Global warming fear mongering

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

Global warming fear mongers throw every scare tactic in the book in order to achieve their ultimate dream – a carbon tax. Stu & Pat play the amazing audio of a so called expert and refute every one of them. Check out the alarmist debunking from radio today in the clip above.

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

    Global Warming = Ultimate lie of the Democrat Socialists. 

    It is a proven fabrication that is based on nothing but lies, distortions, false information and for the ambitions of the globalists who desire (like George Soros) to bring down the United States. 

  • Anonymous

    I live in Northern Wisconsin.  During the last couple of winters…I’d say global warming hasn’t hit US yet.  Shovel a driveway full of snow people and then come up to me with your bent back and tell me with a straight face that Al Gore’s graph was realistic in “The Inconvenient Truth.”  The most inconvenient aspect was that it WASN’T the truth.  A good source for the real truth about global warming is the chapter that Glenn Beck dedicated to it in his book “An Inconvenient Book.”  

  • Anonymous

    Just think how we could kill 2 birds with one stone sow  the lips of these left tard lips together we get peace and they know longer spew there hot air  case closed this is simple lets get um’.

  • Anonymous

    PAY ATTENTION BECK!!!!

    With the success and value of the book “Control”, why haven’t you taken this concept to the next level, and published similar short works of fact on “climate change”, the economy (Detroit), the latest discussion of racial inequity or civil rights (Zimmerman, the 13yr old Texas girl who was gang raped), the abuse of power by big government (IRS, NSA), and similar subjects.

    Yes, I know, you’ve covered many of these subjects in other books, but short, inexpensive, and simple Q&A style books on current subject matter would be valuable as reference material.  No speeches, no stories, just the facts

    You have the resources and the will to make this happen, where most of us can help, but not initiate such projects ourselves.

  • Anonymous

    Why do you hate your children?  Why aren’t you concerned enough about their future to understand that global warming is killing the planet?  How did the 1% and the Koch brothers turn you into a “KOCH-SUCKER?” How can you put your party before your kids, you’re a sick bastard. Sweetheart, you claim global warming is a proven fabrication.  Post your proof or piss off. Got it?  Shit or get off the pot!

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart I have one question for you?  Why don’t conservatives care about conservation?  What’s the problem?  You need to watch my show it’s simple, like you.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwYxSaQPg3Q

  • Anonymous

    OH i’m sorry I forgot to tell you about something very important to me F-CK YOU I could give a crap about you or your fu–ing fat ass so I also wanted to say something special just for you Suck my left nut goon ! now that’s like me be gone with you FECES  in so called human uninformed don’t expect any other response from simple like me.

  • Anonymous

    It’s sad there are folk’s like you, who can’t understand that 97.3%  of the climate scientists agree on AGW.  Why are you a denier?  Why do you put your party before your childrens future?  What’s wrong with you?

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart it seems like I pissed you off?  Good!  Watch my show and I’ll push you over the edge.  BATTA-BING!!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwYxSaQPg3Q

  • Anonymous

    Bert, are you aware that climate change does not have to do with local weather but, rather, refers to a global warming trend that’s been observed, analyzed and confirmed by an overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, based on numerous studies conducted over years and evidence covering eons of our planet’s existence, and that the totality of all this may be just a wee bit more probative than your experience shoveling snow off your driveway in Northern Wisconsin?   Not to demean your physical efforts or trivialize your bent back, but do you think that’s enough to challenge humanity’s faith in the scientific method?

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

    Interesting how much hate and vitriolic you show in your post.

    Leftist lunacy at its finest. You cannot accept how badly you have been lied to by the leaders of the left, and that the cherished dream of global warming has indeed been proven to be a man-made fable.

    Look at the hate, the anger, the insidious accusation and cursing you use.

    In such anger you prove my point, you know the truth and refuse to accept it.  

  • Anonymous

    I made an intentionally facetious statement. That much was lost on you.

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart, because I prove to you that you hate your children, does not mean that I am a hater, you are.  You keep claiming that global warming is proven to be a man-made fable, okay.  Now prove it.  Show us exactly what you consider evidence that AGW is not happening.  Be specific and stop trying to B.S. everybody.  Shit or get of the pot!

  • Anonymous

    “Marxists and Progressives”?   They’re as different as Marxists and Conservatives, i.e. totally different.  Please, tell me why you would lump together such dissimilar groups as if they have something in common. Use facts, please.

  • Rhonda Hair

    Oh, you mean to say that only 2.7% of climate scientists believe the now-discredited scientific models- all 73 of them- that proved to be inaccurate at predicting global temperatures?  Sad.
    Why do you hate oceans so much?  They’re the biggest contributors to CO2 worldwide.It’s BECAUSE I highly value my children’s future that I am willing to look at the truth myself and thus reject global moneymaking schemes.  Party has little to nothing to do with it.  Principles are what matter here.

  • Anonymous

    Hey vacant brain man, here’s a scientific read, if you can read.
    http://www.libertariannews.org/2013/07/23/how-little-we-know-about-the-weather/ 

  • http://www.facebook.com/pbirdstheword Peter Anderson

    Grow up!

  • http://www.facebook.com/pbirdstheword Peter Anderson
  • Watch it

    Just a few days ago we had the coldest July day on record since 190? – can’t remember exact date.

  • Anonymous

    The rhetoric about the carbon tax is hilarious.  It’s just a Marxist ploy in all reality.  The funny thing is poor people usually drive cars with more harmful emissions and Democrats fly in planes too.  I’m a registered Republican and I don’t litter.  I also turn the TV or lights off when I leave a room.  Littering carries a $200 fine where I live and keeping electronics on makes the electric bill go up.  This marbury the moron and vacuum for a brain just don’t get that just because I don’t hold Leftist political views doesn’t mean that I am harming the planet somehow.  What about disingenuous drivel?  THAT gets people killed.  

  • Anonymous

    It’s quite simple.  What Leftists think is progress is the redistribution of wealth.  Just like Communists.  There are thousands of books on the subject.  Go make a pot of coffee and read one, JUST ONE, please.  You haven’t yet, as is evidenced by your moronic spewing here.  You are the one with the specious and untruthful claim here.  You are the misinformed one.

  • Anonymous

    You’re a hater because…you’re a hater.  Look at the way you talked to snowleopard.  It was purely insulting.  You’ll never say that you’re sorry.  The only way to not be labelled a hater is….to stop being a hater.

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart which models are you reffering too?  Please post your proof and stop making meaningless statements unless you can back them up.  Now post your proof or piss off.  Okay

  • Anonymous

    Grow up!  I’m as old as you are.  You sound like a “KOCH-SUCKER” who supports the Koch brothers and the 1%.  Am I right?

  • Watch it

    Same here Bert.

  • Watch it

    Good luck trying to talk reality to that one….. dumb as a door knob.

  • Anonymous

     The fact that ‘global warming’ is used for control and extortion says nothing of it’s reality or otherwise.

    The fact that Al Gore’s an opportunistic tw*t, has no direct link to actual levels of Co2.

    Although potentially a big problem, the Co2 obsession is a bit of a red herring.

    Our continued littering, poisoning, and release of radioactivity, will ultimately be a more immediate concern.

    There are many applicable analogy’s, two inescapable ones being ‘Goldfish bowl theory’ and the one about ‘Cr*pp*ng in your own nest’.  (well this thread did start with some low humour.)

    And don’t Beavis & Butthead take a long time to say not very much ?

  • Anonymous

     What a tool, your moniker will not last much longer on here. You are the poster boy of Liberal stereotypes. The term Global Cooling in the 70s, to Global Warming (You need to get with the current program – “Global Warming” was already debunked) in the 90s, to Climate Change (Current boogieman since the first two proved to be wrong) in the 2000s is nothing more than wealth redistribution in disguise. Now how did you turn into an Al-Gore-Sucker when he is the 1% and has made hundreds of millions off dum#@sses like you?

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

    Sweetheart it seems like you love men but hate reality. BATTA-BING! 

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

    Climitegate moron. You know the emails where they talked about making Global warming seem more dangerous than it really was but that is ok ignore facts the data you site has been proven a lie.

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

    This is for all the idiots that think this lie about the
    earth warming is real. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmPSUMBrJoI

  • Herbert Shallcross

    It’s hilarious. AGW believers both insist that global temperatures have gone up over the last fifteen years while fabricating excuses for why temperatures haven’t. They explain the discrepancy by saying the computer models didn’t take excessive airborne particulates into account, or that the excess heat is hidden in the troposphere, or in the deep oceans. 
    They squirm and squirm, but they just won’t let go of this hoax.

    If you start from the presumption that human beings are destroying the planet, and human activity, human population itself must be greatly restricted, if that is your firm belief, you need something to base your assumptions on, something to compel others to believe as you do and act as you think they should. AGW was perfect, and greenies won’t give it up willingly. 

    Big government statist bought into it, because, while they didn’t believe in restricting population or economic activity, they love any excuse to make new rules, compel behavior and collect more taxes. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/pbirdstheword Peter Anderson

    Done by an ignorant simpleton is the only way you can be describes. 

  • Guest

     I think I’m falling in love. ;-)

  • http://www.facebook.com/pbirdstheword Peter Anderson

    That is your show? Now wonder you spout off. The ignorance and innuendos are coming through so often I had to turn it off. Gas prices …Obama said that the cost are going to necessarily sky rocket. Gas has doubled since his last taking more votes from the computer. The carbon foot print of Tesla cars, Prius , etc are far greater than regular cars,  You “so called” environment people don’t realize that it takes copper from the earth to make electric cars and wind farms that kill endangered species of birds and yet you want to shut down the copper mines. 
    The third world countries want to eat and live but you  are forcing them to live as primitives. How is this possible? Well you based you premise on the happiness index. How bloody simple can you people be? People want to live in poverty because they smile?
    Talk about Koch, well you have better study George Soros. When you see what your George had done in other countries and is doing to this country the Koch brothers are angles.
    The earth is warming but not by what people do. It is warmed by the sun and in your visions of grandeur you think you are more powerful than the sun.

    You  have no proof of what you attest, and you revert intimidation techniques such as  name calling, bulling and foul language.
    This then ends our communication because I cannot communicate with really simple ,uneducated false rhetoric presenters. 
    You are a lover of Agenda 21 the ruin of our world. You will learn that you are not sustainable.
     

  • Anonymous

    If you look at the history of the earth, you will find that at one time, before man, the earth was: a molten flowing lava ball and at another time it was a big ice ball.  The earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling. 

  • Anonymous

    Well, considering that on one hand, you have every nation in the world, the UN, CIA, and 99% of scientists agreeing that global warming exists, and on the other hand you have geriatric idiots who, due possibly to lack of oxygen in the womb (or some other fool reason I can’t fathom) think Glenn beck has anything reasonable to say, I’d go with the wisdom of the entire world.

    The fact is, earth is an extremely fragile ecosystem, and every little thing we do affects it. Even on the smallest scale: when the Mayan civilization was cultivating southern Mexico, the forests they chopped down for crops acted as a natural heat sink; once the forests were gone, the entire Central American landmass raised its average temperature by a few degrees. Tiny things like that. When Krakatoa erupted in the 1880′s, not only did it create the infamous ‘year without summer’, it dramatically threw off global temperatures for over a decade. You can see paintings from the time, woodcuts of children having snowball fights in July in New York. You think 6 billion cars spewing smog wouldn’t cause problems? when I was in Patagonia last year, farther south than any other landmass besides Antarctica, you could literally feel the ozone hole over there; the sun is in fact three times more intense where I was, and even though it was freezing, the sun would still burn you within minutes, painful, like pins and needles. The tiniest change in global temperatures cause a massive increase in storms like hurricanes, which we are seeing now, and the massive pine beetle problem killing off most lodge pole pines in the western US is from a lack a cold snaps- generally, the beetles are killed naturally by sub-zero temperatures we’ve been missing this past decade, the hottest decade in recorded history.

    Don’t be mad at vac man. He understandably gets pissed when people’s stubborn stupidity is actively killing the world. I’m immune to it because I have an unhealthy addiction to arguing with people online, and am used to people who echo anything a pundit spews. But seriously, you people are killing the world.

  • Anonymous

    Well, the earth wasn’t fully formed or capable of supporting life when it was a lava ball, and was hit by a meteor, putting millions of tons of smoke into the atmosphere caused it to become an ice ball. lrn2basicscience.

  • Anonymous

    Well, considering that on one hand, you have every nation in the world, the UN, CIA, and 99% of scientists agreeing that global warming exists, and on the other hand you have geriatric idiots who, due possibly to lack of oxygen in the womb (or some other fool reason I can’t fathom) think Glenn beck has anything reasonable to say, I’d go with the wisdom of the entire world.

