White House releases video blaming polar vortex on global warming

Earlier this week, Glenn mocked the local news coverage of the “polar vortex” – primarily, the fact that the media continued to find a way to spin the sub-zero temperatures as a byproduct of global warming. Well, it didn’t take long for the White House to get in on the action – releasing a YouTube video featuring President Barack Obama’s science adviser, Dr. John Holdren, suggesting that the frigid weather actually caused by global warming.

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

“I like it when the Administration comes out and uses somebody like John Holdren – a guy who was for putting sterilants in the drinking water because of population explosion – to come out and defend global warming,’” Glenn said on radio this morning. “[And now we] have the White House on record saying, ‘Yes, indeed, this cold snap is global warming.’”

As BuzzFeed reported, the video is just a piece of the Administration’s efforts to push back against claims that global warming is in decline or non-existent. The White House plans to also hold an online “We The Geeks” session on the “polar vortex” featuring several climate experts.

In the 2-minute clip, Holdren advises Americans not to believe anyone telling them the current sold spell in the U.S. disproves global warming theories. Instead, he claims: “A growing body of evidence suggests that the extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues.

Wow.

“Is anyone saying that? ‘Because it’s cold for two weeks, that that disproves global warming.’ No. There’s other evidence people think disproves the theories behind it,” Stu said. “But saying, ‘It’s cold for two weeks, that’s our point,’ or every time it’s hot in the summer, you say it’s because of global warming – you can’t say weather for two weeks is evidence.”

Check out the entire video below:

Ultimately, Glenn believes this video proves just how desperate the Administration and is about the lack of evidence supporting their cause.

“To drag John Holdren out at that point shows how freaked out they are. They are freaked out beyond belief,” Glenn concluded. “They know the wheels have come off of this thing, and that’s really a good thing.”

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    What liberals think Global Warming looks like despite the facts.

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

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    If you believe in Global warming than you dumb enough to believe in Santa Claus.

  • Ants Go Marching

    If you haven’t done so already, Check the book “State of Fear” by the late Michael Crichton. In the book (fiction novel) accurately portrays what was going to happen when the proposed “global warming” became a liability. He wrote that they would change it to “extreme climate change” before the term was “coined”. Crichton was called to DC for hearings and display his research (to write the book), debunked a lot of theories with credible scientific research from independent sources as well as the usual “paid to find out what we are paying you to find out” type researchers that biased findings the “global warming” movement has been using. Unfortunately he died too soon.

    At any rate, check it out if you haven’t.

  • Anonymous

    That video saying this sub-zero weather is the result of global warming is just plain dumb. Forty years ago scientists were talking about global cooling. So maybe all this extreme temperature stuff is just the planet being in flux. You would think that with all the research the government is doing with regards to warming they would have done the same for global cooling. Now they get to convince those researchers who got rescued that they got stuck due to global warming and melting ice. Good luck with that one, they have their work cut out for them.

  • Anonymous

    This is so absolutely stupid you almost have to laugh at these morons, except that they make policy that is destroying America. Back before all this BS came about, we called it ‘weather’.

  • Anonymous

    I would believe in Santa before I would believe in man caused global warming.

  • Anonymous

    Just plain silly! If these idiots would check, they would find that it gets warm each summer, and cold each winter. Duh?

  • women 99

    REALLY? How come those dumb A@@ climate change dummies where stuck in the ice that this idiot says is melting????

  • Anonymous

    Hmm, should I believe John Holdren, an astronautics and plasma physicist from MIT that’s highly published and awarded, or should I listen to Beck and all of the rest of the jack-offs that know little of science, but think they’re right despite their ignorance. Tough choice.

  • Anonymous

    This guy started to tell the truth in the beginning that our weather will fluctuate from hot to cold throughout the years which is normal. There is no global warming. I believe there may be global dimming which has not been addressed. All of these so called scientists are there for one reason. It is about Agenda 21. They must convince the masses that we have caused our planet to become too warm using too much energy. There is absolutely no evidence of that. Even Al Gore would not debate the scientists on the flip side. He has made millions on this concept so there is no need to come forward and answer serious questions regarding the falsehood of global warming. Meanwhile, we are being bombarded by chemtrails, they say will combat the affects of global warming. In fact, these chemtrails actually do the opposite. One other note regarding the chemtrails. They are not regulated by any government agency, nor are they held to any standards from the FDA. The chemicals being sprayed are very harmful to the environment and people.

  • Guest

    I suppose you don’t believe in the

  • Aaron Adams

    I suppose you don’t believe in the Easter Bunny either? What is this world coming to?

  • Anonymous

    Wow something the White House isn’t blaming Bush for!

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    No because John Holdren is not a climate scientist to begin with. What you liberals bring the tired old agrument all the time.

  • Anonymous

    The dude is a PhD with degrees from MIT and Stanford. His life’s work is on the consequences of global environmental change and energy technologies. If listening to educated experts is a liberal thing, then you got my number. It sure beats the ignorant thing.

  • Anonymous

    I liked the debate that happened on Fox Hannity show where it was suggested that weather happens in cycles and this dip in the Polar Vortex happened in ’76…1776, that helped George Washington win the Revolution!

  • Anonymous

    If you read all the comments to follow that video, on YouTube, not a single one in agreement. How stupid does this administration take us to be ? We’re not as stupid as Dr Holdren, BO, and the low-info voters who put him in office are. How do they explain the Vortex of meaningless hot air coming out of the White House ?

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    But when I point out the facts that astronomers with the same profile saying it is the sun causing it you liberals say nupe he is not a climate scientist. I mean that is the type of bull Glenn was pointing out but that is ok be inconsistent like all on the left. Oh I guess you listen to Nazi scientist as well what they got PhDs to.

  • Anonymous

    Not even a week and a half into 2014 and we already have a stupid, overused phrase which everyone has gotten sick of hearing.

  • Anonymous

    Just give them a few more days…they’ll think of something.

  • Ilene

    Holdren is a numbnut who believes in eugenics too.

  • Anonymous

    And for what reason would Obama be trying to influence what belongs in the realm of scientists? Nothing could speak more to the political motivations behind this farce than a president who is compelled to try to calm the growing cadre of “unbelievers” that global cooling is a direct result of global warming. After all, he just formed a new “committee” that will carry the force of law to make policy by deciding whether every new law that passes the president’s desk is “green” enough.

    The polar vortex does exist, but it has never been shown to cause these types of drastic temperature changes so far south of the polar region. Apparently, this also explains how summer in the southern hemisphere is hot, while the polar ice at Antarctica is growing. Of course, all climate scientists claim that this was predictable, but if that’s the case, why is there so much confusion over the “thermal pause”? Not a single model predicts this, as they have been stating we are in a logarithmic phase of temperature increase resultant, supposedly, from manmade CO2, which does not leave room for arguments that drastically cold temperatures are PREDICTED by global warming data. Drastic storms ARE predicted and for the last eight years, we’ve had ONE hurricane. But no scientist has speculated on a gigantic polar vortex that suddenly, due to drastically higher temperatures in the north (after all, everyone knows that when there’s more ice, the temperature is higher…right?) that suddenly, this phenomenon that has rarely been observed south of Maine is now suddenly extending to Mexico.

    According to the theory, the vast warm air rising from the abnormally heated pole is opening up the troposphere and allowing supercooled air to pour out over the entire northern hemisphere. Unfortunately for that theory, though, it means ignoring the vast amount of sea ice over the polar region. Where is the warm air coming from? It’s supposedly caused by warmer ocean temperatures. Uh huh…that’s why all the ice is gone, right? Oops.

  • Anonymous

    And for what reason would Obama be trying to influence what belongs in the realm of scientists? Nothing could speak more to the political motivations behind this farce than a president who is compelled to try to calm the growing cadre of “unbelievers” that global cooling is a direct result of global warming. After all, he just formed a new “committee” that will carry the force of law to make policy by deciding whether every new law that passes the president’s desk is “green” enough.

    The polar vortex does exist, but it has never been shown to cause these types of drastic temperature changes so far south of the polar region. Apparently, this also explains how summer in the southern hemisphere is hot, while the polar ice at Antarctica is growing. Of course, all climate scientists claim that this was predictable, but if that’s the case, why is there so much confusion over the “thermal pause”? Not a single model predicts this, as they have been stating we are in a logarithmic phase of temperature increase resultant, supposedly, from manmade CO2, which does not leave room for arguments that drastically cold temperatures are PREDICTED by global warming data. Drastic storms ARE predicted and for the last eight years, we’ve had ONE hurricane. But no scientist has speculated on a gigantic polar vortex that suddenly, due to drastically higher temperatures in the north (after all, everyone knows that when there’s more ice, the temperature is higher…right?) that suddenly, this phenomenon that has rarely been observed south of Maine is now suddenly extending to Mexico.

    According to the theory, the vast warm air rising from the abnormally heated pole is opening up the troposphere and allowing supercooled air to pour out over the entire northern hemisphere. Unfortunately for that theory, though, it means ignoring the vast amount of sea ice over the polar region. Where is the warm air coming from? It’s supposedly caused by warmer ocean temperatures. Uh huh…that’s why all the ice is gone, right? Oops.

  • Anonymous

    Now Sam, I do not believe in Global Warming but I sure do believe in Santa Clause.

  • Anonymous

    And yet these great Liberal thinkers (e.g. stooges), and their friends are paid huge sums of money to teach at our finest institutions of higher learning. They don’t KNOW anything. They certainly don’t follow any scientific theory to come to THEIR conclusions. Their minds are made up and no facts of any kind will change their blather.
    Isn’t it a good thing that we put state of the art telescopes in space????? Otherwise, we’d still have astronomers thinking we live all alone in a solar system with 13 planets. Period. We now know there are galaxies and universes beyond our ability to count.
    But the global warming guys, they’re sticking to their story no matter what. Isn’t it time to fire some of the academicians that are simply too stupid to learn? I certainly think it is.

  • Anonymous

    I haven’t knocked any PhD scientists on either side of theory. I just think the majority of them have a reasonable theory. As far a Nazi PhDs go, they made some impressive discoveries like the Z3 computer, the V-2 Rocket, the V1 flying bomb, Sarin gas, sonic cannon, etc. Evil, but clever. German scientists were brought to America to teach us how to make rockets. So, yes, I’d have some confidence they understand their fields of expertise.

  • Anonymous

    I wish someone from the WH would come over and shovel this “Global Warming” out of my driveway.

  • fire lion

    WINTER MEANS THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING
    JUST LIKE WHEN IT RAINS THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A DESERT

  • fire lion

    or Jesus.

  • Bill Tilghman

    So they want us to believe that there is enough warmth at the north pole up-welling a convective current into the upper atmosphere that is forcing arctic temperature air down over the lower 48?

    The absurdity of that hypothesis is sheer lunacy!

    The real explanation for the cold air mass moving so far south is the seasonal movement of the jet stream. It happens every winter, but not usually to the degree that it has this time. We had another event like this in the early 1980′s – below zero temperatures as far south as Texas that stayed in the single digit range to below 20 degrees Fahrenheit for a couple of weeks. It is not anything new, nor will it be outside the realm of possibility ever again.

    When is the intellectually bankrupt global warming/climate change stupidity going to be relegated to the waste basket once and for all?

  • Bill Tilghman

    Thank you for the daily troll post.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Holdren was discredited on this subject years ago when he was helping Gore bullshit the people with his crap and trade scam. It is all about making that wooden headed idiot Gore rich and keeping you from ever having anything. They are stealing you blind, and you are happy to go along for the ride!

    Astounding!

  • Bill Tilghman

    Actually your information is not complete. Seems you have been duped just like the rest of the libtard brigade that keeps trying to promote this non-science fiction.

  • Bill Tilghman

    That is the stupidest thing posted here so far – congratulations on that stellar achievement.

  • Bill Tilghman

    It also ignores the dynamics of fluid convection required to displace that volume of cold air mass. The real culprit is the jet stream, and it dips south on the east side of the Rocky Mountains every winter, and then flows towards Maine. This has happened many times before the present time, and the most recent one was in the early 1980 time frame. I referred to that event in an earlier post on this thread.

  • Guest

    John Holdren the author? In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued, “if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.” In 1973, Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because “210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many.” In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including compulsory abortion, adding sterilants to drinking water or staple foods, forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and discussed “the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences” such as access to birth control and abortion.

    Holdren was “trained” in aeronautics, astronautics and plasma physics. He does not have a degree in climate science.

  • Anonymous

    I believe in Global Warming, and also in Global Cooling. Both have been going on in cycles, both long and short, since the earth got an atmosphere about 3 1/2 billion years ago. The problem is not whether we are warming or cooling, the problem is blaming climate change on mankind’s emissions.

    I’ll give the environmentalists their argument that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has doubled in the last century, and I’ll accept their theory that it is the result of our emissions. Actually it hasn’t quite doubled, but for the sake of argument let’s make it from 200 ppm to 400 ppm.

    Numbers are wonderful things, you can do all sorts of things with them. If I live in a town of 10 people and the cancer deaths double from 2 to 4 over a year I’d be concerned about a cause, but if my town is 100,000 I wouldn’t be worried. We can’t count the number of panicky studies that use percentages without looking at the population. In the case of CO2 the doubling can’t possibly have an influence on the climate. Our atmosphere is 99% nitrogen and oxygen (at about 80/20) and 0,8% argon, The remaining 0.2 % is everything else.

    James Hansen was disappointed when Venus was found to be 900 dgs., and found a culprit, CO2. But Venus’ atmosphere is 95% CO2, ours is 0.04%. Doubling from 200 to 400 ppm sounds radical, doubling from 0.02% to 0.04% is a bit less frightening. The combined total of nitrogen, oxygen, and argon in our atmosphere is 998,000 ppm, the remaining 2,000 ppm is the rest of the gases, with CO2 at 400 ppm. Do i care if it goes to 800 ppm?, no – the plants will grow faster but not much else.

