference earlier:

    “The content of the stolen e-mails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming,” wrote 25 leading U.S. scientists in a letter to Congress on Dec. 4. “The body of evidence that underlies our understanding of human-caused global warming remains robust.”

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1946935,00.html#ixzz2Ue72rcwH

  • Sandie

     “Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in
    Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet
    receives.

     
    “The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced.”  [note:  the words most (instead of all) and likely (instead of definitely or certainly)]
     
    “Ice
    cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers
    show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in
    the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels.”  [note: not greenhouse gases alone, and not CO2 alone – water vapor and methane are far more causative than CO2 in trapping heat.
     
    So. what this site you refer to says is that global warming might be caused in part by CO2 which is created by humans (and other animals), which you have singled out above all the other causative agents.
     
    Well, if you want to raise revenues in the US and other countries, you need something to tax. You can’t get it from animals, so it has to be humans. You also can’t tax humans for something they can’t control, like water vapor and natural methane. But, humans do create CO2.  . .     Bingo! .  . . We can develop a plan to raise revenues, redistribute the wealth of rich countries, and develop financial products that will make us (Al Gore) lots of money.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff8jDkOHp3U Sam Fisher

    Good it will feel good to get this ass monkey off my back.

  • Guest

    “From 1946 to 1958, we endured the horror of 67 atmospheric nuclear tests. The most powerful was the “Bravo shot,” equivalent in power to 1,000 Hiroshima bombs. Now our residents are confronted by a different kind of atmospheric danger: the existential threat posed by climate change.

    After a prolonged and unseasonable droughtthat began late last year, the severe lack of drinking water in our northern atolls led my government to declare a disaster area on May 7. This humanitarian crisis is climate-induced. About 6,000 people are affected by severe water shortages and are surviving on less than one liter of water per day. All of the affected communities have lost the staple crops that provide their daily food.

    My people are not only thirsty and hungry, they are also getting sick. The drying water wells are contaminated with bacteria and salt. Diarrhea, pink eye, flu and other drought-related diseases are on the rise, particularly among children, and we are on the brink of a much wider outbreak. With no significant rain forecast until at least July, the situation is likely to get worse.”

    Phillip Muller is foreign minister of the Marshall Islands.

  • Sandie

    Mr. Muller is too quick to claim that “this humanitarian crisis is climate-induced”, ignoring the fact that the islands have become severely overpopulated.

    The Marshall Islands have droughts periodically and it has not been a problem.   In 1935 there were 10,446 people inhabiting those little islands. According to the 2011 census there were  53,158 (over 500% growth rate!) The current population is estimated to be almost 70,000, almost a 700% growth rate. The average family consists of 7 people.

     For an example of how bad it is in some places, Ebeye, an  island of the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands  has 15,000 people settled on 80 acres of land. That’s 188 people per acre! How can one expect to have sufficient water resources on an island, to support a population that size, even in a good year?  There  were far worse droughts in their history, but far less people so the impact was slight.   

    Most water sources are from rainfall, which varies not just annually, but  by the time of year. Rainfall varies from an annual mean of about 3,000 – 4,000 mm in the southern
    atolls to only 2,000 mm in the northern atolls . A dry season usually runs from January to mid-April and a wet season from mid-April to December . 

    As with any animal population that out-grows it’s resources, they have to adjust, migrate, or die back. The same thing will happen in the US eventually.

    This drought is not unusual, but the MMGW alarmists are sure to take advantage of it to cause fear and fuel their agenda.