    The fact is, earth is an extremely fragile ecosystem, and every little thing we do affects it. Even on the smallest scale: when the Mayan civilization was cultivating southern Mexico, the forests they chopped down for crops acted as a natural heat sink; once the forests were gone, the entire Central American landmass raised its average temperature by a few degrees. Tiny things like that. When Krakatoa erupted in the 1880′s, not only did it create the infamous ‘year without summer’, it dramatically threw off global temperatures for over a decade. You can see paintings from the time, woodcuts of children having snowball fights in July in New York. You think 6 billion cars spewing smog wouldn’t cause problems? when I was in Patagonia last year, farther south than any other landmass besides Antarctica, you could literally feel the ozone hole over there; the sun is in fact three times more intense where I was, and even though it was freezing, the sun would still burn you within minutes, painful, like pins and needles. The tiniest change in global temperatures cause a massive increase in storms like hurricanes, which we are seeing now, and the massive pine beetle problem killing off most lodge pole pines in the western US is from a lack a cold snaps- generally, the beetles are killed naturally by sub-zero temperatures we’ve been missing this past decade, the hottest decade in recorded history.

    Don’t be mad at vac man. He understandably gets pissed when people’s stubborn stupidity is actively killing the world. I’m immune to it because I have an unhealthy addiction to arguing with people online, and am used to people who echo anything a pundit spews. But seriously, you people are killing the world.

  • Anonymous

    Oops double post my bad

  • Darrin Neagoy

    i’m sorry, but ‘physics’? Physics tells us that the ocean will rise, flooding will happen, droughts will occur, whatever happened to climatology? I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure physics is the study of motion and energy and is wrongly categorized by the liberal promoting the threat of global warming.

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart can you please post the proof that global warming has been debunked.  Please be specific, thank you.

  • Anonymous

    No Sam I don’t know what you’re talking about?  Please post the specific studies that you are referring too.  I won’t accept anything less.  Sam you would think that after awhile you would get the idea and start posting your proof.  But you don’t seem to catch on.  Why is that?  Why don’t you try to pray away your stupidity.  Ask god for a new brain, I’m sure he’s not busy.  BATTA-BING!!

  • Anonymous

    No Sam, which emails are you referring too?  Remember Sam it’s very important that you post your proof.  So let’s see it babe.  Show us the lies or shut-up.  Okay?  Sam when are you gonna learn?

  • Anonymous

    I think I’ve been cut off?

  • Anonymous

    Sammy baby what emails are you referring too? Be specific.

  • Anonymous

    Pete baby, you’ve raised a lot of questions?  Let’s take them one at a time.  Please post your evidence that the carbon footprint of a Tesla is greater then regular cars.  Be specific.  I want to see proof, nothing less. Okay?

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart we don’t use  physics to study climate change.  We use climate scientists.  And 97.3% of the climate scientists writing peer-reviewed studies agree that AGW is happening.  Any questions?  Watch my show to clear things up.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwYxSaQPg3Q

  • Anonymous

    The earth has never gone through a climate change of this magnitude, this quickly.  Listen to the climate scientist’s and no one else. 

  • Anonymous

    Who told you that?

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart who told you global temperatures have not been going up for the last 15 years.  Where did you get your information.  Post your evidence please.  Be specific.

  • Anonymous

    Sam please for your kid’s sake, stop embarrassing yourself!!!  The stuff you post is more ridiculous, then you are.  Stop making a fool out of yourself, for god and your parties sake.  BATTA-BING!!

  • Anonymous

    Sam In my show I do the hide the decline cartoon, it’s about 40 minutes in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwYxSaQPg3Q

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart every science academy in the world agrees that AGW id real.  What are you missing?

  • Anonymous

    Pete baby let me straighten you out.  When you want to learn about climate change you ask a climate scientist.  It’s that simple babe.  Do you go to a gas station to get a tooth pulled?  Get with the program babe, and stop hating your kids.

  • Anonymous

     Nothing Darling, just saying that the emissions debate isn’t the ‘be all and end all’.

  • Anonymous

    That’s it?  That’s what you’ve got?  You latch on to a conversational tangent that you think you can twist because you’ve got nothing else to argue against, and thus try to marginalize the whole comment?  It’s a profoundly weak strategy of argument.  Ok MvsM, I’ll indulge you briefly, if only to demonstrate what I regard as your intentional ignorance:

     Marxism noun the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx …that the capitalist system… be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

    Origin:
    1895–1900; Marx + -ism Dictionary.com Unabridged
    Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.

    Progressive
    adj2. proceeding or progressing by steps or degrees
    3. ( often capital ) favouring or promoting political or social reform through government action, or even revolution, to improve the lot of the majority: a progressive policy Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
    2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins

    Both systems end in the same result – collectivism.  History demonstrates clearly that both philosophies (variations on the same theme) are abject failures, as they lead to populations of mindless dependent sheep, led by an individual or small group holding absolute power.  No innovation, nothing exceptional, just one more group in a world history full of dependence and control.

    MvsM, your comment paints you as a true believer of the cause, willing to overlook the reality of any given situation, because what you choose to believe just “feels” so right.  God forbid you should actually ever have to deal with the consequences of your “feelings”.  If that’s not the case, then consider the consequences of your weak strategy of argument.

    To the others commenting on MvsM’s idiotic retort – this is a perfect example of what the “conversation” with such true believers gets us.  Don’t indulge them any further on such tangents – I’m almost sorry I wasted the time on him/her, but I do appreciate the additional comments all the same.

  • Anonymous

    HOLY CRAP! Wow! You have totally changed my mind! I used to believe in science, but luckily YouTube set me straight! A parody of the 12 days of Christmas reworded to bash al gore is so much better than years of study and consensus among the global scientific community! Sam, you are so intelligent. Seriously, you are like Harvard intelligent. To bad everyone in every decent college in the world would also disagree with you. If only the rest of the world could be blinded by the wit of a god damn YouTube video, then maybe people would be as smart as you!!

    Seriously, can you even tie your shoes, or do you just blame the liberals for tripping over your own feet?

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

    You mean you believe in unicorns as well. It would be one thing if it were not a proven fact that these so called Scientist didn’t fudged their findings to make Global warming look worse than it was proven fact I might add and their for makes anything that comes from them not creditable. I am not going to believe a group of men that try to mislead me that is also why I am not liberal.

  • LeShagBag

    That is the funniest thing I have ever read. Thank you for the lols; they were very much appreciated.

  • Anonymous

    Sammy baby you keep making the claim that so called scientists fudged their findings.  That should be very easy to prove, shouldn’t it?  Okay sam, post the specific evidence you are citing.  If there is one thing scientists love to do is prove each other wrong!!!   Let’s see your peer reviewed evidence sam.  Shit, or get off the pot.

  • Lew

    It’s all about AGENDA 21!

  • ivan

    Man made global warming is bullcrap. The Earth has warmed and cooled for thousands of years with out human even before humans were on the scene. I guess there were factories thousands of years ago. Furthermore although a majority of scientists may accept global warming as gospel, thousands of scientists dispute it. Keep in mind that in the 70′s the majority of scientists using similar evidence believed in global cooling which they believed would lead to another ice ace. Majority thinking has not always been right.

  • Lew

    @vacmancan You ask for proof,well so do I! Show me YOUR proof of  global warming! Before we had warming we had cooling! OR so the left wingnuts were saying! IT’s all about AGENDA 21!

  • Anonymous

    Lew, now you’re starting to get the idea.  I like your style you demand proof!  I’m proud of you and I’m happy to provide it.  Lew, every National Academy of Science, in all 19 countries, including Russia and China all agree overwhelmingly that AGW is happening.  In additional you can look at the 2010 PNAS Study conducted by NAS.  Any questions?  My show will help you understand as well.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwYxSaQPg3Q

  • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

    You’re fighting an uphill battle. If Beck denies science, they will deny science. They are very programmed, but have at it.

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart 97.3% of climate scientists writing peer reviewed studies agree that AGW is happening!!  If you want to embarrass yourself by standing with the 2.7%  that disagree, that’s fine.  Are you a “KOCH-SUCKER” who supports the Koch brothers, the 1% and the fossil fuel industry?

  • Anonymous

    What’s agenda 21?

  • Anonymous

    I hear you.  But the “Simple-folk” on this site are fun to play with.  I often wonder what part of texas they live in.  BATTA-BING!!  I can’t help it.

  • Anonymous

    wow,you sound like a reasonable guy vacuum man.

  • Anonymous

    “Their for”? Do you blame the liberals for your 3rd grade spelling skills as well, or are you just more of the garden variety moron?

    Scientific theories are constantly upgraded, changed, added on. That’s how it is with the theories of climate change, evolution, gravity, general relativity, quantum science. That’s what people in schools– you do have school in your neck of the woods, don’t you?– call the scientific method. Nothing is proven. You can drop a ball 10,000 times, but even then the existence of gravity can’t be fully proven. THEREFORE, scientific results are bound to vary no matter the subject. Some have thought that global warming is worse than it was; some have though it was less harmful than it is. However, the only scientists who say global warming ISN’T REAL are the phony ‘scientists’ paid by corporations to put out false information so companies aren’t restricted- being environmentally friendly costs money. You say you hate people who mislead you, why not the people who take purposely false information and put it on all your favorite propaganda outlets. Yeah, the American Democratic Party misleads people. Just like the Republican Party. That’s what political parties do, they pander and lie, because American politics, really most politics, are more about ‘winning’ than doing good for your country. It’s funny to hear a glenn beck fan say he hates being mislead! And yes, you are liberal. We’re all technically neoliberal. To be truly capitalist would be a form of lassez-faire capitalism, where corporations have as much power as they want, which we tried in the 1800′s and had business owners ordering the murders of striking workers, children working in mineshafts, zero safety regulations in companies and fire departments that wouldn’t put out your fire unless you had paid them first. Do you believe in public schools? Public police departments? Public fire departments? Publicly funded anything? Then you are a liberal. The only people who say otherwise are the propagandists who mislead you to further divide the country and strengthen their own, hyper-partisan cause.

    The more you know! ; )

  • Linda Sills

    Hey vacmancan, you have been lied to so thoroughly, and you do not even know it. Do your own homework. http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com and AmericanPolicy,org

    This is the biggest lie and hoax since Hitler’s “It is all the Jews fault”. If you still think the little black box in your living room tells you truth, I would have to feel real sorry for you.

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart If you can prove global warming is a hoax, please post your proof.  I’ll accept any peer reviewed evidence you might want to present.  Until then, we don’t have much to talk about.  You need an education.  You need to watch my show.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwYxSaQPg3Q

  • Anonymous

    Are you referring to my “KOCH-SUCKER” comment?  It’s hard to be reasonable with the 1%.  Do they care about you?  Of course not.

  • Ken

    You are an idiot and don’nt deserve a reply other than everything about global warming is a scam.

  • Anonymous

     vacmancan:  Why are you so hostile, you or your ilk have not been willing to go on TV and have a debate on this subject for the last 25 years.  You hide behind the Bull Excrement that the question is settled and that there is consensus when there are 10 time as many scientists that don”t believe that what warming there is is caused by man.  There has been in the past 150 years  corresponding weather events as bad as what has happened in the last 50 years and in a lot of cases far worse then what the global warming tax and spend (which is what this is really all about) crowd continue to try foist on us. 
    The first global warming BS was tried to be foisted on us as far back a the writings of Marx and Engels in the mid 1800s.  That was so they could redistribute the wealth of of the richer countries to the poor countries and this is what is what the current BS is all about another attempt  to destroy the economies of the 1st world economies in favor of the 3rd world economies with the dictates of the UN 1981 Wealth Redistribution  Protocols.  I realize that a liberal Marxist such as you will have a hard time accepting the truth but this is the truth.    

  • Ken

    Go pawn your lies somewhere else.  We are not falling for you kool-aid drinking lies. 97% has been debunked as only a few Scientists took the survey you are talking about.  The correct answer is less than 1% of the lying grant funded scientist believe their own lies.  

  • Anonymous

    Ken sweetheart if you want to get into the conversation, you have to bring something to the table.  Global warming is a scam, ain’t gonna make it babe.  Can you offer some evidence, and be specific.  Thanks.

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart why do you think I’m hostile?  Just because I bitch-slap the snot out of the boneheads on this site, does not make me hostile.  It proves my love and concern, for the “simple-folk” like you.  Can you feel the love?  You claim there are 10 times as many scientists that don’t believe that warming is caused by man.  Please post your proof.  Show us the study that proves your point.  Be specific  In the meantime watch my show.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwYxSaQPg3Q

  • Anonymous

    For those non-scientists out there, here are the basic facts of the global warming issue.

    First there are no mathematical tools that will give you the type of accuracy that proponents on both sides of the issue say they have.  The point being, the models are all statistical renderings, extrapolating to the agendas at hand.

    Second the models being used, though accurate on a small scale do not take into account a myriad number of unquantifiable assumptions, ranging from temperature inversions within the ocean to those in space and everything in between.  The numbers are Newtonian in nature, meaning linear assumptions in a non-linear environment.

    You can argue back and forth; but there is no model out there that gives a better than 30 to 40% accuracy, and that is a fairly liberal (no pun intended) assumption.

    Every bit of data out there when taken into context of its source shows the earth is within its normal pattern, or cycle of stability on a world scale.  Is their global weather changes, of course, that continues as it always has.