  • Anonymous

    If the liberals can convince enough people about (whatever calamity) they can can turn it into regulations and taxes — especially if they can convince people that it’s someone’s fault.

    The progressives talk about (whatever calamity) as if they have any control over it. The rotation of the Earth, the combined gravitational effects of the Sun and Moon, heating, cooling, erosion, shifting land masses, tilt of the Earth and precession all work to create and shape our weather as well as the ENTIRE planet.

    Worried about “Climate Change”? How about “Continental Change”? That’s right, entire cities and continents are MOVING and will destroy our cities and land. Habitats will be decimated. Are we going to stop earthquakes and volcanoes and secure the land masses? Are we going seal every fault line on land and beneath water? Are we going to contain the pressure, gasses and heat within the Earth? I don’t think so. It would be a fool’s errand to do so. God help the poor people who happen to live near a place that weakens — Krakatoa will be a firecracker compared to what would happen.

    Oh, by the way, when the Earth’s crust is sealed we’re still precessing so in about 25,000 years Winter for the North American continent will be in July. What can we do to stop the Earth from precessing? Oh no, “Axial change”!

    Ooops! The effect of the moon is slowing down the earth’s rotation (longer days), and the moon is also pulling away from the Earth. Imagine the effects when a “day” under the hot sun is equivalent to a week. Add another change to the list: “Lunar change”.

    The list: Climate Change, Continental Change, Axial Change, Lunar Change and we’re just getting started.

    What is described is nature at work. We see it in our past and it will be our future. It’s all science — get over it and adapt. Or not.

    For people who live for change, the progressives sure make a fuss when the change isn’t to their liking .This brouhaha isn’t about saving the Earth and resources — it’s about selling “change” and converting it to control and money.

  • Anonymous

    Wonder if they Breitbarted him?

  • Anonymous

    We can expect to see a pattern of increasing frequencies of spells of record cold and that proves that the earth is warming?
    That’s the ticket.

  • gladstone

    the socialist/ communist/ left wing/ homosexual/ environmentalist/ occupy crowd must love this quack

  • stewames .

    This is insulting, they just keep moving the shells to back up their lies. Just as the saying, “follow the money” is to economics, so is the term “wag the dog” to global warming. The progressives think that if they keep our minds occupied by a fake debate we won’t see the shell game they are playing.

    Case in point their newest game is called “income inequality”. This is actually as old as time and just bold. faced envy, which is pure evil. If you’re busy worrying about how much your neighbor or some oil exec is making, you won’t see them destroying the country as we speak. Who EVER said anyone would have income equality in this nation? The only equality my Constitution proclaims is that all men would be BORN equal, not that we might remain equal.

  • Dave Kube

    Lame…

  • Dave Kube

    silly…

  • Dave Kube

    comical…

  • Dave Kube

    laughable…

  • Dave Kube

    laughable…

  • Dave Kube

    pathetic…

  • Dave Kube

    pathetic…

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    Liberals.

  • Anonymous

    It’s not reasonable that all American climatologists that theorize humans contribute to climate change are being fooled by politics.

  • Anonymous

    Are you saying he didn’t attend MID and get a PhD in Stanford? That’s fairly easy to check.

  • Anonymous

    Care to elaborate?

  • Anonymous

    You’ll have to be more specific.

  • B D

    The oceans are acidifying because of CO2 in the atmosphere (oceans absorb it, changing their chemistry) and there’s no denying it. It is a fact. You can bury your head in the sand and say otherwise, but you’ll still be wrong.

  • Anonymous

    What’s funny about climate theory? Do you understand it?

  • Dave Kube

    ludicrous…

  • Dave Kube

    illogical…

  • Dave Kube

    preposterous…

  • Justone View

    Big Brother will tell you what to think.

  • alexz

    Why is GB so orange lately?

  • Anonymous

    Everything you mentioned here are the result of hardcore, provable science. Climatology is not even close. While great strides have been made through the use of technology, there are simply too many variables to allow accurate prediction. No matter how much we have progressed, we still can’t make weather predictions even in true states of emergency, such as tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc, until AFTER the event has begun. We can’t even get closer than 15 minutes lead time when tornadoes form in order to warn people. These are the most immediate of events and they are still nearly impossible to predict to usefully warn people and so avoid injury and death. If they can’t predict something they are watching right in front of them, even with the vast amounts of data now in possession from historic events and meteorological observation and experimentation, how reasonable is it that they can accurately predict what can influence climate in the next 100 years?
    Never in my scientific forays in molecular biology have I polled a room of scientists to see who agrees with me. Climatology is simply not capable of rising to the level of the sciences that apply to the examples you’ve given. All of those sciences rely on reproducible, controllable study. In my case, the next step is only identified based on the hardcore data. Future predictions of what will be accomplished is not bothered with because there is no political influence on the data.
    Climatology is not affirmative study, it is observational. There are no viable controls because there are simply too many variables. This is why their projections failed to predict the leveling of global temperatures that we’ve seen for the last 17 years. Current mathematics and computer models are simply not equipped to manage the number of variables that affect weather patterns. Until climatology is capable of inductive study instead of simple observation, the credibility of climatologists cannot be considered on a par with hardcore sciences that can do these types of studies. If a scientist is polling his/her peers to shore up a political agenda, it’s a sure bet that there is something severely lacking in the very nature of the science itself.

  • Bill Tilghman

    I’m saying I don’t care about his attending those institutions. Not every doctor is a brilliant person – most of them graduated at the bottom to middle of their class.

    He has strayed off the path and been caught lying in the past on this subject. You should check that out.

  • Anonymous

    That book is a good one. It’s fictional, but it is actually based on real events and he lists all of the sources he used to write the book in each chapter. His work comprised the historical studies that led to the evolution to the current global warming craze and the political motivations of those who have embraced this theory.

  • Bill Tilghman

    It’s not reasonable to accept a man’s credentials exclusive of the merits of his work. Politics isn’t the discussion here, science is and the man was shown to be a crackpot. Look it up.

  • Anonymous

    Right on point. Those who spend all their time worrying about what others have are fully committed to not performing the bolus of work required for such an accomplishment. Income inequality is simply an excuse for government to enslave its people. Those who are forced to work to provide for those thugs who have put forth no effort to lay claim on what does not rightfully belong to them and the thugs who are given whatever modicum of the largesse of the government. They exist only at the level that the government permits and it is not in the best interest of those who seek to control to ever provide enough that the masses will stop clamoring for them to intervene in what constitutes legalized theft made large.

  • alexz

    Google for ‘John Holdren in 1971: “New ice age” likely’, you’ll learn a thing or two about John Holdren. Physicist my ass. More like life long climate change alarmist.

  • Anonymous

    Global warming is a direct result of all the Hot Air being blown out of Washington these days, it certainly sends shivers down the backs of everyday real Americans

  • Anonymous

    There is beach front property available on the lunar surface, there no sense denying it. It is a fact. You can bury your head in all the yummy moons green cheese, or say otherwise, but you’ll still be wrong.

    Try opening up the garage door the next time you warm up your car…you’ve got an over abundance of CO2 on the brain…get over it – the theory of Global Warming is a cheep political hoax. It has everything to do with forcing nations into the combine of a one world government – ruled over by liberal progressives of course and nothing more.

  • Anonymous

    Absolutely. (“change” the money from your pocket into mine). A very simplistic definition of the progressive onslaught.

  • Anonymous

    To add something to your summation, consider the effects on weather by a God who controls it. Thousands of years ago when mankind was first created, our creator made a deal with us…and we humans agreed. He said, “If you will obey my words and follow my commandments then you will have perfect weather – season in and season out, even the morning dew will be a blessing unto your herds and crops” – BUT – “If you refuse to obey my commandments, turning your back on my words – then I will walk contrary unto you. No longer will you be blessed by weather. The morning dew will be withheld and fire will devour your crops and your livestock will languish in the field, in short, your blessing’s will turn into curses and in time, you will know that I am the Lord your God”

    Now there’s an argument not many are willing to hear.

  • Fat Lip

    Absolutely perfect ! AMEN

  • Anonymous

    Science deals within the realm of the five senses – anything beyond those ingredients are never considered. For example, they do not consider the God factor into their guesswork of global theory and after all, how could they – for the Eternal is a Spirit entity – who, by the way – controls our weather. In quite a large book he wrote, to be used as a guide for mankind to live by…including scientists…he elaborates…”live by my rules and the blessing of good weather will befall you, ignore my wise counsel and suffer the consequences of being cursed by bad weather, such as tornadoes – hurricanes – drought – floods – earthquakes – even unnatural winter storms.

  • Anonymous

    Another thought…even the American GPS weather model differs dramatically with the European model – this can be witnessed almost daily on the weather channel – of course I find it much easier to watch the program with the sound off

  • Anonymous

    Your 15 minute analogy is the noise in the data. More time means more data and improved models. Climatology is only one small branch of earth sciences. Global climate change is also researched by geologists, atmospheric scientists, biochemists, oceanographers, geophysicists, astrophysicists. America’s top scientific communities have taken an affirmative position on human contribution of climate change. It’s quite reasonable that they’re worth listening to.

  • Anonymous

    How do you explain Holdren’s numerous awards, important positions and unanimous confirmation by Republicans and Democrats as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy?

  • Anonymous

    If Holdren is such the “crackpot” you allege, how is it that he’s confirmed for influential positions by conservatives?

  • Anonymous

    The essay you cite also notes that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet. Holdren presents worst-case scenarios in that essay.

  • Anonymous

    That’s not true. Scientists have invented many devices to detect what can’t be detected by the five senses. Devices that can show us the sub-atomic world, create black holes and look deep into space. It’s only a matter of time before thse devices tell us all of the secrets of the universe. Because science is the building of knowledge based on testable explanations, there is no need to consider God because God is not consistently testable and measurable. God is used by people to fill the gaps that science leaves unexplained. Steven Hawking says that those gaps will be filled too.

  • Anonymous

    Exactly. I believe that there are many climate scientists who don’t dare to open their mouths and express their true opinions because funding would be cut off. That’s not an exaggeration, either. In my own field, I watched the temporary insanity that hit because of HIV. Politically driven crusaders were receiving money at unprecedented rates. When I was a student, I learned of the petty nature of most scientists. I made the mistake of expressing a political opinion during a discussion with one of my professors that sat on my PhD comprehensive committee. He called me in later and told me he would do everything that he could to see that I never passed the exams or thesis defense. He was true to his word. Only the fact that I was working on something that was bringing in significant money for the university saved me. But the man’s hatred continued. He even attempted to have my degree revoked a couple of years after finishing. Of course, the university laughed at him, but it didn’t stop him from calling my squadron commander in the Air Force (I was a physician in the Air Force for three years) and threatening me. It was truly psychotic, but illustrative of the attitude of many scientists who were too used to playing god and could not conceive of someone defying their authority. My squadron commander knew me very well by that time and told the man that if he didn’t stop calling he would be forced to take legal action. The man then called the base commander, who promptly dispatched the OSI to the university. The man ended up losing his laboratory, losing his funding, and transferring to a community college with no research funding. In the academic world, the adage is, “publish or perish”. I’ve occasionally checked and the man’s never even collaborated peripherally since 1997.
    I wish I could say this is the exception, but it’s not. In 1991 (I believe), a climatologist who was a specialist in ozone layer chemistry. He mainly worked at McMurdo Station in the Antarctic. He observed something that he found astounding; the hole in the ozone over Antarctica closed by approximately 90% in the space of a single year, something that hardcore climatology dogma of the day claimed was impossible. His work was impeccable, but he soon found out that presenting evidence that did not fit with the prefabricated political conclusion would result in a lot of pain. He attempted to publish the work, but was rejected. Finally, he sued Nature magazine, who lost the lawsuit and he was published, albeit with a waiver at the top of the article stating that the work was not in keeping with the usual “high” standards they required. Why was this done? Because the federal government was completely entwined in the issue. The ozone alarmists of the day used their hysterics to cause economic devastation by outlawing the use of chloro/fluorocarbons, meaning that, especially third world countries, were left without access to refrigerants. Further, it allowed the government to unilaterally make policy that negatively affected every citizen through increased costs.
    Now, we hear nothing from these geniuses. They’ve all moved on from that fight, and with the IPCC report that came out in the 90’s, climatology was once again science with a cause. Unfortunately, the UN lied. The lead scientists wrote the summary and there was little to be alarmed at in their summary of the current research. However, when the document was about to go to the publishers, the scientists learned that the document had been completely rewritten. The IPCC would not allow them to revise the document, so the scientists asked to have their names removed from the final draft. The UN refused and published the document with their names. It took two years and a court to reverse it, but by that time, the damage was done, and even with the court’s decision, the panel continued to claim that it had the support of the foremost scientists in the field. It is little more than lies upon lies upon lies. That is the long tradition of climatology. Arguing that the alarmists who head the social movements born of the global warming craze are in the same class as physicists, biologists and mathematicians is laughable. The research needs to be done, but in the true spirit of scientific inquiry, otherwise, the end result is always the same…bad science.

  • Anonymous

    Sorry, genius, but you wouldn’t know a good study if it bit you on the butt. You know nothing about science and you certainly know nothing about the history of this movement. You wouldn’t understand it if you did try to read it so I’m not going to even suggest you educate yourself. I guess it’s just too easy to swallow what a bunch of political hacks say about the issues. I wouldn’t go around touting that ignorance so loudly, but I do think your choice of photo is a good summation of the extent of your knowledge. Congratulations…you’ve reached the clown stage.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, for which there is no corroborating evidence…but that’s the beauty of climatology. You’ll be long dead before the theories are either proven or disproven.

  • Anonymous

    Amazing how you can tell so much about me with zero knowledge of my education or career. You’re quite the mind reader and a typical insulting Beck robot.

  • Anonymous

    Of course Hawkins would believe the answers to shed light on the mystery of the universe will be brought about by the ingenious thought process of mankind. Explaining the creation lacking a creator. Even though science has traveled light-years ahead from where it was only a few decades ago, it still relies solely on the physical senses.

    The simple answers to the biggest secrets of the universe have been around for ages, but mankind stubbornly refuses to prove it. There’s argument today concerning the recoil effect of the universe. In short the theory goes, after the universe expands itself so far, it will in time, reverse itself and recoil back into its center. Shortly thereafter, there will occur another ‘big bang’ which will in turn reverse the action and this back and forth repetition will happen for all eternity. But the bible contradicts that hypothesis all together. In the biblical account it plainly states that the universe will expand forever without end.

    In terms of God being measured – he is omnipresent, so by definition, he is without measure. As far as being tested, there are several ways in which God can be tested. In fact, he challenges mankind to prove him at his word – the Holy Bible, by which, not many have ever been willing to do, especially scientists, although, and rightfully so, there is a growing number of scientists who are giving credit to God as its creator, for its structure is so precise and reliable, that random chance does not answer or explain the theories now being taught as truth.

    Chalk one up for the Godhead.

    There is another way God can be tested and the end results will make themselves known to all mankind – soon, and in such a way that we humans will make sure we never test him again. How is that done you might ask, It is precisely what scientists are attempting to do today…to explain away the creation of the universe void of a creator.

    I will say in closing, that even mainstream ‘christianity’ has never gotten it right. Very few indeed, teach, that the gift of God to all mankind is the thrilling occupation of the physical universe, by the future sons of God. There is after all, life after death and those who have the thrilling chance to experience this “spiritual life”, will visit the endless expanses of the never ending universe and will themselves, first hand, discover all its hidden mystery.

  • Anonymous

    If there was no corroboration, then America’s top scientific organizations wouldn’t be agreeing like the do on climate change.

  • Anonymous

    You say God can be tested how? Something about the Bible structure being so precise and reliable. I don’t understand what that means. Scientists are not attempting to explain away God because that’s not the purpose of science. Science builds knowledge on observable repeatable and predictable experiments on the physical world. After all, if there is a God, wouldn’t he be pleased how we seek understanding of the universe he provided using the minds he gave us? Seems like a holy calling to me.

  • Anonymous

    Fortunately (maybe unfortunately) because of my age, I remember first hand, much of the information you provide. You are correct in your assertion that this whole fiasco is politically driven. What is most bothersome to me is the secret collaboration within the scientific community – the world over! To top off the anger and the inability for the common man on the street to do a damn thing about it – is tax payer money is funding these crazy fools.

    It really boils down to the idea of “One World Government” surly that will solve all the troubles known to man. These political thugs, are pushing their power hungry agenda without hesitation and they’re using – or extorting – the scientific community to do their dirty work. Thus, in the end, both affiliates are happy with the end result, but this is where these ignorant stooges fail to consider the real pent-up emotions of the average John-Q-Citizen…many, today, have become overwhelmed with this daily nonsense and its only a matter of time when emotions boil over into action. One can only hide behind closed doors for so long.

  • Anonymous

    When looking at science in the way you describe, then yes, in fact, God himself is a master scientist and in the world to come, he will open up the minds of each individual who enters into his kingdom. Today, science has not even scratched the surface of “what is” and “what makes it so”.
    But it is a well known fact that there is a majority in the scientific community that scoff at the idea of an invisible God, does the theory of Charles Darwin ring a bell?

    How to test or prove God?

    answer: “Prophecy”. – If what was written thousands of years in advance, burst forth upon the earth with precision, exactly as described – when – where – to whom etc, then that is how one proves the existence of God, well, actually there’s more to it than that, but it is the basic starting point.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t need to know the specifics because you’re parroting the exact same phrases as the mainstream liberal apologists. I also know an amateur when I see one and you are. You have never read the actual research and no, you wouldn’t understand it if you did. I’m a physician and a scientist and it’s taken me quite a while to learn climatology at the periphery, but I DO understand the research and, more importantly, I understand what constitutes a good study and what does not. Climatology especially fails in predictions because there is no model in existence that can accurately predict actual events and the track record of climatology’s involvement in world social programs belies the true motivation behind the ludicrous recommendations that could only come from a group that has never once worked outside of government systems.
    I’ve lived in both worlds. The more involved the government is with the research, the worse the quality of the research. You seem to worship the president’s science advisor. He is not there in a true capacity that was intended in the original position. He is a social activist who has advocated for the most regressive policies, even where clear evidence of the failure of those policies in other countries exists. Additionally, the fact that you see no problem in the white house being involved in what should be unbiased scientific discussion clearly illustrates the level of politics involved in the science. Name one other president who has utilized tax dollars to put out a propaganda video. Here’s a hint. No president has EVER attempted to inculcate a political agenda into basic science research. Not even Clinton would have gone this far.
    Not a single recommendation that these hacks are making has been shown anywhere to have any significant effect on CO2 emissions. Yet, now the EPA is unilaterally circumventing the legislature to impose the president’s policies where it does not belong. This has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with control. You don’t see it. Fine. But don’t try to tell me that you’re approaching this from an understanding of what constitutes science. Everything you’ve stated clearly demonstrates that you’ve never done the work and you’re just quoting others. That’s your choice, but protest all you want, you’re not credible.

  • Anonymous

    And once again, you prove that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Science is NOT done by vote. But regardless, the claim that 97% of all climate scientists believe in the theory of global warming is ludicrous. The history of the intertwining of international government and climate science is rife with repression of dissent. But of course, you’d have to have an approach to this that wasn’t predetermined in order to understand that. There is way too much of political policy being applied to not enough science. It’s laughable that this is even presented as “evidence” that it’s real. These are the same people who, until the mid-80’s were trying to influence policy to prevent the next ice age. Now, they’ve reversed course, yet, everyone is 100% convinced they are dead right, even though their models fail. I’m sure someone like you believes that, somehow, failure and irreproducibility of results makes for better predictions, but I don’t operate on the level of the hysterical. You do.

  • Anonymous

    Especially when you consider that Barack Obama decided not to implement the new EPA rules prior to the election because he knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that those regulations would further suppress the economy. Of course, when you believe that the best way to bring about a socialist revolution, the fastest way to destroy an economy is the way chosen by the leftists.

  • Anonymous

    That is the bottom line – One world Government

  • Anonymous

    With the rate these guys are pushing their one world agenda – a climate change will certainly be the result. It will not be global warming though, on the contrary, nuclear winter will produce the exact opposite effect.

  • Anonymous

    Prophecy seems nothing more than going to the Bible after the fact and stringing together messages to fit.

  • Anonymous

    Well doc, I have advanced degrees in engineering and an MBA and have owned several tech companies. I’ve written a scientific thesis. I’ve also read some publications on climate change, but I do not desire to be an expert in climate science. I prefer to rely on America’s top scientific communities’ consensus.

    I do remember the last time the government put out information educating people on an environmental issue: ozone depletion. After regulations were enacted, there was a 20-year reduction in ozone and correction of the hole in the atmosphere. Some people thought that was bull too.

  • Anonymous

    It may seem that way to you, but to the trained observer, nothing could be further from the truth. Almost one third of the entire bible is based on prophecy. There is a duality in much prophecy – a former and a later, there is also about 90% of all prophecy that is yet unfulfilled.

    The key to its understanding is the identity of nations, in other words, what God calls or refers to each people on earth. Some nations have gone by their original name from their beginning, other nations – because of national overthrow, have been removed from their lands and ended up far from their original location. Over time, these people took on new identities, forgetting who they were.

    So the mystery deepens and work has to be done for the individual who wants to understand prophecy pertinent to the world in which he or she lives. Otherwise, the bible cannot be understood, and we all, may as well base our lives on Mr. Darwin’s theory.

    The bible cannot be understood, well at least one third of it – the prophecy part, and by the way, the most important part, unless the identities of nations are made known.

    The bible essentially, is a book about the nation of Israel. The trouble, or downfall, in the religious corridor, most professing Christians think the nation of Israel is made up of Jewish ancestry, again, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Jews stem from the nation of Judea, or Judah. And in biblical historical accounts it mentions the first time the nation of Judea is found in scripture – they were at war with the nation of Israel. Imagine that. Then there’s the group of believers who suppose, without question, that all nations are so-called Gentile people and they can be brought to Christ with the shedding of his blood. That is true for the majority of earths population – but – there are a handful of nations who are not Gentile, but due to them loosing their identity over time, they wrongly assume they are.

    So the bible is about a people who do not even know who they are. It is only comprehensible when the reader understand that simple, but yet, hidden mystery and then with that understanding comes the understanding of prophecy. Because prophecy pertaining to them – in real time – the student can now for the first time have relevance to their personal daily lives.

    God is much smarter then we humans give him credit for, truthfully he is far out in front and the only reason we foolish humans still exist at all, is his abundance of patience.

    Believe it or not, God has very big plans for mankind, and through the right use of prophecy, one, is only then, able to understand what those plans are.

  • Anonymous

    Good for you, but by your own admission, you know very little about climate science. That’s not exactly a raving endorsement for you understanding what constitutes good or bad science. I suspect there’s more of your political leanings involved in your contentions than true understanding. Since you have “advanced degrees”, it might serve you well to use some of that knowledge to go beyond the headlines. No one is saying you have to be a climatologist, but the fact of the matter is that your knowledge seems to come much more from the internet than from true understanding. You don’t have to be an expert in climatology to know what constitutes good science.
    Climatology is in the same category amongst scientists that psychiatry/psychology is relegated to in medicine. There is no question that it has value, but certainly, it cannot claim that it can withstand the same scrutiny as hardcore medical research, most of which is done in basic science laboratories. You seem to ascribe some kind of weight to something that is literally impossible to test in the way that other scientific fields can. And being an engineer, you should understand that mathematically, the more variables and unknowns in the system studied, the less the confidence of the results describing that system. There are so many unknowns and variables in climate science that the presentation of these predictions should have a requirement to attach a waiver, qualifying that fact, but instead, we hear about “polls”. As a scientist, I couldn’t care less what another scientist “believes” because there have been plenty of instances in history in which things are accepted as “fact” that turn out to be anything BUT fact. That’s irrelevant information. But it seems awfully important to you.

  • Bill Tilghman

    All of that is negated by his professing the edicts of the junk science he preaches. There is no proof for his many specious claims, yet he and luddites like you insist upon that. How many times does nature itself have to prove you incontrovertibly wrong?

  • Bill Tilghman

    The man believes in crackpot theories and supports them and that is all I care to know about him. Lots of people are put in influential posts by conservatives and liberals alike – that statement of yours means absolutely nothing other than you are running out of gas.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    You really did not get it do you?

  • Anonymous

    Scientific corroboration is important to me. The majority of our country’s scientists are smart enough to understand how to control experiments and variables in statistics. I occasionally read about new studies coming from US universities and I’m not inclined to go beyond that for lack of time. Even if you ignore consensus and have no opinion, then hedging the risk of disaster still makes sense to me. Public opinion has even shifted in red states too.

  • Anonymous

    So you’re say that any scientist that’s concluded that humans are contributing to climate change are discredited because all climate science is junk science. It’s surprising that so many climatologists, geophysicist, chemists, biologists, astrophysicists, etc. are fooled so easily, isn’t it.

  • Anonymous

    Reality is that even red states have turned a corner on this issue ( http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/13/climate-change-red-state-opinion-america-study ) and I guess policy will move forward. It seems it’s mostly right-wing conservatives that are running out of gas.

  • Anonymous

    No, I don’t get how people cannot consider what so many US scientists have observed.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Your reality is a sham and you are foolish for insisting upon something that has been proven to be false. You have successfully inserted a link to the biggest joke in the history of journalism – The Guardian is the same thing as The National Enquirer in the UK. Only fools read and believe in what they report.

  • Bill Tilghman

    No, there is legitimate science being pursued regarding the climate, but your ideas and beliefs were debunked a few years ago. You are behind the curve and refuse to recognize it. What next? An article from The Guardian to support your ridiculous position?

    You have to do better than that rag – it’s the New York Times and WAPO of the UK – surely you are aware of their reputation.

  • Bill Tilghman

    The prophecy in the Bible is a history, not a crystal ball. The prophets lived before most of what they told came to pass. That is the essence of prophecy. Going after the Bible and the prophets is just the kind of thing I expected of a modern flat earther like you. Are you this adamant at expressing your lack of understanding on every subject or did you just decide to single out The Bible and bad climate science?

    It seems you love to deny anything that is too large for your limits.

  • Bill Tilghman

    They are masters at not letting a crisis go to waste – even if they have to manufacture it from scratch.

  • Anonymous

    The Guardian simply reported on the Sanford University study. It’s been reported by lots of media, which I’m sure you’d try to discredit too. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/november/survey-climate-change-111313.html

  • Anonymous

    Face reality, you’re in a shrinking minority on this issue.

  • Bill Tilghman

    No, you are in a vocal minority of luddites, sir.

  • Anonymous

    Aren’t you saying the same thing I replied too, that supposedly the prophets wrote about things to come? I went to parochial school K through 12. I was steeped in studying the Bible and other religions. I’ve served hundreds of masses, had many philosophical discussions with my Priests and Bishop. I learned enough about the Bible and religion to know that it can be interpreted to mean what one is predisposed to believe.

  • Anonymous

    Not according to the stats.

  • Anonymous

    i don’t believe in global warming Santa clause either. it’s cycles and trends were going through. the but i think are weather patterns are shifting a little bit. alot of the weather patterns were having we saw back in the 70s and 60s.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Left wing crap is all you have. Sorry but you need to find some support from NOAA or better yet an independent source that isn’t in the tank for liberal politics.

  • Anonymous

    If the theory was debunked a few years ago, why do American Universities continue to publish findings to the contrary ( http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7470/full/nature12540.html ). And why does most of the American scientific community continue to research and support the theory?

  • Bill Tilghman

    Manipulated statistics that were proven false several years ago? You have to be kidding me.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Go back and read your own post – that is not what you said!