    If you can’t read a book to understand the limits of what the media likes to abuse daily, at lease stay out of the discussion.  The sad truth of many scientists; as stu and the others showed, is that even a non-scientist can show the error of the scientist, when emotion and agenda are being pushed rather then science.

    .

  • americanathlete

     You’re a complete idiot! Global Warming is absolute b.s.! For being an Ivy Leaguer, Al Gore is the stupidest man on the planet…next to you of course! Our government needs to spend a little more of the tax payers hard earned money on a freakin’ hoax. Let me just put it plain for ya, my friend: All of the natural disasters we are having has nothing to do with global warming, but instead with God being fed up with all of the sin in the world!

  • americanathlete

    I believe it was in elementary that we learned about how this world goes thru a cycle every 10,000 years. Were you absent when we were taught about that? just wondering!

  • Watch it

    Moderators,

    How about you monitor this site more often so the imposters and left wing trolls who attack the posters here and just cause trouble are caught and blocked? For starters how about a moderator who will actually ban the trouble makers and TOU violators by email and IP addy that are reported  by us???.

    I find it strange that I edited this post to remove some extra blank lines between the links I provided for reference, and instead of posting the change, I see :

    “Your comment must be approved by a moderator.
    Moderators of this website chose to explicitly approve all edits made by a comment’s author.”

    Where were you all when we needed  you??? :-(

    Here’s one lib  trouble maker you can start with

    http://disqus.com/facebook-1528242547/ and there are a few more vulgar mouthed nasty posters I could tell you about.

  • Brent Holman

    The atmosphere is warming. That is a fact. What is alarming is that this was predicted a long time ago, & all predictive models turn out to have been too conservative.
    There IS a ‘tipping point’ where warming temps create situations that can release enormous amounts of Co2 very rapidly, like we are seeing in the arctic, where permafrost is melting, releasing more Co2, etc. It is unknown when such a tipping point might occur, ie: 10 years? 50? Anyone who can’t understand that all kinds of forces are at work, like volcanoes, wildfires, etc, including man-made emissions, are (relatively) rapidly changing the chemistry of the atmosphere is ignorant of basic science.
    What is more alarming is the massive amount of methane (which is 10 times as potent a greenhouse gas) we pour into the atmosphere, primarily due to agricultural practices, (which by necessity is growing to feed the ever growing world population), & the possibility of a sudden rapid release of same, due to enormous quantities of naturally occurring methane hydrates in the oceans, etc, but what is ESPECIALLY troubling is how freakin ignorant some people are.
    The FACT is, this planet has seen repeated, sudden, massive changes in climate & we are seeing the start of one now. If you want to believe it’s all some ‘liberal’ hoax, I suggest you go back to school. Educate yourself. Learn how to think, because emotional, knee-jerk reactionary ‘feelings’ are generally the domain of young, ignorant girls.

  • Brent Holman

    These guys are paid trolls, or wilfully ignorant, which is stupid. Ignorance can be cured, but you can’t fix stupid. (Ron White)

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart you were taught the world goes through a cycle every 10,000 years?  Hey at least you think the world is older then 6,000 years, so you can’t be a creationist. Although, you sure fooled me.

  • Anonymous

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

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

    Climate scientists view it as a “political” cause now? Since when is science supposed to be subjective or care about political causes in the scientific process?

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart you believe in a god?  Which god?  No wonder you’re all mixed up, and you can’t understand global warming. You believe in things that you have no proof for, (god) and you cant accept the overwhelming facts associated with AGW.  And you call me an idiot?  Can you ”PRAY-AWAY” global warming for us?  You “simple-folk” are so cute.  Thanks for the entertainment. 

  • Guest

     It doesn’t matter what you accept. You never post any proof of anything. You contribute nothing to the topic discussions.   What you do is get into everyones face who posts here making demands, belittling, copping a superior attitude, insulting being dismissive and a general pain in the ass.  What was your purpose for insulting Sam?

  • Anonymous

    ever notice how the vacuum man starts every paragraph with why do you hate your children.
    why do you hate those who don’t agree with you?
    take a bath,get a job,and we’ll talk vacuum boy.

  • Anonymous

    you prove she hates her children?
    wow,what a guy.
    the only thing you’ve proved is you hate those who disagree with you. occupy wallstreet lost soul.

  • Brent Holman

    I don’t condone ad-hominem attacks, (yes, you vacmancan) but the fact of the matter is that the atmosphere is, in fact, warming. there is no doubt. It. Is. Warming. Up. Period.
    You can argue the CAUSES of this, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
    Maybe we can get back together in 10 or twenty years & see if you are correct.
    But Get This. The Koch Bros, as the 2nd largest Privately held corporation in America ARE in fact spending MILLIONS of dollars to convince YOU that the CORE of their business (burning fossil fuels) is the AMERICAN WAY! (Hint. It Isn’t)
    These bastards BOUGHT a LOBBYIST & Got him elected Governor of Wisconsin, & now he’s undoing 50 years of good government in Wisconsin.
    My ancestors got here in 1642, volunteered for the revolutionary war, & the civil war, while THEIR granddaddy was LUCKY enough to get here in 1888 & CASH IN on the massive OIL BOOM that made them rich, & incidentally made the modern world happen. Like all oil men, they have a point, UP TO A POINT.
    But they are going TOO far. vacmancan is right on that point.
    Money + Politics = Corrupt Politics. Period. I dont give a rats ass what party you wanna talk about. Throw in Mafia tactics & you got real corruption.
    Anyone else understand THE POINT of Godfather part III ????

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart the site you posted do not offer ant proof that AGW is not happening.   They just create doubt, no proof. You need to watch my show.  I use the hide the decline video in the show.  Watch.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwYxSaQPg3Q

  • Brent Holman

    um, the vast quantities of money being spent to convince you that global warming is a hoax are being spent by the mega-billionaires who are currently purchasing state governments to further their agenda.
    You better pray that YOUR agenda coincides with theirs….

  • Brent Holman

    My ancestors probably met Ben Franklin, twit. Wealth redistribution?
    That would be the giant sucking sound as the richest families lucky enough to have got here to the party late, by the way, as they squeeze this country like a sponge. I don’t know about you, but I DON’T LIKE BEING SQUEEZED by BILLIONAIRES, whose claim to fame is primarily LUCK. The Atmosphere is rapidly warming. that is an undisputed fact. Argue with that fact, go ahead.

  • Brent Holman

    Agenda 21 is a false flag op by rich powerful conservatives to scare nimwits like YOU.

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart, if your not concerned enough about your children’s future, to get up to speed on AGW, then you hate your kids.  It’s that simple.  Why you put your party before your kids, is beyond me? How did the 1% turn you into a “KOCH-SUCKER?”  Where you support the Koch brothers, before your kids?  Can you explain that to me. Please.

  • Anonymous

    Hey you forgot to add a BATTA-BING!!  Whenever you deliver a good BITCH-SLAP you’re supposed to add BATTA-BING!! 
       Sam ain’t wrapped so tight, but he said he was gonna “pray-away” global warming for everyone.  Thanks Sam.

  • Anonymous

     Wow… So it won’t let me reply to your next comment vacmancan. So, you say these links don’t disprove but only create doubt, hmmmm…… Well, try the following; they’re a bit long but you’ll get the picture.

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

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jzBWmpzifc

    Just google “climate change debunked”, “climate scientists emails hacked” and other such things and you’ll find a plethora of info on it.
    So, according to your logic, just because you create doubt about something does not disprove it, right? So, on the other hand, if there is doubt about it, it is still up for debate, and you shouldn’t lambast and belittle someone who doesn’t believe in it like you do.

  • Anonymous

    NASA scientists were told that if they agreed with ‘Global Warming’ the Government would divert billions of $ to keep their jobs. That is why they agree with ‘Global Warming’. They haven’t found out yet that if the ‘Global Warming Tax’ goes through they will not see a single cent of that tax. The $ as with so many democratic programs will disappear off the face of the earth.

  • Guest

     http://www.realclearenergy.org/charticles/2012/10/15/evs_only_frontload_carbon_emissions_106741.html

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/10/is-the-tesla-model-s-green/

    Something to consider: the production of lithium-ion batteries, which is
    heavily dependent on mined metals and produces a product that, unlike
    lead-acid batteries, is difficult if not impossible to recycle…. finite supply of minerals.

  • Guest

    Sweetheart,  Please provide proof of your claims, and be specific.  I want to see proof, nothing less. Okay?

  • Guest

     Sweetheart,  Please provide proof of your claims, and be specific.  I want to see proof, nothing less. Okay?

  • Guest

     Sweetheart,  please provide proof of your claims, and be specific.  I want to see proof, nothing less. Okay?

  • Guest

     Wonderful, now go hide and decline.

  • Guest

     Sweetheart,  Please provide proof of your claims, and be specific.  I want to see proof, nothing less. Okay?
     
    Oh, you can’t because it isn’t true anymore. Proof, I demand proof, nothing less.

  • Guest

     Ahh now which scientists, the ones who still cling to MMGW or the ones who have admitted the science was flawed and that it isn’t necessarily man made?

  • Anonymous

    Don’t insult yourself by posting anything from watts up with that.  He’s not a climate scientist.  He’s a “KOCH-SUCKER” who is supported by the Koch brothers and the 1%.  According to elon Musk lithium ion batteries are highly recylical product.  Are you familiar with Elon Musk?  Watch show #17  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwYxSaQPg3Q

  • Anonymous

    Babe you got to keep up. What part of the 97.3% of the climate scientists writing peer reviewed studies didn’t you understand?  Should I type slower, for you?

  • Guest

     There is no need for vulgar language. It is often used by people who can’t  argue a point.

  • smokehill

     ”Post your proof”

    Why bother?  Nothing could ever convince you leftist fags, since it’s purely a religious belief on your part.  You WANT to believe, and always will.

  • Guest

    Cherry picking one reference you don’t like because it doesn’t support your agenda is pointless and invalid. If you can’t do better then that, you better hang it up.

    As for “KOCH-SUCKER”: making a very low brow, ill masked attempt like that aimed at degradation, does nothing for your argument.

    LMAO – Elon Musk is a co-founder of Tesla Motors who has a vested interest in convincing people about how green those cars are. He isn’t exactly unbiased, and therefore his self serving testimony is suspect at best.

    Sorry, I am not gong to subject myself to the crap you are advertising.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kerry.shelton.5 Kerry Shelton

    Just a question here but if AGW is such a slam dunk, why did Michael Mann have to falsify his “hockey stick chart” to “prove” it?  If Al Gore believes in AGW and rising sea levels, why did he buy a $9 million mansion on the California coast?  If there is really a consensus among scientists about AGW then why can you only cite about 3000 that agree with you when there is a petition signed by over 31000 scientists that disagree with you?  Why have these same AGW proponents dropped Global Warming for Climate change?  Why did these same scientists proclaim on the first Earth Day celebration that we were in imminent danger of undergoing another ice age at any moment?  Why has Earth undergone countless warming and cooling periods eons before the advent of the Industrial Age much less the widespread use of SUVs? Was it the many campfires being used by prehistoric man that caused the last Ice Age about 10000 years ago?  And what about the warming trend during the Roman and Medieval Periods?  For that matter, why has the global temperature not increased over the last ten years and has actually decreased in some areas?

    These are but a few questions that would have anyone with a mote of independent thought and intelligence questioning the “Official Story” proposed by a handful of “scientists” and propagated by a headline hungry, liberal media.  If you have any intellectual honesty, these should raise some legitimate questions in your own mind.
    Just sayin’

  • Anonymous

    I’m not a paid troll.  I’m a professional BITCH-SLAPPER!!  Need some?

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart who told you this and why are you stupid enough to believe them?  Please post the evidence that Nasa scientists had to agree with global warming.  Be specific please

  • Guest

    Sweetheart, babe, what part of debunked don’t you understand? Since the days of that fury of the phony claims, the ill conceived and faulty modeling, and manipulated data (contrived science) about 97.3% climate scientists blah blah blah, things have changed, and too many of them have jumped ship. See my other links to you on the subject that explain about the estimates being terribly exaggerated. You must learn that when a “scientific” study, or any other for that matter is produced to support a political agenda, that it should be questioned and investigated, as this has been.

    Apparently you are unable to keep up. Typing slower may help you as it will match your abilities. Don’t worry about me, sweetheart, I am way ahead of you.

    Oh, and if you want to persist with your opinion, please provide proof of your claims, and be specific. I want to see proof, nothing less. Okay?