  • Bill Tilghman

    Why don’t you find some compelling and incontrovertible evidence of your religion of man made global warming? Because there isn’t any! Not one shred of undeniable proof that man caused climate change is a threat to this planet – not one! That alone should tell you something. Are you crazy or just gullible? I don’t care how many people repeat a lie, it is still a lie. These universities derive funding from research and that is all that is driving this idiot brained global warming junk science.

    Besides that, what can humanity do to alter the weather? Even our most powerful force can’t do that. Even if it were to be true, that human industry is affecting the weather, what solutions are being pursued to fix that?

    Global warming by the hand of man is a hoax and you bought into it completely. That shows how easy it is to convince a liberal that falsehood is truth.

  • Anonymous

    Regardless of what you or I think on this issue, there will be some form of regulation eventually. I worked for a chemical industry trade group in the early 90s and our proactive policy committee acknowledged the need to address the issue even back then. The supportive position came from the chemical industry’s scientist’s opinion on the research. These corporate scientists are some of the most thoughtful people I’ve known. Example, Dow Chemical’s position is “Providing humanity with a sustainable energy supply while addressing climate change is the most urgent environmental issue our society faces.” BASF, the largest chemical company in the world, states “Climate change is one of the major challenges in working towards a sustainable future.”

  • Anonymous

    Denying that there’s a shred of evidence that climate change is a threat to a sustainable future is nothing but denial.

  • Bill Tilghman

    I do not find your argument that most of the scientific community is researching and supporting that theory – in fact I happen to know a few climate scientists from the NOAA Severe Storms Lab in Norman, OK that disagree with this sham.

    Think about it – if a thermal convective current could force the polar air down over the central US, how much energy would it take to displace that much cold air? There has never been any force so great that has ever had an effect like this except the altering of the tilt of the axis, and even when that has occurred the atmosphere remained more or less stationary – it was the planet that moved which brought on the periodic ice ages we have experienced in geologic time.

    Face it, your argument makes no sense no matter how you present it. Al Gore is wrong, these scam artists using science are wrong, but the planet is right.

    What is your occupation? Please don’t say you are a scientist because that would be lying.

  • Bill Tilghman

    By the way, the only recent time that this kind of weather occurred, the jet stream was what brought the polar air mass down into the country. That was in the early 1980′s.

  • Bill Tilghman
  • Bill Tilghman

    Your ideas are from the 90′s. It figures. The people who author statements like the ones in your quotations are doing that to appear to be environmentally conscious. I doubt that there is a lot of effort expended on these projects since the bulk of the company’s work is anti-environment oriented. Of course the biggest polluters on the planet support these kinds of initiatives, it is a defensive maneuver to buy off people like Al Gore so they can stay in business.

  • Bill Tilghman

    No, denying outright self serving lies is truth.

  • Anonymous

    I was an engineer in industry for the first part of my career, then a technical director for an industry trade group. Then worked in business development for a start-up specialty chemical company, organized a management buyout, got ownership and ran the company until we sold it. Now own software and an electronics manufacturing company.

  • Anonymous

    I understand full-well the politics involved, but also witnessed first-hand opinions by experts and their decision to take a position. Like I say, legislation and industry is moving quickly toward lower carbon footprint products, which I do not view as a drag on the economy or society.

  • Anonymous

    Michael Schaus is a political activist and “Dr. Kevin Collins” is a right-wing blogger. Their bias interpretation of this study http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf is quite exaggerated. This article explores uncertainty and is published in the same journal that publishes many more articles that have high warming predictions. So, their research is worth consideration as well.

  • Anonymous

    Sorry, Landree, but claiming that it’s possible to control for all possible variables in a computer model of weather is laughable. How could someone who claims to be an engineer with “advanced degrees” not understand that? And, since climatology does not lend itself to affirmative, prospective, controlled studies, computer models are all they’re left with. And not a single model has been accurately predictive, ESPECIALLY when it comes to temperature predictions. None of them predicted the lack of warming for the last 17 years.
    So far as “hedging the risk of disaster,” there is no evidence that any of the ludicrous ideas that are being proposed would have the slightest effect on global temperatures. Hedging the risk means prevention of the growth of the economy, abject, brutal centralized control under the EPA, job loss, increased poverty and loss of freedom through policy and presidential fiat. That is not science, it’s not even rational. The US is one of the cleanest countries in the world, yet we are constantly hearing that everyone should be paying higher taxes and we should bankrupt the country’s economy even more in order to do something, even when there’s no evidence it will work.
    The global warming alarmists, while expecting everyone to live more simply, usually believe they are part of some elite Soviet Russian style nomenclatura, with access to all of the things that they would deny to everyone else by law. Take note that someone like Al Gore doesn’t bother limiting his carbon footprint. Like all liberals, so long as he says the right words, he can live as hypocritically as he likes, and he DOES. If he’s so terribly concerned about the way that everyone else lives, why isn’t HE living what he preaches? The only excuse I ever hear from him is that he’s “paying a carbon credit company” to offset his carbon footprint. But heck, that’s not hypocrisy, even when it’s revealed that he owns said carbon credit company and is using it as a profit-making tax write-off. Sorry, Landree, but these people are not believable and the science is lacking.

  • Anonymous

    True, the models are very complicated. Regardless, legislation and industry is moving quickly toward lower carbon footprint products, which I do not view as a drag on the economy or society.

  • Anonymous

    Uh huh…nice try, Landree, but unfortunately, you’re wrong yet again. I guess that Barack Obama’s poll numbers are actually skyrocketing too. Here’s a Gallup poll that tells the true story, and unlike the Guardian, which labels itself “the world’s leading liberal voice,” Gallup is actually taken seriously when they declare they’re impartial. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/22/how-americans-see-global-warming-in-8-charts/
    You’ve shown conclusively that you know nothing about this, Landree. You claim you have advanced degrees in engineering, but you don’t seem to understand at all that it is impossible to comprise all known and unknown variables in climate computer projections and that everyone should just trust that these scientists are performing earth shattering research that is “settled” and that we shouldn’t question either their motivation, their scientific methodology or their competency, even when their evidence turns out to be wrong, when some of the leading scientists in the field have been shown, on multiple occasions, to be colluding with reporters on presentation of data that has been altered to reflect the narrative while hiding those alterations.
    There’s so much wrong with the approach of these scientists and the liberal hysteria that has attempted, at every turn, to silence those who do not agree. Scientists who claim that their contentions are settled and should not be questioned and the willing fools who support them in this have elevated what should be scientific discussion to the level of religion, attacking anyone who disagrees as “deniers”. Does that sound scientific to you, or does it sound more like a religious zealot? I’ve been working in molecular labs since 1986 and I’ve been a physician since 1988. Never once, in any capacity, have I heard that word except from climate scientists and their political supporters. Now, it’s the buzz word of the democrat party and one of the constant talking points we hear. But, of course, it doesn’t occur to liberals to question why the government is so invested in seeing only one side of the science presented and feels that they must intervene whenever other scientists and the public become skeptical. After all, they’re just deniers. Good luck with that, Landree.

  • Anonymous

    You’re spiraling, Landree. You’re using a corporate mission statement from chemical companies as evidence now? I’m still laughing. Your credibility just keeps going lower and lower. What’s next…don’t tell me…you were the head of NASA, right?

  • Anonymous

    Thank you for that! Excellent word usage and right on the ultra liberal mantra. Denier! Denier! Denier!

  • Anonymous

    Only if it turns a profit, Landree, will it be developed. It’s good for PR, but there’s nothing viable on the foreseeable horizon that could remotely replace hydrocarbons.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve attended the meetings where corporate scientists deliberated their positions on climate change. Their decisions heavily considered the evidence.

  • Anonymous

    The Guardian simply reported on the Sanford University study. It’s been reported by lots of media, which I’m sure you’d try to discredit too. http://news.stanford.edu/news/

    Your Washington Post article actually support that people generally believe the evidence.

  • Anonymous

    I’m not persuaded by liberal generalizations. I state what I think. It makes no difference to me whether my opinions reflect a liberal viewpoint.

  • Anonymous

    And once again you prove that you understand very little about this subject. Those graphs indicate that people are listening to the evidence, but because of the hysteria that’s been expressed and the lack of true evidence, they are extremely skeptical. Regardless, Landree, I’m sure that the opinion of the average American carries more weight with you than actual science, but it doesn’t to me. I’ve actually read the science. You haven’t. The scientists that work for the petrochemical companies are not going to successfully argue unproven policy decisions that will negatively affect the price of the stock without being able to show a profit from the investment. If you think otherwise, you’re more naive than you already seem to be. When alternative energy becomes profitable, they’ll be on it. Until then, they are not a research laboratory funded by the government and the expenditure is covered by their investors. So… no profit, no clean energy. Period.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I remember when people said similar things about chloro-fluorocarbons, but their reduction resulted in a 20-year decline of ozone and repair to the hole in the atmosphere. And also when cities were covered with smog and legislation forced the use of catalytic converters. There is no call to eliminate hydrocarbons, but look around at the plethora of products available and in development working to reduce hydrocarbon consumption. Overall, products have become dramatically more efficient over the last decade and will continue to shape the future of our economy.

  • G26

    The story of man-made global warming is a story of science fiction. Other than measurements here and there, there’s nothing scientific about it.

  • Anonymous

    Your behind the times regarding clean energy. This sector is BIG business already. Many mulit-billion dollar US companies have invested in it from Silicone Valley capitalists to utilities to manufactures. Goldman Sachs is investing 40 billion in clean energy sector. There are currently 2.7 million jobs in the clean energy sector of the economy.

    I re-read your article in the Washington Post:

    1) No imminent threat – Of course many don’t think there’s an imminent threat in their lifetime. That doesn’t say these people don’t believe in global warming.

    2) Not the highest priority. No surprise people think of the economy and other problems that are obvious and immediate first. That still doesn’t say they don’t believe in global warming.

    3) Belief in global warming has been on the rise. This poll shows most people believe the earth is warming and more than half of them believe it’s due to human activity. Makes sense.

    4) Views today are more partisan than they once were. Every issue is more partisan than it once was! Even here, most say there is evidence of global warming.

    5) This pole reports scientist overwhelmingly say global warming is happening and it’s caused by human activity. The public is less certain, but most believe in global warming and more than half of them think it’s due to human activity.

    7) This pole shows most people make their decisions on money and politics. Duh.

    8) This poll states that large majorities across party lines said the government should regulate greenhouse gases.

    9) Again, this poll shows large majorities think greenhouse gasses should be regulated.

  • Anonymous

    Nope. Wrong again, Landree. There has been no effect on the fluctuations in the ozone layer, but nice try. The ozone hole at the Antarctic fluctuates by as much as 80% in any given year and it has nothing to do with chloro/fluorocarbons. Or is it your opinion that the developing countries of the world have shifted from chloro/fluorocarbons? They haven’t. And there has been no visible correlation to the devastating efforts of the US to shut down that industry.
    What are you reading that tells you that there’s no call to eliminate hydrocarbons? Ever hear of Solyndra? Hundreds of millions spent on “green technology”? That’s the tip of the iceberg. The president has placed a moratorium on drilling for oil in the gulf and in the Bering Sea, even revoking permits that had already been issued and sites in which over a billion dollars had been invested. What about the Keystone Pipeline project that the president refuses to allow to be built? We have more oil resources under this country than all of the middle eastern countries combined, but Obama refuses to allow us to decrease our footprint in the region by becoming completely energy independent. I don’t know what planet you’re living on, but your facts are anything BUT fact.

  • Anonymous

    Nice try, again, Landree, but I guess you’d have to actually understand the polls. You’re grasping at straws and you’re failing. The majority of the people in the US are concerned, but they do not believe that there is any imminent threat, certainly not enough to justify Obama acting like he’s a king who rules by edict and bypassing congress.
    You joined this discussion by claiming that it was already too late, remember? We’ve passed the point of no return and we’re in a state of emergency. Unfortunately, this is NOT factual data. There is absolutely NO BASIS for that kind of prediction. Not a single model can explain anything that’s going on. Americans are not reacting well to the new EPA regulations, either. The Obama administration is already in court trying to defend what is indefensible. If Obama’s executive orders are SOOOOO popular, why did Obama delay the implementation of the regulations until after the election? It wasn’t timing, It was because he knew people would react badly. Or do you dispute the internal memos that have now been obtained detailing the discussions between Obama’s senior staff?
    You do realize, don’t you, that these are the same geniuses that couldn’t even construct a simple website over 3.5 years and 600 million dollars who then (knowing full well what would happen), turned around and opened the exchanges, all the while denying that there were ANY problems with the website. They have no clue what makes healthcare run, yet, through devious maneuvering and cheating, passed a bill that was never voted on in the house. Remember Pelosi telling the House that they were not allowed to read the bill unless they passed it? Now, the EPA has implemented draconian measures to “reduce greenhouse gases”, all by executive fiat. Unfortunately, none of these measures was discussed and none of them are based on hardcore experimentation. Yet the rules will affect large swaths of the economy negatively, all without any evidence that they will remotely have ANY effect.
    Obama’s now implemented a global warming oversight panel that will carry the force of law to review all legislation and both change existing law based on their personal opinions about global warming, and recommend rejecting new laws that do not take into consideration, before all else, global warming. When does it stop? Or is it your opinion that it’s all right for Obama to unilaterally usurp constitutional protections in order to “save the planet”? If it’s so compelling, then why does he implement something that clearly is going to end up in front of federal judges and the high court because of his abuse of the separation of powers? And if you’re convinced that the evidence is so compelling, then are you willing to watch a conservative president use the same methods to undo all of the illegal measures that Barack Obama implemented during his presidency? Are you going to argue that because he/she won an election it’s their right and responsibility to bypass the law as if they were a despotic king? This has NOTHING to do with climate change. There is no compelling evidence that any of these measures will do anything but bankrupt the economy. But it has EVERYTHING to do with a megalomaniac seeking ever more power and control in every aspect of life. This is simply a convenient method that gives him time to consolidate his power base without having to explain anything because any negative effects of global warming are far into the future.

  • Anonymous

    The Montreal Protocal has reduced global production of CFCs and it’s proven that those chemicals depleted the ozone layer. http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/SAP/Scientific_Assessment_2010/02-Executive_Summary.pdf

    What legislation seeks to eliminate hydrocarbons? It’s such a preposterous notion. You’re focus on Solyndra demonstrates a short view on energy policy. Funny you think there’s these major impediments to energy production when the country is peaking in gas and oil shale production and is now one of the worlds largest refiners.

  • Anonymous

    You’re trying to put words in my mouth. I don’t know if it’s too late to affect global warming or not. I’ve read that it’s possible. You think new technologies lowering carbon footprint will bankrupt the country? Well, that certainly hasn’t been the case so far. Even Bush promised to reduce greenhouse gasses by 18 percent over 10 years.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Those legislative initiatives come from liberal aligned politicians, don’t they? They also contain some form of monetary punishment for the so called violators don’t they? It is a power and money grab disguised as an environmental protection issue, and you, you went for it hook, line and sinker!

  • Bill Tilghman

    Don’t tell me, let me guess – you live outside the United States, don’t you?

  • Anonymous

    Funny. You don’t know what you’re talking about. There was nothing to go for! Industry anticipated legislation in the 90s, but there would be none for nearly two decades. When I was involved with these meetings, there was awareness that industry would have to take a position, but the Clean Air Act did not include any regulation on greenhouse gasses. H Bush agreed to UN voluntary reduction of greenhouse gasses, but even by 1997, the US did not sign on to the Kyoto protocol. The EPA repeatedly refrained from amending the Clean Air Act even though it could argue its authority to do so as a matter of danger to public health. A fury of activity at the state level has driven this issue to action, not the Fed. It wasn’t until 2007 in Massachusetts v. EPA that there started to be movement at the Federal level.

  • Anonymous

    No.

  • Bill Tilghman

    “the Clean Air Act did not include any regulation on greenhouse gasses. ” There is a reason for that. The main component of what you call greenhouse gas is Co2, and that, despite your side’s efforts to declare it so is not toxic to any form of life on this planet at the levels which it is found in the atmosphere. Your “scientists” are panicking for no good reason. Do you know what the concentration of greenhouse gases is in the atmosphere? You should educate yourself. This entire issue was a main plank in Obama’s 2008 campaign, or did you miss that whole ocean levels lowering and planet healing speech he gave? You are wrong, you know you are wrong and your insisting on fiction over fact just shows you are hardwired by the liberal political insanity that rode this made up issue into office.

    We didn’t adopt the Kyoto Protocol for a reason, perhaps you should devote some energy into researching why the federal government decided to pass on that opportunity.

    Generally speaking, the US isn’t amenable to allowing foreign interests to supersede national sovereignty.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Then you should move, since you clearly don’t like it here.

    What is the matter with you anyway? Like your fellow liberals you ignore liberty and the reasons for it, and choose instead to disrupt and destroy the one free nation on this planet that has succeeded in keeping a representative republic going for more than 200 years. Instead, you want to plunge headlong into socialism which was in place in the Soviet Union for only 70 years before collapsing because the economic structure of socialism does not work. It also buoys up it’s flagging economic status not by increasing productivity and driving innovation and creativity to the market, but exerts a crushing burden of control upon the people, many of whom are imprisoned, made slaves to the state, or killed outright in an effort to reduce the number of mouths it has to feed. Socialism ends in misery for the people that are subjected to it. When are you people going to realize that for all of America’s faults, it is still leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the world?

    Of all the places on earth to tinker with, this one isn’t the one needing the most help.

    And global warming isn’t possible, nor is the recent cold weather episode due to it. The physics required to move that much air that far that fast cannot be explained by warming at the north pole. There is more ice at the poles now than there has been in years – NOAA confirms that.

    Your scam artists posing as scientists are not only lying to you, but they are lying to themselves. They got caught several years ago with that “hockey stick” chart and even admitted that the stats were manipulated to support the theory of the original paper that created the whole global warming myth in the first place. Top that with the fact that Al Gore championed the cause with the movie he financed “An Inconvenient Truth”, which relied heavily on that original flawed and debunked paper, and what have you got?

    You have a poorly built house of cards, that is what you have. Couple that with the actual weather stats for the last 50 years and you get no significant trend in global climate what so ever. None, zip, nada, IT IS A LIE – ACCEPT IT.

    Most people have, but there are a few loonies that still insist on this garbage. Is that what you are? A loonie?

    Apparently so.

  • Bill Tilghman

    There are plenty of people out there with university educations at different levels of accomplishment, and we can all say we know a few that can’t pour pee from a boot. Just because a person has a degree and some letters at the end of their name does not confer intelligence upon them. They paid tuition and sat in a classroom with a notebook long enough to get the paper certifying that accomplishment. Great. Now we have that out of the way, when these same people spout off the crap from their college professor’s lectures as if they were fact and incontrovertibly true, when that information goes against recorded stats and logic, they still want us to accept it as gospel.

    Just because they were gullible enough to be taken in does not mean we have to follow along with them. Most of us with a decent education can read, and we can see and hear enough of the goings on to determine whether the stuff they are saying has the ring of truth or the thud of bovine excrement. Global warming is not of the truth. Anyone who has been around four or more decades knows the truth.

    Can we be done with this lunacy – please?

  • Bill Tilghman

    Yes, I seem to recall that they declared the debate was over about the time AlGore’s stupid movie came out.

    He was trying to push his cap and trade scam in an effort to further enrich himself, but thankfully the Congress let that die the death it deserved. With this president it is possible that will make a comeback, and if it does we all need to be loud and clear that this is not going to be rammed down our throats the way the un Affordable Care Act was.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Okay what significant change in Ph has occurred in the oceans – we want the specifics, so don’t make vague statements – we demand proof!

    Can you tell us for the record the amount of Co2 change? How many parts per million of the atmosphere are carbon dioxide?

    Did you also know that many life forms in the seas need carbon dioxide to thrive? What do you suppose those life forms excrete after metabolizing the Co2?

    I doubt you understand the true dynamics in any of this. Typical eco idiot.

  • Bill Tilghman

    You probably should devote the rest of your life to studying this problem for the sake of mankind.

    Report back to us when you have finished.

  • Bill Tilghman

    The dude is still an idiot, no matter where he went to school. He wants to use population control to balance the earth too, or did you miss that part. If you are so enamored of him and his teachings, you should at least follow that directive of his.

    The man is a crackpot. Period. But if you like your crackpot, you can keep your crackpot.

  • Bill Tilghman

    There is nothing reasonable about killing off millions of people because we are harming the earth. That is another of Dr. Holdren’s beliefs.

  • Bill Tilghman

    How stubbornly stupid are you? This pseudo-science you keep touting has been shot down by real scientists and that was several years ago. Are you ever going to understand that you can’t sell this junk here? Nobody is buying it.

  • Bill Tilghman

    If this display is the result of your education you need to demand a full refund – you got taken to the cleaners!

  • Bill Tilghman

    So not only are you promoting this garbage but you are part of the problem! Wonderful!

    Did you know that the SUN causes the ozone hole? You must have slept through that class. There has always been a hole in the ozone layer, and there always will be – AND it fluctuates just like the global climate.

    For a smart guy, you aren’t.

  • Bill Tilghman

    When you can simulate the earth’s atmosphere accurately in a laboratory with all the constituents in proper proportions get back to us. Until then your experiments won’t mean jack because they won’t be duplicating the conditions of the natural environment.

  • Bill Tilghman

    How about selling that crap to the Russians, Chinese and India – they are the world’s leading polluters when it comes to hydrocarbons, and they don’t do a thing about it. When you can get them to comply get back to us – we have been doing it for forty years, (controlling industrial air pollution), but you still expect the USA to shoulder the burden.

  • Bill Tilghman

    You must have a never ending landfill of useless junk science! You also don’t know scratch about the petroleum production business. If you did you would know that no new refining capacity has been built here for decades, and in fact much of what we had thirty years ago is gone and the rest is out of date.

    Thank your President for that – he’s dead set on killing the fossil fuel business despite the fact that our economy and industrial base depends on it.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Bravo sir! Well stated indeed!

  • Bill Tilghman

    It is patently obvious that you haven’t got a clue beyond what the popular liberal progressive spin is on the subject.

  • Anonymous

    The Milky Was is also speeding towards the Andromeda Galaxy and the Sun will be expanding eventually engulfing the Earth or vaporizing everything on the surface. So now we can add “Galaxial Change” and “Solar Change” to the ever-growing, ever-changing list.
    Hmm…. “List Change”…

    The liberals are trying to sell us the idea of buying and selling air, next will be buying and selling water. Ice could be considered “stored water” so maybe they can regulate the ice futures and sell ice to the native North Americans.

    Then, of course, the biggie: “Population change”. Buying and selling of baby credits, turning life expectancy into purchasable blocks which one can sell or trade or accumulate.

    Maybe the liberals do want a world like sci-fi “Logan’s Run”.

    Crazy.

  • Anonymous

    I’m not aware of a cap and trade regulation for CO2. There are cap and trade programs for SO2 and NOx emissions. I know there was a bill shot down in 2009 for CO2. Are you aware of cap and trade regulation for CO2 that passed? Yes, I know the reasons we didn’t sign the Kyoto protocol.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    You see numb nuts every time scince and a government stands in lock step nine times out of ten someone is going to die or lose their homes business jobs but please be willfully ignorant about how scientist playing politics is a bad thing. Just like Nazi Germany and the eugenics programs which this guy who you are defending is all for.

  • Anonymous

    What do you mean? I wouldn’t live anywhere else in world! Capitalism is what’s made my companies successful. I don’t equate confronting environmental issues to socialism.

  • Anonymous

    Not that interested. I like creating products and selling them.

  • Anonymous

    This global warming story has been setting around like a warm bottle of piss, sorry, I couldn’t resist, its just your reference – emptying the content of the boot – struck a funny thought of something my so-southern brother-in-law recited a few years back.

  • Anonymous

    As do the global warming theorists – they like creating products and selling them too…hows your business coming along?

  • Anonymous

    I’m not enamored with Holdren. He’s just one of the majority of scientists that are concerned about climate change.

  • Anonymous

    I doubt Holdren thinks millions of people should be killed. Those kinds of statements make you sound like an exaggerator. Holdren may have made the point that overpopulation may pollute our environment and threaten humanity, but everybody knows that.

  • Anonymous

    I’m not selling anything. People have been telling me what they think or asking me what I think. I could give a rat’s butt if you agree with me. This issue will progress regardless of what you think because, like I said, it’s being pushed by the states and it’s now coming to a head. States are demanding regulation that forces lower carbon technologies.

  • Anonymous

    Really? I think my education has served me pretty well. I’ve had a rewarding career and am enjoying being an entrepreneur.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, I know the hole fluctuates and that there are natural ozone depletors.

  • Anonymous

    So you’re up and about this fine Sunday morning and now more information is being revealed about you – by you, that’s a good thing by the way. I want to add something to my former reply to your post where you describe prophecy as being a result of a string of conclusions based on actual events, claiming that is not prophecy.

    What you describe can be attributed to all self-proclaimed-prophets – but not to Gods prophets. For instance, Nostradamus saw visions…but even the man did not understand them, sure, he wrote them down, they may even be a semi-accurate record of actual events …but as you correctly point out – “what good are they to mankind after the fact?”

    Biblical prophets are precise and point out actual future events, but as I stated – It all boils down to understanding nations as God sees nations, and where these people are today. There is also an “end time” account described in scripture and it is up to the reader to understand where we are in present biblical history -if you will, for prophecy is history written in advance.

  • Anonymous

    I’ll leave those experiments to the experts.

  • Anonymous

    Next to China, the US leads the world in CO2 emissions. China’s pollution spiked and their government have taken huge investments in wind and solar. They’re the wrold leaders in solar manufacturing. China is slowing their growth of CO2 with heavy investments in renewables.

  • Anonymous

    Really? You apparently just make this stuff up, don’t you. What about the refinery built in 2008 in Douglas, Wyoming? How about the two new refineries being built now by Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma, LLC and Hyperion Energy Center? There have been numerous articles about high US oil production in the news like this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/business/international/global-coal-use-predicted-to-keep-growing.html

  • Anonymous

    I say what I think. I don’t care if my opinion reflects liberal generalizations.

  • Anonymous

    You know, your statement is just the kind of false statements that Beck would promote. Nowhere in Holdren’s book does he advocate eugenics or abortions. Holdren’s book suggests terrible possible outcomes of extreme overpopulation. Your assertion is “pants on fire” misinformation.

  • Anonymous

    Global warming scientist are making products? You mean their reports? With no regulation at all, companies have been making huge strides in energy efficient products if that’s what you mean.

  • Anonymous

    Why do you suppose God made the Bible so subjective to understand where we are in its predictions?

  • B D

    Here it is Bill. The difference between me and people like you is that I follow facts, evidence and reason rather than confine myself to an ideology and then only accept ideas that support that ideology. Uneducated showbiz media mouths like that buffoon Glenn Beck cling to a set of beliefs and then ignore any truthful information that doesn’t fit those beliefs.

    BTW, you can use Google yourself and search the phrase “oceans are acidifying” and get the same results I got. If spelling is a challenge for you, copy and paste the phrase I just provided. Good luck Bill.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/31/the-oceans-are-acidifying-at-the-fastest-rate-in-300-million-years-how-worried-should-we-be/

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-oceans-acidifying-fastest-in-300m-years/

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24904143

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9115699/Oceans-acidifying-at-unparalleled-rate.html

  • Anonymous

    No that’s not what I mean, actually, it was aimed more toward the sarcastic direction, meaning, their (global warming theorists) products are empty words with unsubstantiated scientific backup, leaving them with an empty theory they readily ‘sell off as truth.

  • B D

    Your personality disorder is rearing its ugly head again ZERO. There’s help for people like you. Did you sign up for Obamacare yet? That should help cover the costs. Good luck.