  • Anonymous

    Global warming is not a religion.  It’s vey simple, the data tells us all we need to know.  Thermometers don’t lie honey, they can’t.  Now matter what rush tells you.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kerry.shelton.5 Kerry Shelton

    vacmancan, you keep asking for proof that something doesn’t exist while offering no proof that it does exist.  This is patently against the scientific method.  You are the one making extraordinary claims, therefore it is your responsibility to produce (not manufacture) extraordinary evidence.  Your claim of over 97% of climate scientists agreeing with AGW as well as every other claim you have made here are nothing more than gratuitous assertions given without any accreditation or accompanying evidence whatsoever.  I can only assume you meant 97% of the climate scientists at the East Anglia Institute concur with AGW.  The same East Anglia Institute where Michael Mann and his cronies falsified data and then communicated those falsifications to each other via the emails of which you seem to have no knowledge.  If you are so up to date on this subject, how did this get by you?  Surely you heard of “Climategate” back in 2009 when over 250 emails from Michael Mann and his “believers” at East Anglia were hacked and released.  Even the mainstream media covered it for at least a while.  If you are so basically uninformed on such a well known aspect of the AGW case, how can anyone believe you would be any better informed on the rest of the topic?  Maybe you should reserve your academic pronouncements until you at least are current on the subject.

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart the only thing you need to understand global warming is a thermometer.  Case closed.

  • Guest

     You still haven’t provided the proof he is demanding. Don’t put out your show as proof of anything – it isn’t. So put up or shut up. Your post was NOT proof of anything.

  • Anonymous

    Please Post the study you are referring too?  I want to see how the 97% has been debunked.  Be specific, thanks.

  • Guest

     Victor with your ignorance you are no one to talk. You believe in contrived manipulated science. It serves the agenda. Stay stupid. At least you are good at that.

  • Guest

     Please dispense with the veiled obscenities. It does nothing for your outdated and no longer supported argument.

  • Guest

     Try to keep up – Agenda 21 is not real new – to the rest of us. Time for the vacman to do a little research.

  • Guest

     Of course you can’t help it – you are just as delusional as Victor is and probably as narcissistic. He is your typical obsequious ass kisser looking to glom onto you or anyone else he can to get support….. BATTA -BING!!

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart, the idea that you say that AGW has been debunked, does not mean that it has been debunked.  Now you have to post the proof that shows that  it’s been debunked?  See how this works?  Saying something does not make it true.  Now post your proof or piss-off.  Okay?

  • Anonymous

    Kerry you put a lot on the table.  Let’s take it one thing at a time.  First of all, where are you getting the idea that Michael Mann had to falsify his hockey stick.  Please post the specific article that can prove this point.  Nothing less.  You’re up babe.

  • Anonymous

    Brent… I visited this site and found it was a terrible idea. You should leave too. The people here are a lost cause. You may as well be shouting at glenn beck spambots.

    I think my IQ has actually been substantially lowered from visiting this site. Like, the black holes that constitute their intelligence have sucked out part of my brain, given me a contact lobotomy. I take solace in knowing that regular people are not this bad.

    “Gaze not into the abyss, for the abyss gazes also into you,

    And beware, when fighting with glenn beck fans, that you do not yourself become a brain dead political pundit mouthpiece as well.”

    -Nietszche

  • Anonymous

    Very amusing.  I like Pat’s take on the science of global warming.  Why not?  If it gets hot, it’s all because of man!  Or the cows!  Which one should bow out first?  Hey!  It will save the planet!

  • Guest

     So, you feel that insulting and degrading someone for their grammar, spelling, etc is a winning point for your argument? Oooh wait, did I see this in your post? quote “…some have though it was less” . Oh my, you misspelled “thought” . As for the rest of your opinions, please substantiate them, and try to do it without being a bitch..

  • Guest

     You proved nothing. Pointing to a debunked manipulated “study” is not proof. So, vacman, tine to get off the pot. The pot you re sitting on and the pot you are smoking.

  • Anonymous

    Hey Vacuum Salesman, does George Soros call you sweetheart and part your hair for you while your mustache tickles his balls as you go down on him?  I watched about 2 minutes too long of your show and realized that both of your fans are the same people.  You had an amazing 90 views which are probably from the 90 times you asked someone on this thread to watch it.  You will never make friends when you subject smart people to watching any of your horrible horrible show.  They can not get that part of their life back.  Also, dont you live in the state with the most One per centers, Connecticut?  Maybe you should sell more vacuums and less time trying to elude innocent people to SOROs-Sucking like you obviously have done all your life.

  • Guest

     What makes you thing cat has children? Again, making ignorant assumptions. Get off the pot.

  • Guest

     Well put, petersenonmain

  • Guest

     Vacman, sweetheart, you have yet to provide proof of your claims. Repeating the time worn meme of the “97.3%” climate scientists….” doesn’t cut it. Put up or shut up. Provide definitive proof, not some old debunked governments paid for study.

  • Guest

     You only have been able to prove that you are delusional and egotistical.

  • Guest

     The planet has been going through warmings and coolings (last glacial age was about 25,000 yrs ago). for a long time. No matter what is done, what draconian measures may be taken, nothing humans can do will  change the inevitable. Best thing to do is take measures to adapt.

  • Anonymous

    I am sure many of you have had vacuum cleaner salesmen come to your door only to cringe that they will never leave without trying to tell you why their product is for sale for only $2000 then they leave you with the final price of $300.  Vaccanman is no different.  His debunked theory is worth a lot until he realizes no one believes the lies of Al Gore or Greorge Soros, so he then has to name call to make himself feel big. Poor guy, why dont you go make a show on youtube for both of your fans, oh wait you already did that.  Next you should try to play Russian Roulette by yourself with a fully loaded weapon.  I am sure all the right sided fans on this show would lend you one.

  • Guest

     Since you and vac are the contrarians on this site, looks like you’re busted – you are the trolls.

  • Anonymous

    Kerry you called my bluff.  I guess I have to post my proof.  I can’t wait for your reply.  BATTA-BING!!   I love knocking the snot out of you “simple-folk”.  I know the study is 3 pages so it might take you a couple of days to read it.  If you need help, let me know. 
    http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf+html

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart you claim I have a debunked theory.  Okay, who debunked it, and how?  Post your proof.  Be specific.  Let’s see your evidence.  Let the debunking begin!

  • Anonymous

    You’re an asshole!  You want people to adapt?  You expect the Florida farmers to move to Canada because they can’t grow there crops here?  Adapt?  You need to adopt a new brain.  Yours is full of conservative bullshit. ADAPT!  ADADT my ass.  Your kids should be ashamed of you.

  • Anonymous

    Relax, 1947, there are no prizes for shadowboxing or vanquishing imaginary foes. Your disagreement is not with me, it’s with reality and with history. My post was simply intended to provoke a response, thank you for responding so predictably. The point I questioned in your paean to Glenn is a good example of the alternate reality so blindly accepted by the Right wing today. I wanted you to make explicit the connection in your mind between liberalism and Marxism in order to show that the connection exists.. only in your mind. Thanks for cooperating.

    Yes, Marxism is an economic & political theory, it arose in response to the socioeconomic dislocations and extreme inequality of wealth and power created by rapid industrialization in the 19th century. While the theory appealed to many people at the time, when put into practice in the 20th century as state socialism or communism, where the state owns and controls the means of production and distribution, it proved a total failure economically and a short path to wicked totalitarianism.

    While the USSR and eastern Europe withered under communism, the West (America and western Europe) remained democratic and capitalist and flourished. Rather than throwing out free market capitalism, we harnessed it. Our success in building productive economies has been based on two things we have come to understand about free market capitalism: 1) it’s the most powerful engine of productivity we know; and 2) it works most efficiently when we guide it in the direction we want to go; without oversight and guidance, it may behave like a runaway train and wreck itself. In order to keep free-market capitalism at its healthiest, we provide guidance – in the form of regulations.

    The debate between Marxism and capitalism was settled long ago. The debate between liberals and conservatives in America is about which specific rules and regulations make our markets the most the most healthy and productive and best promote our national wellbeing . It’s also about how much and where to redistribute resources (all taxation redistributes; that’s its purpose), since inequality is natural and healthy but excessive inequality of wealth and power inevitably leads to inefficient resource allocation in certain market sectors. Liberals and conservatives have different philosophies and views on all this, but they’re both pursuing the same national goal.

    As to which side is winning the debate, that should be obvious. Liberals tend to be guided more by empiricism and moderation than by rigid ideology, conservatives the opposite. Look at our experiences under Clinton and then under W Bush. Clinton raised taxes and, despite conservatives’ dire warning of catastrophe, the economy performed magnificently, and we balanced the budget, then ran a surplus. Bush and the Reps undid regulations, lowered taxes for wealthy people, left the markets to police themselves and the world economy almost crashed as a result. Frankly, I think it’s a character fault of conservatives that they’re unwilling to take responsibility for their mistakes. They’re True Believers.

    It’s also common in capitalist free market democracies to socialize specific market segments which don’t accord well with the laws of supply/demand while, at the same time, to maintain the most raw capitalism in sectors that thrive best when least fettered. Look at Germany and the Scandinavian countries, which have far higher taxes, many more social benefits – and also outstanding products, strong economies and high standards of living. Canada hasn’t collapsed because of socialized medicine, has it? And you say “history demonstrates…” What was that again? Care to amend your previous statement?

    All I’ve – all we’ve got – is reality, which should be enough. American Marxists vanished long ago, in the garbage bin of history, and you get egg on your face when you look there for your arguments. Liberals include your friends, neighbors, fellow patriots and your duly-elected President. It’s sad and astonishing that anyone should have to point this out in America today. Thank you, Glenn Beck.

  • Anonymous

    hear hear that is truly accurate. i will go just a little further and say, vacantmancan’t, you truly are one of the useful idiots that the left depends on so much to push their socialist agenda. it is ruining our country. vacantmancan’t  apparently doesnt watch the news or consider anything else but,the lies the left puts out. I call that a closed minded ignorant, fool. maybe his new moniker should myvacantmindcant.

  • Guest

     Cherry
    picking one reference you don’t like because it doesn’t support your
    agenda is pointless and invalid. If you can’t do better then that, you
    better hang it up.

    As for “KOCH-SUCKER”: making a very low
    brow, ill masked attempt like that aimed at degradation, does nothing
    for your argument.

    LMAO – Elon Musk is a co-founder of Tesla
    Motors who has a vested interest in convincing people about how green
    those cars are. He isn’t exactly unbiased, and therefore his self
    serving testimony is suspect at best. Lithium batteries require mining of minerals of which there is a finite source, which does not belong to the US

    Sorry, I am not going to subject myself to the crap you are advertising. It is misinformation.

  • Guest

     You’re a professional ahole, nothing more, and you have provided the proof.

  • Anonymous

    This year the global temps are rising and in a few years, as history repeats itself they will cool. then rise then cool, like they have done since the beginning of time.  I know you are old enough to remember the global cooling in the seventies.  Where are all of your Soros buddies that you were following then? And why are they helping you here now?  Be specific.  Lets see your evidence.

  • Guest

    LMAO! Yeah – look out the window at your thermometer – man it’s hot out! …. Oh yeah, it’s summer.

  • Guest

    Sweetheart, the proof was already posted to you today. If you can’t remember it or couldn’t be bothered to check it out, that is your problem. I am not wasting my time repeating it to accommodate your major malfunction. I posted my proof, so now YOU can piss-off!.

  • Anonymous

    Bert30, I didn’t want you to think I’d left you out, so I’ve copied below most of what I wrote to 1947.
    Interesting you should bring up the issue of reading books.  I’m just beginning a book entitled “Keynes Hayek:  The Clash That Defined Modern Economics.” Looks like a good read for both of us.  
    Here’s a link, in case you’re interested:  http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393077489/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=17078116687&hvpos=1t2&hvexid=&hvnetw=s&hvrand=12335145351526707213&hvpone=19.36&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_3kzwfd67ig_b
    Maybe we could form a book club!
    Hmmm…are you the same person who used to be Bert28?  If so, what happened, did you grow a pair?  (Sorry, not my usual style, only did it for the pun value.)
    Enjoy!
    MvM

    Marxism is an economic & political theory, it arose in response to the socioeconomic dislocations and extreme inequality of wealth and power created by rapid industrialization in the 19th century. While the theory appealed to many people at the time, when put into practice in the 20th century as state socialism or communism, where the state owns and controls the means of production and distribution, it proved a total failure economically and a short path to wicked totalitarianism.
    While the USSR and eastern Europe withered under communism, the West (America and western Europe) remained democratic and capitalist and flourished. Rather than throwing out free market capitalism, we harnessed it. Our success in building productive economies has been based on two things we have come to understand about free market capitalism: 1) it’s the most powerful engine of productivity we know; and 2) it works most efficiently when we guide it in the direction we want to go; without oversight and guidance, it may behave like a runaway train and wreck itself. In order to keep free-market capitalism at its healthiest, we provide guidance – in the form of regulations.The debate between Marxism and capitalism was settled long ago. The debate between liberals and conservatives in America is about which specific rules and regulations make our markets the most healthy and productive and best promote our national wellbeing . It’s also about how much and where to redistribute resources (all taxation redistributes; that’s its purpose), since inequality is natural and healthy but excessive inequality of wealth and power inevitably leads to inefficient resource allocation in certain market sectors. Liberals and conservatives have different philosophies and views on all this, but they’re both pursuing the same national goal.As to which side is winning the debate, that should be obvious. Liberals tend to be guided more by empiricism and moderation than by rigid ideology, conservatives the opposite. Look at our experiences under Clinton and then under W Bush. Clinton raised taxes and, despite conservatives’ dire warning of catastrophe, the economy performed magnificently, and we balanced the budget, then ran a surplus. Bush and the Reps undid regulations, lowered taxes for wealthy people, left the markets to police themselves and the world economy almost crashed as a result. Frankly, I think it’s a character fault of conservatives that they’re unwilling to take responsibility for their mistakes. They’re True Believers.
    It’s also common in capitalist free market democracies to socialize specific market segments which don’t accord well with the laws of supply/demand while, at the same time, to maintain the most raw capitalism in sectors that thrive best when least fettered. Look at Germany and the Scandinavian countries, which have far higher taxes, many more social benefits – and also outstanding products, strong economies and high standards of living. Canada hasn’t collapsed because of socialized medicine, has it? And you say “history demonstrates…” What was that again? Care to amend your previous statement?
    All I’ve – all we’ve got – is reality, which should be enough. American Marxists vanished long ago, in the garbage bin of history, and you get egg on your face when you look there for your arguments. Liberals include your friends, neighbors, fellow patriots and your duly-elected President. It’s sad and astonishing that anyone should have to point this out in America today. Thank you, Glenn Beck.