  • B D
  • B D

    It’s really not about Liberal VS conservative. The oceans are acidifying. Read up: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9115699/Oceans-acidifying-at-unparalleled-rate.html

  • Anonymous

    Now you’re pissing off your own base, Mrs Pelosi is trying her best, refraining from calling “National Health Care’ – Or, the “Affordable Healthcare Act” excuse me, which is not healthcare at all, and No, it is not affordable and yes, it is the latest bad-act of the Obama Administration.

  • B D

    And what causes the jet stream to move? Are you a climatologist? Of course not. But climatologists are seeing evidence that the oceans are acidifying because of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. There’s not denying it.

    https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=oceans+are+acidifying&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=

  • B D

    I never supported Obamacare numbnuts. But I understand how you lemmings think. If anyone strays outside the strict Iron Curtain that encloses you ideological beliefs, you under-educated buffoons instantly brand them as an “Obama worshiping librul.” So now that your prophet Glenn Beck supports gay marriage and stands with GLAAD, I suppose he’s a “librul” too huh? Smarten up and think for a change.

  • Anonymous

    Well, there are an awful lot of experts that concur with global warming theory. It’s improbable that they’re all either in on a conspiracy or being fooled.

  • Anonymous

    So Beck is a liberal now, because he defends freedom of speech, something by the way, seems to be frowned upon here in the States. Well, that is, if you don’t follow the progressive liberal masters who’s theoretic propaganda machine runs faster than, and produces more pulp than Americas printing of bogus dollar bills, you mean that one? .

  • B D

    I’m literally laughing at this comment of yours right now. So you’re a young earth creationist huh? WOW! Here’s an extinct flower that is 100,000,000 years old. It’s trapped in amber, as many other extinct plants and insects have been. The science we have overwhelmingly demonstrates that the earth is billions of years old. You beliefs are simply delusional.

    http://www.ibtimes.com/100-million-year-old-amber-fossil-preserves-ancient-flowers-caught-middle-sexual-reproduction

    https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=oceans+are+acidifying&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=#as_qdr=all&hl=en&lr=&q=flower+trapped+in+amber

  • B D

    You don’t even make any sense. Why do I even bother with people like you? If I passed you on the street, I’d put a coin in your cup and just keep walking. You’re your own worst enemy. Enjoy your misery and your delusions.

  • Anonymous

    Your laughing, exploits your ignorance. “Young Earth Theory?” well if what I claim as fact – that the earth is millions of years old – how on earth does that make it young or by the way, me wrong?

    And you liberals call we conservatives – “flat earthers”, making the idiomatic presumption that all religions are the same. By the way – One God – One Gospel, not many – in fact understand that fact – all but one get it wrong, so I don’t necessarily place or include me within the lot, because of this ungodly ignorance in the religious realm, all your ignorance can’t be placed on your head alone, if the religious community got their story straight, we wouldn’t be in the mess were in today.

  • Anonymous

    My take would be the latter of the two. Actually God makes the bold claim (through prophecy) that the sever weather witnessed and occurring throughout the world, at at frightening pace, is a direct sign of the return of Christ. I will say, that the scientists do have their finger on something, we certainly are experiencing global climactic weather – but they do not understand the source.

  • Anonymous

    Why do you bother, because I think deep down inside you know you’re wrong, and your hoping against hope that someone just may come along and explain things to you in the right way, you know – with facts.

  • B D

    Your delusions are your burden to bear ZERO. Not mine. I stand with the facts and people who think like you are nowhere in sight.

  • B D

    There’s no evidence that supernatural world ancient bronze age men imagined is real. There never was.

  • Anonymous

    Now that we can agree on. I’m not in the average “swallow what other men tell me group”, just for the sake of felling like I belong. Nope, I instead, prove things for myself, so far, although there is scientific data backing up weather disturbances around the globe, it cannot, nor should it be attributed to ‘global warming’ – the data does not bear out the facts. But what the data does show, is biblical prophecy is a living entity because it is Gods own perfect word coming to life.

    What we are experiencing are the signs of the times that would be found on earth just prior to Christs return.

  • B D

    Wrong. Again.

  • Anonymous

    There always has been, but (and I totally agree with God) men are simply to stubborn to prove out the facts for themselves…its much easier latching hold to unproven theory and going about the business of arguing for countless hours, than it is, to place ones mind where it ought to be, and that is taking the necessary time and proving the existence of our creator, like he himself strongly indicates we must.

  • Anonymous

    Tell Christ that when he soon returns, I’m certain you’ll have your chance to stand in front of him to explain your theory that he, in fact, does not exist, boy would I like to be a fly on the wall then, hey, who knows, I might even get the chance to show you a few things at that time…think of it this way…you’re the student and I’m your professor, isn’t it great.

  • Anonymous

    Sorry, I missed this post, I got busy with another fellow and didn’t see this until – well, lets put it this way, the wife wants me to feed the cats and the dogs have to relive themselves. PLEASE STAND BY…I’ll get back w/ya ASAP

  • Anonymous

    So the oceans are acidifying and at a rate that alarms scientists. Acid rain. “Oceanic Change”. Perhaps we should be concerned as well. But that’s where the science stops. They go on to hypothesize that CO2 emissions through human action may be the cause. There are plenty of natural sources of “greenhouse” gases both above and below water that can be a major contributor.

  • Anonymous

    There’s never a dull moment around here, my wife and I own and operate an Adult Foster Care facility and just when you think you can steal away a moment, well, there’s the obvious.*&^%^??)(*&^^%

    Anyway, I was looking forward to the topic at hand, for I realize and possibly, more than most, that in order for the differences of ideas to be made right, both sides of any issue must be given ample time to present their argument – otherwise, debate comes to a standstill and nothing is/was solved…so with that thought in mind, bear with me while I give an account and in order for me to do so – lets face it, the topic at hand has never easy, even for those even in the religious community to agree on. First, I must give some background, otherwise, much of what I present is lost in confusion.

    The bible is a book about Israel. God calls himself their God…thus, “the God of Israel. Other nations are mentioned only as Israel comes into contact with them or the reverse happens. Logical so far right, proof of that can be gleaned from casual reading. From what you discuss, you are fairly familiar with the subject and with the flow of events and that sir. is a plus. What else may be a benefit to you, if I’m reading you correctly, is you became frustrated by what your teachers were teaching, or actually not teaching may be a more accurate description.

    This nation (Israel) was put together and built by God himself. He called this tiny upstart, fledgling nation, the nation of Israel. He had something in mind for these people and that, was a job of teaching the world about Him (who he was) and why he created mankind in the first place, in other words – what is our spirit transcendent purpose. It doesn’t take much for even the casual reader to discover that this people – (whom God had chosen to do a job) didn’t quite own up to their side of the bargain. Biblical history shows the abundant patience that the Eternal God had with these people. Time and time again, they turned their back on him, to the point that they would much rather be like the nations around them and have a man rule over them. Up until that time though, God was seen by night as a pillar of smoke, and by day, a whirling cyclonic brilliant burning flame.

    Of course this information is easily assessable for anyone willing to look. Afterwards within a short time, the Israelite people got their wish. They received the go-ahead to have their human king and God politely stepped in the background. Nothing changed of these peoples godly-task though , they were still expected to teach the knowledge of God to the other nations of the world. It seems though, that they got caught up wanting more of what the other nations had and eventually, the desire became too strong. Over the years God allowed this defiance to go on, with hope that these people would return to him at some point , instead, the kings they selected for themselves, taxed them increasingly and the nation eventually become divided between political parties. Now, the biblical story for the first time records a second nation stemming from the very same people. This new division caused the people of Israel to further slide away from God. The Northern ten tribes, or otherwise known as the “kingdom of Israel” (for they retained their name) was found at war with this newer nation now referring to themselves as the “nation or kingdom of Judea, or Judah”. Either way one says it – these people were made up of primarily the Jewish ancestor, there were two other tribes who were in their midst, but suffice it to say, the main bulk of the population was overwhelmingly Jewish.

    Now, and I understand that this may be lengthy, but please hang in there, I will answer your question to the best of my ability, but now notice, there came a new foe on the scene, who added their military strength aiding the Jewish nation…enter Assyria. The Assyrians actually took over and defeated the northern tribes in 721 BC. These Israelite people where reduced to nothing and swiftly removed from their lands – as slave labor for the mighty Assyrian juggernaut. They became lost to the world. About one hundred and forty years later, the Babylonians rose up and defeated the Jewish people, and the nation of Judea themselves were also carried away as slaves. A historical note must be inserted here, having important meaning, for this is where most professing Christians jump off track in their thinking. This same Babylonian Empire and at the same time they defeated the Jews, also made war with the Assyrian nation and defeated them, the Assyrians along with their slaves (Israel) headed north to flee from the onslaught of this mighty Babylonian power. As I said, the Israeli people had been part of Assyrian society at this juncture, for hundreds of years – even if only slaves – they fled north with them. The Assyrians, eventually settled where Germany is today, but the former slave population continued north and east – (to save space and time here – this story can be picked up by secular history and here-a-little there-a-little throughout the bible) A thorough study exposes more facts, one in particular important one is that God set a time limit for the people of Israel to be in captivity. But that is a study in and of itself, like I said, I’ll save space and leave that subject for another time.

    With the above in mind, the biblical student must realize the books of prophecy, scattered in both old and new testaments, were written on behalf of God to the nation of Israel…mark well that point…it was Israel and not Judah, who were the majority recipients of biblical prophecy writings were addressed…and this is a major key in understanding – when the prophets wrote the books, the people of Israel had already been subjected to punishment and captivity by God. They were gone and hidden from sight That means the Israeli’s had no idea what was being said, how could they, lets face it, radio and mass communications, like we are so familiar today, were non existent. Transportation did not exist, keeping the written prophecy from going anywhere especially to these “lost sheep” as the bible often refers to them as and then, one must also take into consideration, that many of the prophets, themselves, were in prison at the time of their writings exposing the fact that these prophetic books were written for a future day and age…a day when Israel was no longer held a captive people – a day when there would be ample time to educate themselves as to who they really were/are and to take action to do something, so nothing like their past history would ever be repeated. A great majority of the bible books place prophecy for “the end days” or “the last days”. Israel is also known by God as Jacob…with whom (the man Jacob) God changed his name to Israel, for it is his Jacob/Israel descendants that rightfully make up the nation of Israel. Additional themes to the later day prophetic writings are discovered when the observer comes across scripture that reads “in the time of trouble” or “day of Israels trouble” or “Jacobs trouble” it all refers to the same exact future time frame. There is only one day of trouble that is so bad that Christ himself must intervene to stop it. That is what most latter day prophecy is talking about – the greatest day of trouble ever recorded.

    One more major key to understand the bible is…the reader must rely on the bible to interpret itself…men always have a way of adding their own personal touch, which has led to mass confusion, or, flat out ignorance the world over, this self made gospel has in turn, led many sincere people away from God never to look back and who can blame them – after all, there is supposedly only one God, but yet, the world has over 6000 differing religions expressed from degree or another. So how to weed through all the religious confusion and get it right, I could say “just see things my may and you’re good to go” but then, you’d be following a man. The thing God wants from us stubborn souls, is to “prove him at his word” in other words, do some homework of our own and see if the things that men teach, match up with what the bible clearly states.

    Let me give you an easy example. again and because the subject carries such responsibility, this will end in as brief amount of space as I can possibly use.

    In the book of Daniel, king Nebuchadnezzar had a dream, Daniel was called before the king to explain it, for the kings assistants could not, even Daniel himself told the king, that of himself, he could not interpret this dream, but he said, “there is a God in Heaven who will interpret your dream. And, that is precisely what happened, the reader who is now casually skimming through the book of Daniel will come to find out for himself, that the verses that follow, explain what the dream meant and who the players were. The king of Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar) was told that he was the head of this giant statue, by the way, secular history provides for us a matching account – Nebuchadnezzar, was the first world ruling emperor and the following depiction of the dream – what it foretells, it was a succession of world ruling governments starting with Babylon, then Persia, followed by Greek/Macedonia and then, the last would be Rome and all its successions including the Holy Roman period. Although I’m getting ahead of myself now and will leave this post before it turns into a book.

    The main thing is this and what I’m getting at is, is the bible clearly explains itself. Sure, each of us need the guidance of someone at some particular time, who understands, to move us along and get us on our way, but once the general information is in place in our head – such as the identity of nations, then, reading scripture pertaining prophetic words, not only becomes relatively easy, it becomes a great joy, because now, the mystery of the bible is solved, What has been right there, in front of our eyes (but yet hidden from view) is now understandable. If you have made it through this post and have gotten this far, that means you haven’t completely lost interest, if you’re curious for more info, then I’ll give more proof where we (our people) can be found and what it says about us and our immediate future…I’ll even try to make it brief………but don’t hold me to that….Z

  • Anonymous

    You’ve obviously thought deeply about these meanings. I still don’t understand why God would make the Bible ambiguous about when events relevant to our life will occur. There have been so many failed predictions by people based on their interpretation of the Bible.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    No I think you are covering for him. Also I notice you completely ignore the fact that science has been used to do evil things that cannot be back up by science and so yet another made up science. global warming to try to push politics on people. You liberals claim to care about the poor but yet want to take millions of jobs away to save the earth based on lies.

  • Anonymous

    Is Politifact is covering for Holdren too? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/

    Do you think CFC, SO2 and NOx regulations were based on junk science too? If you say yes, you’ll prove your psychosis.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Good to know you have the courage of your convictions, even if we don’t agree. Many nowdays can’t manage that.