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart, you made the claim that I have a debunked theory, didn’t you?  I asked you to post your proof and you offered nothing.  Where are your facts and figures?  You don’t have any, do you?  You’re just pissin’ in the wind, aren’t you? Now let’s try this again.  Post your evidence that AGW has been debunked. Be specific, or be gone, okay?

  • Guest

     http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/03/the-hockey-stick-broken-again.php
     
    http://sppiblog.org/tag/michael-mann
     
    “Climate expert Ross McKitrick this week in the Financial Post published
    perhaps the best summary of the spectacular death of the 4,000-year
    hockey stick paper. The final death blow of the paper, as McKitrick
    reports, is the author’s admission,
    “[The] 20th-century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not
    statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global
    temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our
    conclusions.
     

    Wow! According to the author of the paper himself, the very portion
    of the paper alarmists and the media have been proclaiming as the
    climatic equivalent of the Zombie Apocalypse “cannot be considered
    representative of global temperature changes.” So all we are left with
    is a temperature reconstruction that shows temperatures by 1900 A.D. had
    sunk to their coldest levels since the last ice age epoch ended 11,000
    years ago. Perhaps maybe a little twentieth century global warming may
    have been just what the planet needed after all.”

    http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick
     ’Between the 1995 second IPCC report and the 2001 third IPCC report there
    was a complete revision in the way that recent climate history was
    portrayed. The supporters of the theory that CO2 changes were driving
    temperatures up had succeeded in their goal of eliminating the Medieval
    Warm Period. This rewriting of climate history and the elimination of
    the Medieval Warm Period was achieved through the famous Hockey Stick
    graph.                ‘

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/09/18/climategate-star-michael-mann-courts-legal-disaster/
    “But there were some problems with that graph and the research behind
    it.  Some very big problems. One was that the Medieval Warm Period which
    occurred between about AD 800 and 1100 along with the Little Ice Age
    (not a true Ice Age) which occurred between about AD 1350-1850 somehow
    turned up missing. And as for those Yamal tree samples, they came from
    only 12 specimens of 252 in the data set… while a larger data set of 34
    trees from the same vicinity that weren’t used showed no dramatic recent
    warming, and warmer temperatures in the Middle Ages.
     

    Scientific critics raise another looming question. Mann’s
    1,000-year-long graph was cobbled together using various proxy data
    derived from ice cores, tree rings and written records of growing season
    dates up until 1961, where it then applied surface ground station
    temperature data. Why change in 1961? Well, maybe it’s because that’s
    when other tree ring proxy data calculations by Keith Briffa at the East
    Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) began going the other way
    in a steady temperature decline. After presenting these unwelcome
    results to Mann and others, he was put under pressure to recalculate
    them. He did, and the decline became even greater.”
     
    “As recorded in ClimateGate e-mails, this presented what Mann referred to as a “conundrum” in that the late 20th
    century decline indicated by Briffa would be perceived by IPCC as
    “diluting the message”, was a “problem”, and posed a “potential
    distraction/detraction”. Mann went on to say that the warming skeptics
    would have a “field day” if Briffa’s declining temperature
    reconstruction was shown, and that he would “hate to be the one” to give
    them “fodder”.
     

    In an e-mail sent to Mann and others, CRU’s director Philip Jones reported: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature
    [journal] trick…to hide the decline [in global temperatures].” “Mike’s”
    ( Mann’s) “trick” was to add in real temperatures  to each series for
    the last 20 years from 1979 onwards and from 1961 for Briffa’s, show all
    of the proxy and surface measurement chartings in different colors on a
    single graph, and then simply cut off Briffa’s in a spaghetti clutter
    of lines at the 1961 date.”

  • Guest

     Actually, Antagonized,  you, brent, vacman should all leave. You serve no purpose here. When you all came in the collective IQ dropped. Your c/p of Nietszche is not impressive.

  • Guest

     An OPINION paper of only 2 1/2 pages published by 4 people with questionable objectivity in 2009-2010 is not proof.  That was a giant FAIL vacman.

  • Guest

     You were provided the proof. Short term memory problems it seems.

  • Guest

    Obscenity and name calling instead of a cogent response. No surprise there. By all means, do us all a favor and don’t adapt. It will relieve the planet of one more asshole. The species that adapt live on, those that don’t? Bye bye! The planet is becoming overcrowded as it is. The earth and nature will cull the herds. Those who charge at the windmills will fall by the wayside. Be careful you don’t fall off that donkey now. LMAO!

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart you really have a hard time with facts, don’t you?  You don’t seem to understand what a summary is, do you?  Do you realize how many peer-reviewed studies were published? I though this was too complicated for you, but I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. Why don’t you go down to the National Academy of Sciences in Washington and tell them there study “FAILS” and that you know more then they do.   Go ahead, I dare you, they need a good laugh.  Stop embarrassing yourself, for your childrens sake.  BATTA-BING!!

  • Anonymous

     ”But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

    Thank you MvsM for demonstrating how correct President Adams was.

    Whether you call yourself a Liberal, a Socialist, a Progressive, or a Marxist is irrelevant, such labels are simply variations on a theme.  You’ll focus on what you’re ideology is called, to deflect from the fact that you wish to take from those you feel have “too much” and give to those you feel don’t have enough.  Worse, you’ll do this while never understanding that the constitution was intended to prevent you (singly or as a collective) from making those decisions over your fellow man.

    Such, historically, is the failure of every democracy.  As with Rome, we will meet our end through “bread and circuses” offered from our dishonest leaders and their true believers, to those who will not learn the lessons of history.

    Your failure to understand the difference between regulation (a proper function of capitalist government) and redistribution (the good old boy, crony capitalism you and your ilk use as a tool for reshaping the world in your image) implies one of two things.  You’re either ignorant (such is not indicated from your literate response), or you’re dishonest.  The latter is much more likely, given your cherry-picking and crooked presentation of the “facts” used to support your view of the world.

    I’ll waste no more time on your dishonest conversation, but wish to thank you for illustrating the point of my original post exquisitely, and demonstrating what a large percentage of this country has come to the precise condition Adams described in the quote above.

    ARE YOU LISTENING YET, BECK?  This is where your employees resources and man hours would come in handy.  There’s no reason to have millions of similar circular “conversations” with the ideological descendants of power-hungry collectivists and dictators, when simple, clear, researched and cited books like “Control” can so effectively present the facts to still reasonable people.

  • Guest

     ”Sweetheart you really have a hard time with facts, don’t you?”  Yes you do vacman, and a hard time producing them. You don’t seem to understand what facts are and in discerning the difference between them and opinions. You FAILED AGAIN vacman. BATTA-BING!! You have been BITCH-SLAPPED again! Give up, troll, you can’t win.

  • Anonymous

    That wasn’t a copy paste, that was a play on his quote, ‘beware, when fighting with monsters, see that you do not also become a monster.” I’m not trying to impress.

    Earth’s environment is a very important issue to me. The fact that we’re killing it off with absolutely no care is like pissing on its grave. You realize Micronesia and the Seychelles have bought land in Australia, for relocating their entire populations once those nations are underwater? Beautiful paradises that will be destroyed completely because of our stubbornness. Glaciers all over the world disappearing, species being wiped out at unprecedented rates, and the ONLY PEOPLE who say its false are propagandists, American Joseph Goebbels-esque propagandists like your sugar daddy glenn beck or rush Limbaugh, corporate pawns. THE ONLY PEOPLE IN THE FUCKING WORLD WHO BELIEVE THIS SHIT ARE BRAIN DEAD hyper conservative, pawns like you, who refuse to listen to anything other than your dim Fox News propaganda outlet that blatantly spam every single logical fallacy in the books, every mode of fallacious reasoning to convince you that the liberals are behind all the ills in the world. THESE ARE YOUR SOURCES. I have felt the Antarctic ozone hole for myself in far South America; you would get an hours worth of sunburn from 5 minutes of sunbathing. The signs are everywhere. Fans of glenn beck and such pundits are quite simply the lowest common denominator, people like you who are to stubborn to learn anything besides your Faux news drivel. You think anything that differs with your narrow scope of propaganda is ‘lies’.

    EARTH IS DYING because dicks like you refuse to believe in our wholesale destruction of the planet. You refuse to see the facts. You want to sit in front of the computer and spew your anti intellectual vomit with other anti intellectuals and consume your fat ass away while continuing to echo your favorite corporate propaganda.

    I don’t mind stupidity, but when it is actively killing the world, I get pissed.

  • Guest

     Your invectives do nothing for your argument. Are you so ill informed that you think the ozone holes are due to CO2? LMAO!

    Earth’s environment is important to me too, which is why I live as I do (antipolluting and energy saving).  Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is NOTHING that humans can do to stop the inevitable natural warming-cooling changes that the earth goes through. The MMGW alarmists have a choke hold on you . “dicks like you” don’t realize that you are going to have to learn to adapt if you want to survive, because this ship isn’t going to turn around, no matter what you do.  You will go the way of the Neanderthal.

  • Mike Nelson

    Proof = seasonal change; the sun heats the earth, and lack of sunlight results in colder temps.

    Humans make no more significant temp changes through our actions than your underarm bacteria do to affect overall body temp.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=581834054 Ginny Auldridge

    termite farts are the real problem      ;-)

  • Anonymous

    why don’t you reply to the guest after kerry? that is what you asked for. you dont respond because you are WRONG. and a dumb ass thats what about 12 years old. grow up and get YOUR facts straight.

  • Anonymous

     That’s because the typical American has no understanding of humour or comedy whatsoever.

    Trust me, those two will never, ever be funny men.
    Couple of clowns perhaps ?

  • David Scott

    We do not need cap and trade to be responsible in how we treat the planet.  We do not need to become a socialist, communist nation to make a change in how we conserve resources.  In fact, the worst way to react to the planet is to tax and spend.  Hope and change didn’t work for Fidel Castro (his motto along with Karl Marx) and it does not work for the United States.  There are actual good ideas for creating renewable energy from American Scientists that make sense and don’t put money or power into someone else’s pocket.  Need I mention them?  The father of hydrogen is Roger Billings and he invented the hydrogen fuel cell.  How about solar roadways on our interstate highways?  Check it out, google it, it has won all kinds of awards for its ideas which would give us 3 times the amount of electricity that we produce today in renewable energy.  The Obama response — “use it to power parking lots.”  What an idiot we have for a president but that is another topic.

  • Anonymous

    All you have proved is that your a lowlife ignorant Leftist that sucks up anything your Looney Tune Party throws at you, no independent thought at all, more like a Zombie, or broken record, vomiting the same BS constantly!  Leftist do not know how to think for themselves, they let pathetic cowards like Obama think for them.

  • Anonymous

    You know why he calls himself vacuum man, because he sucks!  I bet he is one of Bambi’s Butt Buddies who loves to have his pudding stuffed by Bambi or other men, and he definetly sucks Obama every chance he gets.  Same old vomit being spewed about the Koch brothers, that is a sure sign of a retard who has no other argument or doesn’t have the intelligence to come up with a better arguement.

  • Anonymous

    Global Warming is nothing more than Leftist Fantasy to try and suck more money out of the taxpayer!  God is in charge of the Climate and He decides what it will be, not Man!  And the retard that spews vomit about supporting the Koch brothers, that is so immature and shows a very low level of intelligence when they can come up with nothing more intelligent to spew, like Vacuum man, who names himself so because he Sucks!

  • Anonymous

    God is in charge of the climate?  Which god?  How can you believe in something that doesn’t exist, like god.  And you can’t accept what is real like AGW.  Can you “Pray away” global warming for us.  Thank you.

  • Anonymous

    You stupidity is a bigger problem.

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart when you’re dealing with an asshole, you treat them like an asshole.  And you’re the biggest asshole to come down the pike in a long time.  Why are you a climate denier?  What turns a person into a “KOCH-SUCKER?”  Why do you put the Koch brothers and the 1% before your family.  Why do you hate your kids?  Why aren’t you concerned about their future?  How can you read the PNAS 2010 study and it has no effect on you?  Are you mentally challenged?  Did you take the special bus to school?  Why do you have such a hard time with science?

  • Anonymous

    The 1% depends on boneheads like you, to make stupid statements like you did.  They must be proud of you.  You’re a shining example of how they dumb down people.  Thanks for the entertainment!

  • Anonymous

    Ken tell me what these climate scientists got wrong in the study.  Take your time.  Read it carefully.   http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf+html

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart please tell us what the National Academy of Sciences got wrong in this study.  Thanks  http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf+html

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4HAW7OERGSC7VZM72V7IGDJ3B4 Sharmane

     Thought you were told previously to learn to write properly before posting.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4HAW7OERGSC7VZM72V7IGDJ3B4 Sharmane

    One of the prophets of global warming aka “climate change,” the overfed and bloated Al Gore,  jets around preaching his global warming gospel sucking up huge amounts of jet fuel.  He lives in a very large house that uses more power than my small town in a week.  It’s ok for him and his ilk to have a very large imaginary “carbon footprint” but the rest of we peasants need to scale back.  What a scam, you can be assured that the solution to the problem involves vast sums of money to line the pockets of the scam perpetrators.  They obviously do not believe their message since they do not walk the talk.

  • Anonymous

     ”There’s nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it.”
    - William James (1842-1910) The father of modern Psychology

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4HAW7OERGSC7VZM72V7IGDJ3B4 Sharmane

     Your postings always devolve into name calling and using poor language.  No one could take you seriously.  Just an observation.

  • Anonymous

    Come on, Beck!  Swim across the Arctic Ocean just to show us that global warming isn’t real! 

    Wait!  It used to be a solid icepack from Siberia to Northern Canada!  What happened? 

    Keep burning stuff, America!  Can’t wait for Beck to be standing outside in the Texas sun with an asbestos suit on and telling us, “The weather’s just fine!” 

  • Anonymous

    indeed you could pray for global warming, if it existed.  You should pray for Al Gore, sweetheart.  Since he is polluting the air with jet fuel to tell morons like you that global warming is 100% man made and needs your money to fund his agenda.
    The earth’s temperature rises about 1.3 degrees every 100 years, and according to the scientists you bow down to the sun is decreasing in size every year.  You cant prove global warming exists no more than you can prove God doesn’t exist.  Here is an idea, why dont you save electricity and get rid of that horrible show that both of your fans watch.  Start there by reducing your carbon footprint.

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart you claim that climate change is a scam, howerver, you posted no evidence to validate your claim.  Calling al gore fat does not prove your claim either.  What evidence can you post to prove your point that AGW is not happening?  Be specific.  Facts only.  Thank you.

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart, which god do you pray too?  How did you pick your god?  Dartboard?  Phone book?  Are you a creationist?  Thanks for watching my show.  Tonight is #24 Glenn Beck.  I’m gonna bitch-slap the boneheads on this site.  Want me to mention how stupid you are?  Do you have a current picture I can use?

  • Anonymous

    I thought you were told to start making sense and using facts?  I know the word fact, is gonna confuse you. Look it up.

  • Anonymous

    Is it coincidental that your real name is Dick?  How did your parents know to name you dick knowing you would be one your whole life, they must have been able to read the future.  Anyway, here is the address where the biggest Dick in America lives if anyone is interested, and phone, call collect.  I have a picture of the stupidest person I know wearing an Occupy Danbury shirt, but I misplaced it.  Will you provide it for both of your fans tonight please?
    Home (203) 797-0915144 Stadley Rough RdDanbury, CT 06811

  • Anonymous

    If CO2 gas is so bad,  I suggest we tax all politicians that support this nonsense when they exhale that poison into the air.

    We could start with a 50 cent/exhale tax on the politicians, and if they exhale too much we can up the cost, or maybe ban them completely from exhaling.

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart come on down, I’d love to meet you.  If you’d like you can come on the show, and make a total fool out of yourself.  I’m an equal opportunity BITCH-SLAPPER.  What do you say? 

  • Dave Henderson

    Listen Vacman. You are an ignorant individual if not otherwise an idiot. I am a scientist. I am educated and a practitioner of the the scientific process. One cannot PROVE global warming doesn’t exist, one can only illustrate through empirical means that data support or disprove models defining anthropogenic  global warming theory. In science, theories stand only until greater minds come along and demonstrate via the same process used to develop a theory that the previous theory was incorrect. If the data used to develop the theory are flawed, the theory cannot stand because a THEORY MUST BE MEASURABLY PREDICTIVE. So it is with anthropogenic global warming. I am from Penn State. Penn State is important because it is where the data were initially developed to support models that anthropogenic climate change exists. It has been known now for YEARS that these DATA WERE MANIPULATED to fit a desired model. The model WAS NOT developed from the data. It has since been shown via a variety of studies that the PREDICTIVE ABILITY of the anthropogenic climate change theory and models, the engine behind the carbon tax movement, DO NOT HOLD. They are FLAWED you idiot.  Anthropogenic climate change is junk science supported by limbic progressive thinking such as that displayed in this thread. It makes NO SENSE, NO SENSE whatsoever to penalize individual choices in life, stifle economic growth, or transfer wealth in the name of climate change. Get a degree. Study science. Have you DRD4 genetic sequence scrubbed from your DNA, then come back and hold a discussion with the thinking people in this thread.

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

    Oh look more left wing bigotry.

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

    It is not my fault you live in a box.

  • Anonymous

    Dave you claim to be a scientist.  I’ll take you at your word.  As a scientist the first thing you should realize is that you cannot make a statement without providing proof, right?  Okay babe, where is your proof that the data was manipulated?  You’re making an assumption, you should be ashamed of yourself.  I hope you don’t teach.  Are you a creationist?  Should I add a BATT-BING!! you bonehead.  You need to watch my show.  I’m smarter then you and I don’t have a degree.  Time to do my show.  Watch old shows get the call-in number and call between 7-8 I’ll rip you a new asshole on the air no charge.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwYxSaQPg3Q

  • Dave Henderson

    Dear, dear Vacusuckman.
    BS Nuclear Engineering, ’81; BS Biochemistry ’84; MS Industrial Marketing ’89; MBA ’98. IQ = 142.
    Yup Vacusux guy … you are quite the idiot in my world.
    Enjoy your little show. :-)

  • Dave Henderson

    Dear Vaucusuck. Hope your little show went well. I am
    sure there was plenty to discuss in defense of AGW. While they say it is not
    possible to convert a Secular Progressive from their belief system to another
    religion, I felt bad for you given that you never had the opportunity for a
    formal education.

    1) Regarding the claim that the data used to develop
    the initial climate models were cooked … went through my files and found this
    little quote from one of the emails dumped by the climate email hacker leak
    several years back. You already should be aware of these emails. In the event
    you were not, following is a verbatim (means direct) excerpt from an email to
    Michael Mann of Penn State referencing a technique used on his “Hockey Stick”
    data (data upon which initial global warming models base) …

    Phil Jones to Michael Mann email: ”I’ve just completed
    Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20
    years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the
    decline.”

    This little “Nature trick”, along with statistical
    manipulation of the data (if curious, I can explain how such manipulation is
    accomplished) exaggerated the warming trend. There exist multiple references to
    Mann’s practices that, in the end, cost him dearly in the scientific
    community.

    Yes, my friend Vacumsux, the initial data were fit to a
    model. They were “hoaxed”.

    2) To the point of the models not working, let us
    consider something more recent. A gentleman by the name of Roy Spencer recently
    compared satellite tropospheric temperature data to the now 44 different global
    warming models. Guess what? ALL of the models exaggerated warming. Why? Simple.
    All of the models to one extent or another make assumptions beneficial to the
    objective of proving the existence of AGW. Go Google “Global Warming Slowdown:
    The View from Space” if you wish to see Roy’s discussion.

    AGW exists, yes. However, to the belief it represents a
    threat to the planet and mankind in general, to date no one has developed a
    predictive model illustrating AGW is anything but a pimple on the ass of a
    working girl. ;-)

    As for the “creation” issue, I believe in intelligent
    design. I have seen too much in life and science to believe modern man is
    random. DNA, sure. Biomolecules in general, absolutely. Put it all together in a
    sequence and build a process around that to allow humans to be human and …
    whether God or some alien, something somewhere had a hand in
    things.

    And one final point … a scholar by the name of Rabbi
    Daniel Lapin offered an interesting view of Secular Progressivism that Secular
    Progressives love to hate. He first asked the question, “what defines a
    religion.” After much study he concluded that any belief system that instructs
    believers where they came from, how to act while alive, and where they wil go
    following death defines a religion. As such, Secular Progressivism comprises a
    religion. Rabbi Lapin then went further and looked across history to learn if in
    the history of the world there has existed a religion similar to Secular
    Progressivism. It turns out that Baal Worship is a perfect fit. That is, Secular
    Progressives e.g. those who aggressively cling to a belief in AGW, are modern
    day Baal worshippers. So, before you begin to impugn people of faith, you may
    wish to take a more introspective look at life.

    I am sure you are a nice guy, Vac, You are simply
    misguided. Educate yourself from ALL sources or information, not just partisan
    sources and you may change your thinking.

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart I’m starting to question the idea that you are a scientist.  Do you understand that you presented no facts or data?  Phil jones talking to Michael Mann is proof of nothing.  What terms they used is irrelevant.  The only thing we care about is the data.  What data did he alter?  Show us the specific numbers.  You claim to be a scientist, show us the statistical evidence that confirms your study.  Come on babe, you of all people should know better.  As a matter of fact, you should be ashamed of yourself.  Stop embarrassing your family by proving you’re not concerned with facts, just opinion.  You should ask your college for your money back, where did you say you got your degree from, Liberty university? 

  • Anonymous

    I would just like to mention that this tolerant-minded leftist just used the phrase “koch-sucker” as an insult (which we all know the intent, despite the fact koch is pronounced differently). I wonder what his pro-gay rights friends would think of that

  • Anonymous

    I would just like to mention that this tolerant-minded leftist just used the phrase “koch-sucker” as an insult (which we all know the intent, despite the fact koch is pronounced differently). I wonder what his pro-gay rights friends would think of that

  • Anonymous

    It just like the right wing nut to believe the world is flat but  Global Warming is not true…This come from fox New supporter…..what a group of idiot.

  • Anonymous

     Idiot

  • Anonymous

     Why is it that conservative are so full of hate for others even though they claim to be Christians

  • Anonymous

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

    By the year 2021 the UN via the Bio Diversity Treaty, seeks to control all resources in order to “preserve” everything and make it “sustainable”. Notice the years of the UN-Decade on Bio Diversity? (2011-2020). By 2021…..

  • Anonymous

     So, the “father” of the hockey stick model in a conversation admitting they cooked the data (albeit in general terms rather than stating which time or data set) isn’t sufficient proof? What world are you from?

  • Anonymous

     Think of c/p as comedic paraphrase, rather than copy and paste.

  • Anonymous

     BTW, what ever happened to all the hoopla about holes in the ozone layer? That’s all we heard about in the 90′s” “don’t use aerosol cans, they’ll put a hole in the ozone layer!”. Heck, that was half the story of Highland 2.

  • Anonymous

    Science isn’t something you vote on to see whether or not something is true.

  • Anonymous

    http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf

    We can play that game too. BTW, 1372 scientists were the pool that participated in the IPCC’s “survey” (according to your link). 97% of that pool (again according to your link) “sufficiently supported the tenets of” ACC (AKA AGW). How many scientists does the IPCC have? How many total?
    Of course the IPCC is going to defend its results.

    http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast20oct_1/

    Enjoy.

  • Anonymous

     Wait a second….. according to scientists, when the meteor hit the Earth and turned it into an iceball, that is what is supposed to have killed the dinosaurs, etc. So if you claim it couldn’t support life then, what were the dinosaurs, cardboard cutouts?

  • Anonymous

     You can drop a ball 10K times and still not prove gravity? Wow, they’ve got you brainwashed. Any physicist worth their salt can calculate the effects of gravity on that ball, with MATHEMATICAL PRECISION (even taking into account air resistance and surface area).
    Back in the day we learned the difference between a theory and law in science: laws could be proven (usually with math), and theories could not (nor be “disproven”, thus leaving them “up in the air”).

  • Anonymous

     Clinton for one didn’t write the budgets that “balanced” the budget. Secondly, those were the budgets for the year, resulting in (projected) surpluses for the last 3 years of his presidency (all under Republican legislatures) of around $100-200 billion

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_Budget_Act_of_1997

    But that number was for the yearly budget, NOT the national debt (which was about $5-6 trillion by the time Bush Jr. took office).

    http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

  • Anonymous

     Didn’t he address many of these issues in his book “Arguing with Idiots”?

  • Anonymous

     One problem with the peer review process, that has crept up in these climate scientists’ reviews, is that they end up in a circle jerk citing each other as proof that each other’s articles are supported. Remember the emails from climategate. It’s a good old boy system with these so called scientists.