  • Anonymous

    The failed predictions come from people who think they know more than God, especially when it boils down to biblical content. That problem, essentially, has always been with us, as I described above, the ancient Israelis, thought they knew more than God did too and we see where they ended up. The very fact that thousands of years ago, writings were given to mankind forecasting future events was a job – the only job – that ancient Israel was meant to perform. This knowledge, if Israel had performed their duty, by this late date, would be understood the world over. The unfortunate truth is, even Jesus Christ came to earth 721 years after Israel was thrust into national captivity. He brought with him a message of understanding, which also would have shed light on the mas-religious-confusion of his time, he was promptly put to death by a disbelieving evil world and once again, the truth of God was suppressed

    Now, today, when the nation of Israel is free from human bondage and the simple truth explaining their true identity has been made known, they have placed it on the back burner, in large, due to a growing counterfeit Christianity and the marvels of what technological advancement has given mankind – self entertainment on scale and such a high level, that there remains little or no time left in the day, for one to delve deep into the subject of an unseen God. Its one thing for people to make the claim that they are religious…its quite another to be religious. I think God addresses them as hypocrites.

    Actually, as I stated in an earlier post, God is far ahead of mankind, especially when it comes to brains and common sense, He realized, long before Christ was put to death, that the true message of the gospel would not go out unto the world, because of a growing “wrong interpretation” of what Christianity is. So even before his death, Christ gave a prophecy of his own, saying, “in the time of the end, he would raise up a man to “restore all things” – meaning, life saving information, that had been lost over the past two thousand years from the time of Christ – down to our day, he said it would be restored, or made known, not only that, but, also further understanding which had never before been revealed or understood added to the old knowledge that was never understood – even by the prophetic writers themselves – all this would be revealed to mankind, or opened up to understanding. For instance, look at the last (very small) chapter of the Book of Daniel, he writes in his closing of his own book – that “he did not understand the meaning of these things” – meaning, the things that God had him jot down in that book – God told him, “Go your way Daniel, for you shall rest in your grave, the words you have written will not be made known for many days to come – even to the time of the end”

    So in general – God has been trying to get his message across to mankind ever since we’ve been on the planet. If we would have taken notice – a major understanding of the prophetic writings would be common place – but, for the one who understands what Gods truth or gospel is, IF – long ago, or even this very day – men would have turned to God and lived by his standard, then there would be no need for a prophet….the only reason prophets were introduced in the first place, was as a deterrent for mankind to change his path. The world has only known war. and that frightening reality is growing more dangerous by the day. So with that, a prophet will continue to be used to warn us of our ways, to turn us to God. Have you ever wondered why so few understood God when he walked the earth, I mean, there were utterly millions who believed he was indeed the Christ, the very son of God, they just simply refused to believe what he said. They believed in him, but they didn’t believe him…they didn’t listen to his words. Our world is no different today – if anything, we are more stubborn than they were.

    Now to add something even more baffling to the equation – and its a direct result of this ongoing stubborn heart found in man, God decided, that he will not at this time, call all men to his truth…so contrary to what most professing Christians teach, God is not trying to save mankind in this day and age. Because of this ongoing stiff-hearted stubbornness God is only willing to work with the very few , the ones who are willing to prove him at his word and take the necessary steps and time to learn how to change and to be trained for the soon coming future job of “teaching the mass brunt of all mankind” – that simple truth has been availible for thousands of years. This is not the day of judgement, as many religious organizations would have us believe, they are wrong – dead wrong, the day of Judgement for the overwhelming masses, all men ever created, will occur after a thousand year reign when Christ himself sits on the throne of the earth and his saints – those humans who in their human lifetimes sifted through all the white noise and discovered the simple truth that really does set men free – they listened and learned to obey the peaceful words of God and have made themselves ready to help him rule the world to come..

  • Bill Tilghman

    Those are new and exceptions to the last 40 years of decline in the industry – I know what I am talking about here, I came from the heart of oil country, and know many people who have worked in the field. The town I grew up in had a refinery, but in the 1980 oil bust it went toes up and is now a fenced in, weed infested concrete slab that covers 100 acres. The whole place including the storage tanks and all the works was scrapped. That place employed over a thousand people, not to mention what their jobs did in sustaining the community. It has not been the same since. At one point the population was 38,000 when I was growing up there and reached 50,000 before the bust, and now it is barely 40,000 after 30 years of decline.

    When the oil business fell apart in that town, so went most of the affluence.

    Oil production isn’t merely refining, it is also the well production that the current administration has done all it can to stop. The Obama administration is choking our economy for the sake of politics, and that is the biggest impediment to the US economic recovery.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Your stats are incorrect, but even if they were, industrial production creating Co2 emissions are insignificant in the makeup of the atmosphere. At best, Co2 amounts to 400 parts per million in the atmosphere,
    and besides, have you ever seen the industially developed part of China? It looks like the Pittsburgh of the 1950′s. The fact is that the US has cleaned up industrial emissions more than any other nation on earth, but I fully expect you to dispute that.

  • Bill Tilghman

    It would be nice if the experts didn’t rely on government funding to pay for them. The experts write the applications for research grants and it is a big selling job to the federal government – in which they have been caught lying about the true nature of the situation or subject they are basing their work on.

    Remember the hockey stick graph? It was admitted they fudged the numbers to create that so they could receive funding.

    When these people stop lying and playing politics with their science I will start trusting them. Until then, I have no respect for them or their findings – which seem very self-serving.

  • Bill Tilghman

    How large of a volume of space does 100,000 ozone molecules occupy, Mr. Bean?

  • Anonymous

    Z, I appreciate you sharing your beliefs. I’ll admit, after 12 year growing up as a devout Catholic, I came to understand the peace and commitment my Priests and Bishop shared in Christ, but my scientific mind is satisfied by natural laws I can understand. I hope if there’s a God that made my brain that way, he’d be proud. Thanks.

  • Bill Tilghman

    So you are just as involved personally in the global warming scam as the charlatans who proposed it in the first place? What a dubious distinction.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t understand your accusation. My companies write software and manufacture electronics. How does that involve me in some sort of scam? I’m an honest businessman.

  • Bill Tilghman

    It is people like you who are forcing your junk science point of view and promoting it over and above it’s true relevance that is the problem. In fact, since much of it is manipulated and therefore based on lies, I’d say the problem you create by shilling for it is greater than the actual threat to the planet.

    Even if we were in such dire straits, what can we do to stop the next ice age from occurring or for that matter the next large storm from being destructive? That is a position I have seen people on your side of this take and make claims that are patently ridiculous. Nothing mankind has yet devised can stop the force of nature, but you guys sure will blame us for making it happen. That is the chief problem with all the hysteria surrounding global warming alarmists and their agenda of fear mongering. Even if it were true, the dynamics of the global atmosphere are beyond our ability to influence, much less control.

    It is madness to believe otherwise. We simply don’t have the ability to do anything about the weather or it’s effects on the planet or the people. We can build shelters to protect us, but that is hardly up to the aims of your anthropogenic global climate change science – it is really all about money and nothing more.

  • Bill Tilghman

    The man spoke out in favor of reducing the population, and he’s been known to support eugenics. Another poster even mentioned that in a post to you earlier in this thread – or did you selectively miss that?

  • Bill Tilghman

    There is no majority of scientists that support that theory anymore – two years ago that was debunked by REAL scientists and if you missed it, you need to update your research. Doing otherwise and maintaining this fraud is simply intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind – you are willfully promoting a scam.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Absolutely! I am guilty as charged – grew up in the southwest, so what can I say?

    I thought it might at least inject some levity into this inane discussion of mythology turned franken-science.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Your product is defective and needs to be redesigned from the ground up or better yet scrapped entirely. The reality of the situation contradicts the efficacy of that which you are manufacturing.

  • Bill Tilghman

    You aren’t confronting environmental issues, you are fabricating them from wholecloth, and your global climate change boogie man “movement” is socialist in every sense of the word.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Exactly! And to top it off, we cannot do a damned thing about any of it. I would be impressed if they could actually do something to stop the next weather event, but we simply don’t have the power for that. It makes me question their motives, if not for the sake of taking money from people, what do they hope to accomplish?

    I see all sorts of wildlife, nature, and other outdoor shows all the time on TV and they aren’t having to wade through toxic pools and have a hard time finding healthy living creatures of all kinds doing well in the woods, streams, rivers and oceans all over the world. So what exactly is the problem?

    It is just so much liberal nonsense whipped up into a hysterical maelstrom. They use it as a means of exerting and accumulating power to control other people’s lives and take money from them as far as I can tell.

  • Bill Tilghman

    You are supporting one of the biggest all time scams in human history. How could you miss that?

  • Anonymous

    Your honesty in who you are, will bear good witness, at least you’re not claiming to be anything different, unlike, and unfortunately, the millions of professing Christians around the world who say they walk with God, but their daily lives speak different.

    You do realize, that God made your brilliant scientific mind and he has a purpose for mankind to eventually infiltrate the endless universe, with a mind such as yours – what are the possibilities for your future?

    I will say one thing that no other religion dare teach – and afterwards you may think I’m nuts, (you may already think I’m nuts…you wouldn’t be the first) but, God and the Word were the only two beings in existence…that is pre-history. God wanted to share that existence…his existence, with other creatures, beings who could be trusted, worthy and reliable. So he created the angels – all of them – and in their sight, he created the vast expansive universe – the book of kings describes how they were in awe of his creative genius and ability – he wanted to give this newly created physical universe, over to the angels to be inhabited by them, but as stated above, he had to know with 100% certainty – if they could be trusted to do the job of beautifying and placing the finishing touches on that which was just created, without turning on him…kind of like the Frankenstein story…but in real life, turns out, God made a deal with one-third of this angles, they were to be placed on earth as a test of their character, biblical history illiterates their miserable failure. So God, being God…All Wise, and also, unannounced to the angels, had a backup plan, many do not believe this account, but even the machines of men sometime have multiple backup plans(NASA), so God is no different in his science, he simply works with spiritual minds, instead of physical matter. Anyway, after the failure of the angels to be trustworthy, God realized that there would only be one ‘being, that could be counted on, to never sin (as He terms the phrase) So believe it or not, what the angels failed to do, God is working out in man. He is re-creating himself through mankind – do you grasp what that means…I mean, think about that comment for a moment. If that is the truth and indeed it is, it means our human potential is to become God Beings Ourselves…of course only sons but we will be a little higher than the angels and they were created absolutely perfect in all ways, having brilliant minds far superior to that of man. Now consider for a moment, the scientific mind in you. You’re a man with a masters degree, a bachelors degree in your field, now think what your mind could conceive and achieve with an ability a million times greater than what it is capable of today. Now what are the uses in which God can put your talent to use, instead of studying the stars – you’ll be creating them.

    Anyway, just something to get you thinking…Z

  • Anonymous

    You’ve coined a new phrase… “franken-science” I like that…

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    With liberal anti-logic glasses.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    Politifacts really that left wing propaganda. The same web site that claimed that you can keep your doctor was a big fat lie than a year later said the opposite. You really think I would trust these idiots that cannot not tell the difference between their butt holes and a hole in the ground. I think the only one with psychosis is you Mr. Bean.

  • Anonymous

    There’s about a five one hundredths of a kilogram per mole of ozone and it has a density of about 2.14 kilograms per cubic meter. A hundred thousand molecules would be about 1.4E-20 cubic meters. Why?

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    Love skillet.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    Well you do make the most moronic statements.

  • Anonymous

    Oh right, of course Politifact is propaganda, an organization that won nine Pulitzer Prizes. Let me ask you something, do you think it’s propaganda when Politifact calls Obama or Pelosi out for non-truths?

  • Anonymous

    slkgej6 claimed to know my education, to which I expressed surprise that he understood so much about me without knowing me. Explain how my reaction to such insights is moronic?

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    Pulitzer Prizes really that left winged club of elitist reporters. Please the lied more to cover their Obama and Pelosi’s rears more times than threw them under the bus. In fact Politilie has been caught lying so many times in the past five years it is laughable that any thinking human beings still think they are trustworthy. They might as well give themselves a pants on fire rating for 90% of what the report and the other 10% are for sheeps like you to point out that they go after the other side of the isle when in reality they are Obama cheerleaders. But that is liberalism for you belive the liars and not evidence just like Global warming.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    Just your statements in general reek of someone who is uneducated.

  • Anonymous

    Right…and all of the distinguished Pulitzer judges are in on the propaganda too. Boy, this leftist conspiracy just seems to be everywhere, doesn’t it. The scientists, the universities, the media, the government. Do you ever feel like it’s you against the world?

  • Anonymous

    Then you have the wrong impression of my statements since I have two advanced degrees.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have any junk science. I’ve only formed an opinion on what I think is reasonable. Opinions on the degree to which CO2 levels can be lowered varies, but there’s reason to believe lowering those levels can help.

  • Anonymous

    Nonsense. Holdren speculated on possible outcomes of overpopulation. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/glenn-beck/

  • Anonymous

    I’m not promoting anything. I’m simple stating an opinion of what I think is reasonable.

  • Anonymous

    What products are you referring to?

  • Anonymous

    You keep accusing me of being some sort of activist. I’m one guy with an opinion. Who cares.

  • Anonymous

    I doubt my opinion will have much impact on policy.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    In B.S.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    No just against morons like you that live in the dark about everything.

  • Anonymous

    Why do you Beck fans inevitably stoop to name-calling? Do you feel empowered? There is a consistency. Interesting.

  • Anonymous

    Not a clever enough response to be funny.

  • Anonymous

    I think people would be better served if we let the Earth take care of itself. As stewards of the Earth we can do our part to not waste resources and not create too much waste, but as residents of the Earth we’re supposed to be here — we’re part of it all. Stopping the changes described previously would be unnatural and the means by how the “goal” is achieved even worse. The “change” proponents can’t do anything about these changes. All they have to do is convince enough people in the short-term that there is a perceived change. At that point, through clever and convincing propaganda, personal fortunes will be made and lost and all of the above still continues and will happen to the Earth unless there is “Earth Extinction Impact Change”.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    I call it how I see it. It is called honesty try it some time.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    Yup two master degrees in B.S. I watched Al Gore’s movie by the way based on this so called science that you liberals claim is fool proof gospel truth. Tell me if they are telling the truth as you claim than how come the polar ice caps are growing instead of disappearing? In fact in Al Gore’s movie by now the polar ice caps are supposed to be a thing of the past but clearly by the evidence below my post that is simply not true. Why do you liberals support the vulture capitalism of global warming clearly none of it is based in science but lies?