  • Anonymous

    Remember, when you ask a liberal to take personal responsibility for their own well-being by adapting to a situation or changing their own behavior, they flip out, but when they want you to change your behavior for their believes, they’ll use all kinds of bullying techniques.

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart there are no problems with the peer-reviewed process.  Scientists love to challenge each other.  That’s the only way the can become famous, by proving another scientist wrong.  See how this works?What emails from climategate?  You have emails that prove AGW isn’t happening?  Post your proof or piss off, okay?  In the meantime watch my show on Glenn Beck.  BATTA-BING!!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh62Jo6pd-I

  • craigc

    Yet you offer no proof that it’s happening..What a classic tactic you use, you moron……I’m surprised you don’t call “deniers” racist 

  • Anonymous

    I guess you must be down at the National Academy of Sciences, telling them you know more then they do?  Have they stopped laughing yet?

  • Anonymous

    You miss the point entirely. 

    At the beginning of his presidency, Clinton raised taxes, mostly on the wealthy. Republicans/conservatives were unanimous – and very loud, and 100% certain, as they always are – in predicting that this would ruin the economy.  They were following their “low taxes on the producers” dogma, of course, the same one they’re still following.  Were they right or were they wrong?  A one-word answer will do, and I’m interested in your reply.

    Then, when W Bush took over, rather than pay down the still-significant national debt, which is what most Democrats wanted, he cut taxes, mostly for the very wealthy.  And the results?  Look at the charts you sent me, in case you forgot.

    There you have it.  Two theories of taxation and economic growth tested in the real world.   Look at the results.  Then let me know which seemed to work better.  

    It’s no Myth. It’s a lesson that Republicans refuse to learn.  That was my point about their character flaw. The Right’s economic ideas have proven to be wrong, even disastrous, but they cannot admit it because, to do so, they would have to re-think their absolutist worldview.  Same with climate change.  

    It’s no coincidence that this same group of people tend to be more religiously-oriented.  They clearly prefer faith to facts.

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart, what would you accept as proof?  Would you accept what the National Academy of Sciences confirms?  Or, Are you creationist who can’t deal with facts and figures?  http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf+html

  • Anonymous

    What world are you living in?  The father of the hockey stick admitted he cooked the data?  Holy shit!  Shouldn’t we alert the media?  This is earth-shaking!!Post the specific article that you are referring too?  Be specific, post the evidence or piss-off.  Let’s see what you got babe?  I love making fun of you “simple-folk”  Post-it!!!!!

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart tell us what the National Academy of Sciences got http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf+htmlwrong? 
     

  • Anonymous

    Sweety, go to the National Academy of Sciences and tell them you know more then they do.  BATTA-BING!!
    http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf+html

  • craigc

    No, I’m a realist that knows BS when I see it….
    You’re boring me, gotta go leave my carbon foot print for the day………..Good luck on your video

  • Robert

    We don’t hate you. We only find you repulsively stupid. You
    seem to accept intelligence as anger. That indeed is your mental problem, no ours.

  • Anonymous

    Killing the planet? 
    Rising CO2 is turning the world’s deserts GREEN  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/11/co2_greens_the_deserts climbing levels of CO2 in
    the air correlated with an 11
    per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982 to 2010 across arid areas
    in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa.

  • Robert

    Global warming has been going on since the Ice Age. But wait, we also had Global Warming before the Ice Age. If you truly want to understand climate change thus not appear so stupid spewing leftist propaganda try beginning your studies with Solar Weather. Then you’ll need to move on to the study of conservation. Non Government Scientists were warning back in the 1920′s of pending warming due to the destruction of forests that once stood in our Mid West and around the world. The deforestation did not end there and CO2 absorption has dropped due to less plant life which equates to more CO2 concentration in our atmosphere, just as they warned of.
    Now we have another issue to deal with. For 12 years and counting our global temperature has been declining as recorded by NOAA. Oddly our Gov’t paid scientists are avoiding this data like the plague. The bottom line is simply certain elites stand to make big money from a carbon tax. This tax does nothing to reduce Global Warming Gases. It only drives up costs that get passed on to you meanwhile the elites get richer.
    Don’t take my word for it. Do your on scientific studies on the subject. Also, plant trees. 

  • Anonymous

     Here’s a quote from the EPA site on climate change:  ” Average temperatures have risen more quickly since the late 1970s (0.31
    to 0.45°F per decade). Seven of the top 10 warmest years on record for
    the contiguous 48 states have occurred since 1990.”

    Of course, temperature rise is not the only indicator of climate change, the now navigable Arctic Ocean being one, the recent breakaway of a piece of the Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica the size of New Jersey another, increasingly unpredictable weather changes, changes in age-old patterns of fish and bird migratory paths, and much much more. 

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/index.html

  • Anonymous

    Greg, you probably know it’s impossible to have a productive exchange when one side assumes its views are unassailable and morally superior. It seems you want to fight rather than debate. I see this a lot among the Beck faithful. It means never having to admit defeat or even doubt. It’s faith-based.

    I enjoy debate, however. So, if you can respond to my historical analysis about the development of Marxism vs. capitalism, or if you can argue against my examples of successful liberal democracies that favor certain specific socialist policies, please do so. I provide them as evidence that you need to re-examine your opinion. If you have evidence on your side, please provide it.

    Here’s another challenge for you: the redistribution of wealth in America in the last few decades has been from the lower and middle class to the top. Wealthy people are much wealthier, while the majority of folks have seen their share of wealth stagnate or decrease. That’s a primary reason why the economy is still slow. Care to tackle that one?

    If not, please don’t include me in your appeals to Beck or John Adams. Neither of them will help you if you choose to engage in genuine debate. You’ll have to make arguments by yourself and abide by rules of logic and evidence.

  • Dave Henderson

    Oh Vac, what am I to do with you girl? If I apply the
    same logic that you so eagerly apply to opposing comments here, you too cannot
    comment one way or the other about global warming. You have not run the
    experiments, taken the measurements, derived the statistical limits, nor
    developed the models. My girl, science is built upon the shoulders of knowledge.
    It is the process. To the believer, facts, logic, science doesn’t matter. You
    worship at the temple of secular progressivism. Go worship Baal, girl. Have at
    it.

    And … BTW. Have the last word. It is OK with me. I am
    confident in who I am, what I know, and which view of the world is reality. ;-)

  • Anonymous

    As myself and a few other posters on this comment board have already given you links in our replies to you, I will no longer indulge your childish surliness. You obviously have some severe psychological issues. Goodbye.

  • Anonymous

    I find it ironic that while the Democrats were in the minority and a budget surplus was projected for said fiscal year, they were more than happy to promote “paying down the debt”, but when they were in power from 07-10 in the legislature (both under a Republican and Democrat President), they not only did not attempt to do so or even balance the budget as the Republican legislature did under Clinton, but they shouted down and attacked the character of anyone that proposed to do so while they were in power. Put your money where your mouth is rather than “do as I say, not as I do” (that goes for Republicans too).
    As for the “prosperity” under Clinton, when did we begin to have an actual boom in the economy? (Hint: it was in the last few years a) under a Republican led legislature, and b) because of the dot com boom with internet companies, you know, the bubble that burst in 2000-2001, which caused a small recession that the Democrats tried to blame W for.) I agree that the few hundred mil or bil (whatever it was) that did exist in 98-99 (or so) SHOULD have been used to pay down part of the debt, but it didn’t happen (we would have to pour over the Congressional record to see what the legislature did or did not do, as well as Clinton’s speeches to see what he did or did not do, about it). As for a budget surplus being “handed” to W, that was a PROJECTED surplus (i.e. that is what they THOUGHT they would receive that fiscal year), but 9/11 put paid to that projection (that and the dot com burst effectively eliminated the revenues they projected they would get). It wasn’t Clinton’s tax and spend that “worked”, but let’s look at the same policy on a larger scale, i.e. FDR. Oh, we’re are all told how wonderful he was and how he “ended” the Great Depression and saved the US (*cough* BS). Let’s look at the actual data. FDR ran against Hoover’s tax and spend policies, see Hoover’s “New Deal”

    http://mises.org/rothbard/agd/chapter11.asp

    but as we all know, FDR continued the same policies.

    Here’s a good article for you to read.

    http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/comparing-the-great-depression-to-the-great-recession#axzz2aaVrI99u

    and if you’re feeling objective, try this one.

    http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/debunking-myths-of-the-great-depression

    and also something from the ironically name Hoover Institute

    http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=fb5dfd9f-7e68-4295-9561-85bdae0f59d3

    Enjoy. I know that you believe in redistribution of wealth via government (it is apparent from your comments) and that you believe it actually improves the economy, but as you decry the greedy corporations’ love of money, you forget that all human beings are subject to, and fall into the trap of, love of money, and many act on it, accompanied by envy and covetousness (desire what your neighbor has).
    Personally, I disagree with both SSE (Reaganomics) and DSE (Keynesian Economics, i.e. tax and spend/stimulus). Try Adam Smith’s “On the Wealth of Nations” to get insight into how keeping your greedy, grubby government’s fingers out of the pie actually works, because of human nature.

  • Anonymous

    The reason I called it a “circle jerk” was because they AREN’T challenging each other. Instead it is a bunch of back-slapping and high-fiving, citing EACH OTHER’S articles as sources to “prove” and support their conclusions.
    As for the climategate emails, many of us here have already sent you the links, you just don’t seem to click on any of them. You a childish and surly, and a black hole that sucks any intellectual value from this comment page. Goodbye.

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart where are you getting the idea that “for 12 years and counting our global temperatures has been declining”  Please post your evidence that proves your point.  Be specific.  Thanks

  • Anonymous

    Stop scaring people!  Using facts and figures scares people, especially on this site.  I think you’ll enjoy my show.  My videos are based on facts and figures.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh62Jo6pd-I

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart you have dis-credited your degrees, and now I understand why you can’t accept facts or figures.  Because you’re a creationist! 
    You have to conform to a book that was written by bronze age peasants, who didn’t know where the sun went at night.  No wonder you’re so mixed up!  Your religion doesn’t allow you to think, you have to accept what they say.  If the bible told you 2+2=5 you would have to agree, because it’s in the book!  Isn’t that sad?You’ve just lost all credibility of intelligence, in my book, and I’m sure in anyone else’s book who is reading this.  That’s right, by claiming you believe in, “Intelligent design”  Proves you have no intelligence.  And your gene design has run amuck.
    Did you get your degree at liberty university? 
    When your professors told you the world was over 10,000 years old, what did you do?  Did you jump up and say “it says right here, in the bible, the world is only 10,000 year old”  Did you do that?  Of course not!  Why? Because you would have been scorned and ridiculed by your peers, in what is called a peer-reviewed process.  See how this works
    So you believe in the creation museum and the idea that humans played with dinosaurs?  WTF You claim you have a degree?  How is that possible?  Hey, if I hurt your feelings too bad.  You need a reality check.  You need to watch my show.  BATTA-BING!!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh62Jo6pd-I

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart do you have conclusive proof that AGW is not happening?  If so, post-it!  Otherwise piss-off. You’re shooting your mouth off.  Let’s see what you got.  Be specific, post your proof!!!!

  • Guest

    OK then since I am dealing with an asshole, I will call you an asshole, but that is not an argument, that is a fact.

    Your assumptions that I put anyone before my family, that I hate my kids, that I’m not concerned about their future are baseless, wrong, and ignorant. Your veiled profanity framed as a question is disgusting and ruins any argument that you might try to make. Oh yeah, you aren’t trying to make an argument – you can’t.

    That PNAS paper, contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, was done in 2009. It proves nothing. It is not the climate study and doesn’t offer anything to validate it.

    I note the typical liberal tactic you use when you can’t argue a point cogently – you make ludicrous assumptions, and then insinuate that I am mentally challenged, and have trouble with science, none of which is true. You would have a hard time convincing my college professors and colleagues that I am mentally challenged, LMAO! I have advance degrees which I don’t brag about, my studies being in the scientific field, so go blow it out your backside, loser.

    Obviously you have hard time with science and lack the critical thinking skills to get deeper into the climate change matter. Instead you swallow the contrived ‘study’ the libs want you to believe, flaws and all.

  • Guest

    Vacman, that is such a stupid comment it isn’t worth the cyberspace it took up – which is next to nothing. Your ad-hiominem attacks – personal attacks on me don’t win you any arguments and certainly will never persuade ANYONE to give a second thought to your scree. You lost the argument. Admit it -YOU ARE A FAILURE.

  • Guest

    I wouldn’t bother wasting my time with them, but I am laughing at you along with every one else here.

  • Guest

    I’m still waiting for something valid, a cogent argument, even logic.

    Don’t try to pass that off as something that validates the Climate Change ‘study’ because it doesn’t. Keep showing us what an asshole you are. BATTA-BING! You must be dizzy with all the BITCH-SLAPPING you get. LMAO!

  • Robert

    Why are you relying on the EPA? This is a government agency. You cannot trust data from government agencies like the EPA. You can follow NOAA for data without the spin.

  • Robert

    I follow NASA and NOAA for most data. Their are other more specific scientific sites that deal with solar weather but if you are a non-science type you would be clueless. On NOAA, look at the Temp Chart for 1900. The hottest periods were in the 1920′s and 1950′s. We are moving into a cooling period. Don’t believe it. Just park what I said into the back of your mind and remember it ten years from now. I learned long ago that you can’t teach a closed mind and you can’t believe what your government tells you. Plant a tree.

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart  the PNAS Study conclusively proves that 97.3% of the climate scientists writing “peer-reviewed” published articles agree that AGW is happening.  Why don’t you do yourself a favor.  Stop embarrassing yourself and read  the study!!!!!!!!!
       You have to stop pretending 2+2=5 It doesn’t.
    You have to start understand that every National Science academy in every country agrees that global warming is happening.  Most importantly you have to stop hating your children.  Why are you trying to ruin their future?  What’s wrong with you?  How do the 1% and the fossil fuel industry get you to put your party before your children?  How do they get you “simple-folk” to do that?  Can you explain that to me, please? 

  • Anonymous

    vacmancan.  Here is proof global warming is a scam,.
    http://www.climatedepot.com/2011/09/14/Exclusive-Nobel-PrizeWinning-Physicist-Who-Endorsed-Obama-Dissents-Resigns-from-American-Physical-Society-Over-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming/
    I heard Dr. S. Fred Singer, prominent climatologist, say one belch of a volcano can undo 10000 years of auto emission or industrializing.

  • Anonymous

     If you don’t like the government, move to Chad and live in a hole.  The data from the EPA is just fine, only much better than “academics” who whore themselves out to strumpets like the Koch brothers, people who want the data on their side and pay for that.  Climate change involves much more than merely the temperature, as the EPA site clearly indicates.  Ice core samples in Greenland, for example, reveal that there as been a massive rise in greenhouse gasses in the last 100 years, and not all greenhouse gasses happen to be CO2.  Furthermore, the tundra in northern Canada and Siberia is melting, and the Arctic Ocean sea beds are also melting, and now we’re getting a dangerous rise in methane gas that has been frozen for millions of years. 

    Glenn Beck is only calling climate change “a scam” because he’s a shill for the oil industry.  Everyone knows that. 

    As for NOAA, if you had a brain cell in your head, you’d already know that NOAA is a government agency, dummy. 

    http://www.climate.gov/

  • Guest

    Not anymore they don’t, “Sweetheart”. I read what he had to say.

    Speaking of stop pretending, stop pretending you really know all about Global warming or climate variability of any type, because you have made it clear that you don’t. Yes, warming happens, cooling happens the earth has a history of it. It happened before humans, during humans, and will happen after humans, and there isn’t a damned thing you or anyone else can do about it. Adapt or be one of the millions the earth will shed herself off. Better yet, do the gene pool a favor and don’t adapt. BATTA-BING!!

    “Most importantly you have to stop hating your children. Why are you trying to ruin their future? What’s wrong with you? How do the 1% and the fossil fuel industry get you to put your party before your children? How do they get you “simple-folk” to do that?”. Take these baseless assumtions a insults elsewhere – it is dishonest and all garbage. You are just talking out of your ass.

  • Anonymous

    Sweetheart the problem is, this article is a joke.  Only the “simple folk” would cite this as evidence against AGW. Why do you insist on insulting yourself, and your family, by posting crap like this?  It’s obvious you didn’t read the article, because if you did you wouldn’t have posted it.  You really are a good “KOCH-SUCKER” who supports the Koch brothers, the 1% ,and the fossil fuel industry.  It’s amazing how you put them before your family?  Why do you hate your family? Why do you put your party before your family?  Why don’t you care enough about you childrens future to get up to speed with what the rest of the world already knows.  You need a reality check you need to watch my show.  I knock the snot out of the beck bozos.    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh62Jo6pd-I

  • Robert

    So you trust the assimilated information given out by the EPA? Horse Hockey!!! You must be a government employee to buy that garbage.
    Yes NOAA is a gov’t agency but NOAA provides the raw data. The EPA alters that data to suit their means.
    Your short sighted views have valid points but they do not cover the whole picture. Realistically Oil, Natural Gas, Wood and all by-products produce good and bad effects. That does not mean that the global warming is man made. It only means that we are nasty polluters of the planet. What is your answer? Stop everything? No cars, trucks trains, planes tractors or lawnmowers? No burning of wood or garbage. No feeding the cows or pigs? We can all live on the wind and sun? Now’s the time for you to step up to the plate and give us the answer. We do a lot of condemning here but I do not see anyone providing any realistic answers.

  • Anonymous

     Robert–Did you know that Germany gets most of its energy from solar and wind?  They’re way ahead of us because we’ve dropped the ball and they didn’t.  The reason the petroleum and coal industries hire “academics” to dispute global warning is because they’re trying to protect their gravy train.  In other words, the petroleum and oil industries are putting profit above the health of the planet.  Even the CEO of Exxon-Mobil made a statement recently to the effect that, yes, global warming is real but that we’ll figure-out a way to survive.  Researchers and developing new batteries that are much more effective than before, and eventually we’ll see more and more automobiles operating on electricity, hopefully electricity from wind and solar.  It’s been proposed that simply putting wind farms throughout the Midwest that we could supply the vast majority of our energy needs with *renewable* energy sources, rather than fossil fuels.  Furthermore, Bill Gates and his foundation are working hard on a new type of nuclear reactor that would be tens of times more efficient and waste-free than those we have right now. 

    There are plenty of positive options out there.  But the falsity of climate change denial is simply a business tactic. 

    I live in Dallas, and the particulate matter from coal and cement refineries southwest of the DFW metroplex has now made this area the number one worst place for childhood asthmatics.  We’ve got to begin taking care of our planet.  It’s the only home we have. 

  • Anonymous

    Just in the news today – US solar projects deemed un-workable – economically unsound. So much for the free solar power industry. Projects supposed to be completed in 2008 still not online in many states; the reason being cost exceeds the financial benefit. No matter how you try to explain it, the numbers don’t lie. Solar and wind power projects still can’t pay for the expenses of implementing them, and as such will never be profitable.

    The bottom line is unless the power companies can make a profit they will not pursue any of these supposed green power technologies.

    Another downside to the green power industry is there are a lot of fossil fuel originated products used to produce the solar panels and wind turbines, and that doesn’t include the power sources needed to produce the implements of the green power movement.

    Lots of chemicals and carbon used to make green power possible, so they don’t even have a clean footprint from a manufacturing standpoint.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kerry.shelton.5 Kerry Shelton

    Some points here.  99% of scientists most assuredly do NOT agree with the concept of AGW.  As is well documented, the IPCC report was signed onto by about 3000 scientists (many of whom have since recanted) while there is a petition signed by over 31000 scientists dissenting against AGW.

    Interesting that you should cite a volcanic eruption as evidence of AGW.  Beside the fact volcano eruptions aren’t man made, it is again well documented that volcanic eruptions put more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of mankind throughout history.  While we’re on the subject, it is widely known that water vapor is far better at holding in heat than CO2.  That’s why cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights.  But then, you really can’t control (or collect money on) water vapor can you?  How do you reconcile your hatred of CO2 with your love of trees?  You do know trees REQUIRE CO2 to live don’t you?  What would happen to them?

    I am jealous of your trip to Patagonia.  It is a beautiful place I haven’t seen since my trip to Antarctica in 1989.  However, I am a bit puzzled by your assertion that you could “literally feel the ozone hole there” and that the sun was “three times more intense” where you were.  The fact that it was freezing and you still got a “sunburn” isn’t remarkable at all.  The protection we wore on our faces wasn’t for the sun but the wind.  Wind can produce the same effects as sunburn when it is of sufficient velocity and duration (as is the case in those latitudes).  Moreover, the ozone hole isn’t located over Patagonia but is centered directly over the South Pole.  It stretches, at it’s worst, just south of the Cape and, at it’s “best”, doesn’t exceed the boundaries of the Antarctic landmass.  Exactly how did you measure the sun’s intensity?  Were you by any chance there during December-March (summer in the Southern Hemisphere)?

    I would have to disagree with your assertion that the last decade was the hottest.  There were at least two eras in history with higher mean temperatures than are recorded now, The Roman Era and the Medieval Era.  Even if we chose to ignore these eras, the “hottest” year on record was 1998.  Let’s keep in mind, records of this type have only been kept since about 1880.  To take 133 years out of over 4,000,000,000 years and say it is a definitive sample is like taking 199 people and making your assertions about the 6,000,000,000 in the world.  It just isn’t a great enough sample to form any statistically realistic conclusion.

    One last point.  To assume that the human race is capable of “killing” this planet, either actively or apathetically, is hubris in the extreme.  The Earth is 71% Water, 29% Landmass.  Humans occupy LESS THAN 1% of that 29%.  That’s right, all 6,000,000,000+ of us live on about 0.3% of the Earth’s surface.  Please explain how we can “kill” this planet when we occupy only 0.3% of it.  You put Man on a pedestal he does not deserve and endow him with power he does not possess.

  • Guest

     Excellent post

  • Anonymous

    It’s revealing that in a fairly lengthy response you, once again, ignore the main point of my argument:  

    Clinton = taxes higher, economy strong, budget heads towards and achieves balance, wealth inequality reduced.  Followed by recession.

    W Bush = taxes lower esp on wealthy, economy not as strong, budget deficits annually, increased inequality.  Followed by Great Recession and near financial collapse.

    There is a huge lesson here, and folks on the Right refuse to learn it.  Everyone on the Right – everyone – said that Clinton’s tax increases would ruin the economy.  It was an article of faith. Repeat after me: They…were…wrong.  They’re…still…wrong.

    Your arguments are tendentious, reaching back to earlier economic times and much different conditions. The truth is simpler and much closer at hand.  You simply don’t want to admit you’re wrong.  That’s the character flaw of the Right I’ve pointed out.  The Reps in Congress have taken it to the point of jeopardizing the world economy.  That’s beyond wrong; it’s demented.

    Economies are cyclical; we know that.  Clinton’s era of prosperity ended with a typical recession, related to the end of the dot.com boom, which had also fueled much of the gain.  Similarly, the Bush economy’s growth was fueled by the run-up in housing related to low interest rates, rampant speculation and new credit/debt “mechanisms” invented by the financial sector.  

    These similarities make for an even better comparison between tax rates of the two eras.  

    As you point out – and I agree – people by nature are often greedy, and those who are greediest are often the most successful.  Corporate interests are guided by groups of people, generally very powerful, out to maximize profit.  They use their group strength to bend the system in their direction.  Wealth and power will always have a tendency to accumulate increasingly at the top, leading to socioeconomic imbalance.  Democratic govt is the only available countervailing force for stability.  The real issue is simply how much govt intervention is good for us overall.  It’s not whether to redistribute; all taxes redistribute, by design.  It’s how much, by what mechanisms and in which direction.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t ignore your main point, as you put it, I disagree with your main conclusion (which it appears you are calling your main point). You even admit in the body of your response that it is the dot.com boom that caused the prosperity. The prosperity you like to attribute to your beloved Clinton’s tax increase (which was in 93′), didn’t occur until under the dot.com boom (which was in 98-00 or so).

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/

    You worry so much about what someone else makes, why don’t you put your money where your mouth is, stop buying from those you feel are too greedy, set up your own entrepreneurship, and donate your own time and money to your causes.

  • Anonymous

    When global warming first came up I thought wait a minute in the 70s they kept saying the next ice age was coming so I did my own research.  Progressives have been back in forth on the warming cooling since the 20′s.  Now if they can call it climate change it covers any slight change in weather.  We have only been keeping weather records since the 1870s and it wasn’t all over the nation. There are still records on the books for the coldest and warmest from the 1890′s.   I could go on with more information, but remember: weather changes (always has always will), taxes are forever (once here they are here for good), stop helping them scare our children into future taxation (increases in taxes and regulation by scare tactics).    First sign of Spring:  Gore leaves one of his many mansions takes his limo to the airport and flies around the world telling us to ride our bike to work.  He’s a billionaire-hypocrite.    Socialists don’t live like they tell everyone else to live (celebrities, politicians, elitist businessmen).

  • Anonymous

    Are these guys for real? They are absolute geniuses. Why are they slumming it on a silly radio show? They have all the answers, they should be running NASA or some sheet. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/pbirdstheword Peter Anderson

    Climate change yes, global warming, questionable. The politicians and ignorant tree huggers want a cause even if it is totally false. Our star causes changes in temperature and earthquakes etc. Plus our solar system and galaxy all contribute to our earth.

    If we ever get a direct hit from the sun from a large solar flare. Over half our population will die off from a great EMP. 

    A person that calls others a “KOCH-SUCKER” is totally full of himself and male bovine excrement.

    http://www.activistpost.com/2013/09/who-are-deniers-now-record-ice-growth.html
    http://www.spaceweather.com/
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2TG4YOYD_o&feature=c4-overview&list=UUTiL1q9YbrVam5nP2xzFTWQ