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    The odd thing is.
    percentage of liberals in media 70%
    percentage of liberals in science 80%
    percentage of liberals in government 60%
    It feels like you liberals just don’t like the fact that you liberals are now the man.

  • Anonymous

    Where do you get your statistics that polar ice? NASA takes satellite imagery of this. The National Snow and Ice data center monitors this daily. And I’ve seen numerous news stories that the ice is going away faster than ever, like this one http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/29/15518574-antarctica-greenland-ice-definitely-melting-into-sea-and-speeding-up-experts-warn?lite

  • Anonymous

    Where do you get your statistics on liberals in all these fields? First, I don’t consider myself a liberal since I disagree with so many liberal generalizations. I believe academia leans left, just like the military, sports and clergy leans right, but not because of bias or discrimination. It leans left because it has been attacked for being liberal. Therefor conservatives tend to not want jobs in academia, and liberals want them.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    No you are a liberal. You support everything liberal so your not fooling anyone.

  • Anonymous

    How do you know my views on all issues? You’re just like slkgej6 who claimed to know my education in science. You and slkgej6 must have ESP?

  • Anonymous

    You cannot make make conclusions on long term trends with a short term outlier. That’s like saying “The weather is cold today, so it must be cold next week.” The long term trend remains in the data. If ten years from now scientists find there’s a cooling trend, then then warming theories may be disproven or explained.

  • Anonymous

    The bible clearly states…”The soul that sins it shall die” the only thing that can pay for our eternal debt (or our death penalty) is blood. Christ being our creator – therefor, his life is more valuable than total sum of all humans combined – so his shed blood covers all sinning humans. That is the extreme measure he was willing to go, to get us humans into his kingdom. It was the highest risk ever taken in the history of the universe, nothing mankind has done even comes close and your going to laugh it off as if its a hoax. He knew about scoffers like you, but yet, he still had enough love for people like you to die for your sins. Hows that for a heroic individual. You’re so wrapped up in your own individual importance that you’re not even willing to look into the subject for yourself.

    Talk about ignorant

  • B D

    It’s your fantasy world ZERO. Dream on to your heart’s content. lololol

    wow

  • B D

    You’re not an expert in that field. The scientists who are would disagree with your uniformed guesses.

  • B D

    Those bronze age men who created that myth also believed evil spirits caused disease. We know better now. You’ve been left behind because you refuse to think. A blood sacrifice may have been a popular concept thousands of years ago, but civilized people know better now and your god should’ve known better back then.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    But that is what climate Scientist do every time their is a natural disaster. Seeing also their has been a cooling for the past 15 years instead of rise in temperature.

  • B D

    Your religious beliefs are as unproven as anything can get, You’re not an educated individual, that’s obvious. Clinging to ancient false ideas is a burden you don’t need to suffer with.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    You do not have a education first of all because why would you be wasting your time with me if you had two masters drgrees and a job? Don’t you have anything better to do like work. Second of all it is very clear when you cheerlead for Obama over and over again that you have the head up Obama’s rear syndrome and nine times out of ten that is a liberal trait. It is called logic Mr. Bean try it some time.

  • Anonymous

    First, you cannot know whether I have degrees, but your question of why I’d waste time with you is an excellent one. I’ve been away from work on and off because of a medical issue. It’s been a long recovery and I won’t have time for blogging soon. I’ll admit I’m fascinated by ideological indoctrination. I am far from an Obama cheerleader. I don’t think he’s a good leader. But the kinds of accusations I hear from the far right are so ridiculous I can’t help but engage. What I’ve stated about climate change being forced by the states is fact.

  • Anonymous

    There is no greater sacrifice than for one to place his own life on the line for the ones you love, Christ proved his love for mankind almost two-thousand years ago

  • Anonymous

    There is no greater sacrifice than for one to place his own life on the line for the ones you love, Christ proved his love for mankind almost two-thousand years ago

  • Anonymous

    Prophecy is all the proof one needs to understand that God is real. He is at the moment, trying to wake up a slumbering world (Through the prophetic writings contained in the books of the bible) much of what was written long ago, is now taking place before our eyes…such as climate change and weather related disasters.

    He even speaks about nations such as Germany – Iran – Egypt etc. and how they will effect the United States in the near future…by the way, the outcome for America is not good…but go on living in your blissful world of self importance and world events continue to march forward and will enclose all around you like a snare.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, the media often jumps to blame the increased frequency of natural disasters on climate change, and there some reasoning behind it. The relatively flat temperatures over the last decade or so remain at the highest levels in recorded history. These plateaus have been observed in the long term data and many scientists believe the pause is temporary and they fear a continuation of the 80-year trajectory.

  • Anonymous

    First, the research shows that, in laboratory situations, chloro/fluorocarbons can break down ozone. There is NO evidence that there has been ANY effect from the reduction of chloro/fluorocarbons in vivo as the ozone layer has continued to fluctuate just like it did prior to these changes. Second, none of the hydrocarbon reduction plans are being implemented through legislation. It is being done through unilateral EPA policy and taxation.
    When Obama was running for president, he flat out stated that he would use executive power to change policies that would, “by necessity, cause gas prices to skyrocket”. Since becoming president, he has used executive orders to implement everything from health policy to drilling for oil, including refusing to allow the Keystone pipeline to be built and requiring emissions from energy plants be reduced below what is currently achievable with available technology. He has unilaterally moved to shut down the coal industry, requiring improvements to the power grid utilizing technologies that are hundreds of times more expensive, yet yield far less energy and are incapable of producing consistent levels of power required by modern society.
    The EPA has also placed emissions standards on the auto industry that are not achievable. All of this is done by executive fiat in order to eliminate hydrocarbon emissions. Obama has also formed a new subcommittee (Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science) on global climate change that will review all existing and new legislation and identify laws that do not comply with the Obama viewpoint on global warming. Those laws identified will be amended through illegal executive action. Because of this, most of his recent policies are now being considered by the supreme court because a president cannot legally enact legislation and then call it policy when it replaces existing, properly legislated law without legislative repeal. By it’s very nature, presidential executive policies enacted that disagree with existing law is, by definition, a president that is making unilateral law. The new orders include penalties that, by their very nature, usurp constitutional limitations on presidential power exercised through fiat.
    Policy cannot be enforced through punishment by governmental agencies when those policies countermand existing law that citizens are required to obey. According to Obama, HE is the law and his orders supersede any law on the books that was legislated by congress and signed into law by another president. So, yes, Landree, this president IS doing everything in his power to bankrupt the economy by outlawing hydrocarbon emissions to levels that cannot be achieved and is requiring replacement to the power grid through the use of outrageously expensive, easily damaged technologies that are completely unproven to provide uninterrupted power on the level necessary to sustain the economy of the US. You need to wake up and start realizing that if you’d stop worshiping Obama as a god, you’d understand that you are losing those freedoms right along with everyone else. Your willful ignorance about what’s going on and childlike trust of people who have proven only one thing…that they are woefully incompetent to successfully manage or complete even the simplest of trusts, indicates that you lack the most basic understanding of the current workings and abject failure of the Obama government.

  • Anonymous

    And Bush was not exactly a conservative now, was he? Nothing that has been done will have any effect. You stated that the scientists that you seem to feel can snap their fingers and change the weather (even though they can’t predict it) are crying that it is already too late to change our fate. You have been arguing constantly the viewpoint of these alarmists. Stop trying to split hairs on what you said or didn’t say. Anyone reading this could easily pick up your viewpoint, so you claiming that you never said this is belied by the fact that you DO support it 100%. If you don’t like being characterized that way then maybe you should examine what’s wrong with your arguments.

  • Anonymous

    Wow do you NOT know anything about the history of what’s happened in recent years. You’re just wrong, Landree. The states are NOT driving this, they’re taking Obama and the EPA to court. You don’t get to just make up whatever “facts” seem to fit your preconceived argument. You may get away with that in your circle of friends, but it’s not going to pass muster here. Or are you saying that Obama and the EPA have not used executive mandate to attack existing laws? Or are you claiming that those decisions are NOT being challenged in front of the high court?

  • B D

    Jesus sacrificed nothing according to the story, which says he was walking around alive a few days after he “died.” The story is man-made and it shows. It’s strikingly similar to many other myths. Ask yourself why you believe it. You don’t have to tell us, but be honest and reflect on how you came to believe your particular religious narrative. Think about your age when you first were told of it etc.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, It’s pretty much a waste of time talking to this guy. He claims to have some special knowledge and even claims that the oil companies main preoccupation is now reduction of greenhouse emissions. Right…..

  • B D

    Wrong.

  • Anonymous

    The crowd choose crucifixion. No cleverness involved.

  • Anonymous

    I was involved in a chemical industry trade group in the 90s and the EPA would not add CO2 regs to the Clean Air Act. This issue has been stagnant until the states started suing the EPA starting in 2006 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf

  • Anonymous

    Jesus was murdered in plain sight of each of his disciples, so they understood the imminence danger they faced, especially if they themselves, were to teach the same message he taught. These men not only saw first hand who Christ was and what he did, they had three and a-half tears to prove beyond a doubt, that he was indeed who he said he was. These men were not ignorant, but yet they placed themselves in danger on a daily bases – most were even killed for this very strange and peculiar gospel message . What’s even more astounding, Jesus foretold them of the death they would suffer if they continued, but that didn’t stop them. They each understood,physical human life is nothing more than a testing ground…life itself, doesn’t take place until after our human death…for flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom God – it is only temporary, where spirit life is eternal.

  • B D

    You can make assertions until the cows come home, but when it comes to supporting them with real evidence that will stand up to peer review and the scientific method, you don’t have squat diddly.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve never said anything beyond that it’s reasonable based corroborated views of the scientific community that there is evidence of long term global warming.

  • B D

    HAHAHHAAAAA! Priceless. Maybe GOD told Beck he was right. He talks to him according to Glenn.

  • B D

    You’re delusional. Get help.

  • Anonymous

    Uh huh. Sure….

  • B D

    Some idiot down-arrowed your comment. Common sense is in short supply here in Beckistan.

  • B D

    That’s exactly what religionists do. They’re the most dishonest collection of liars around. Worse than politicians.

  • Anonymous

    While “commie sense” is alive and well in your world.

  • B D

    Piss off goober. Your remark is idiotic.

  • B D

    I guess that makes the LDS religion “Frankenreligion” then.

  • Anonymous

    Ooohhh, careful…your “liberal” education is beginning to show. By that I mean an abject inability to present a reasoned argument without name calling. After all, it’s so much easier than thinking….

  • Anonymous

    At least the cow knows his master…..”The ox knows his master, the donkey his owners manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand” – Isaiah 1:3

    This is the evidence, unfortunately you won’t believe any of it until it’s too late…

    Jerusalem will be the start of the next world war.

    America will see a second civil war..where one third of our people will be killed.

    Germany will then attack – using our nuclear weapons now housed on their soil…a second third of our people will die in nuclear radioactive fallout.

    The remainder of our people will be carried away captive and sold as slaves around the world – where 90% of them will die in captivity.

    The world will go mad and unleash such devastating weapons upon itself, that Jesus Christ will be forced to intervene and stop it before every living thing perishes.

    After this, or when you become a victim of it , you will fully understand that it was you who didn’t know diddly.

  • Anonymous

    The truthful experts would say that they don’t know the causes of “climate change” but can only hypothesize possible contributing factors and extrapolate a forecast based upon what they think they know now. No educated person would deny that GLOBAL change has happened over billions of years and that GLOBAL change will occur for billions of more years, with or without people, should the Earth still remain.

    One of differences between liberals and conservatives: the liberals would have everyone jump off a cliff as fast as possible and pay a tax before they jump, the conservatives would say “let’s step back and think this over”. Micromanaging the Earth has always been a losing proposition.

  • Bill Tilghman

    He did pick an appropriate avatar – It is like having a conversation with Mr. Bean!

  • Bill Tilghman

    I agree – sort of a Hippocratic oath for the planet – First, do no harm…

    The whole thing about this is what can we do about it? We have yet to influence the temperature, wind speed, wind direction, precipitation, lightning strikes or any other thing we attribute to storms and/or weather. That is why we humans invented clothing, houses, and other forms of shelter. These people are a magnification of Chicken Little.

  • Bill Tilghman

    That is the only sensible thing you’ve written in days.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Some people are born without one, others acquire extras.

  • Bill Tilghman

    The one you are hawking here – the product of global warming being the doom of mankind and the earth – you know, what you’ve been proposing here for days.

  • Bill Tilghman

    It is more reasonable to have dreams about flying – weather is not within the human capacity to affect one way or another.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Again you resort to the left to prove a point. When are you going to realize that you aren’t being told the truth by the propagandists?

  • Bill Tilghman

    The planet is not under mankind’s influence. How hard is that for you to grasp? It is like the law of matter – it cannot be created nor destroyed. I realize you have a lot invested in the global warming scam, and that you believe it to be true, but the planet will do what it will, and even if we stopped industrial production completely we will still be living with the current atmosphere. You do realize that we can’t remove what is in the atmosphere by mechanical or chemical means, don’t you?

    It is friggin’ impossible, and you have been sold a bill of goods. The difference between us is this: I don’t believe in fairy tales.

  • Bill Tilghman

    That assumes the concentration of ozone is a constant. Think of the atmosphere as a fluid – one that does not mix very well. That is the reason we have high and low pressure zones coexistent within the atmosphere, and this current “polar vortex” craze is the result of people not grasping the dynamics of the physical properties of earth’s atmosphere.

    You claim to be very well informed, but you are not. I know scientists who work for NOAA at the Severe Storms Lab, and we have had many discussions on this subject over the years. Their information contradicts what you are trying to establish with your worship of global warming. I think they know better than you do – it is their field of work.

  • Bill Tilghman

    LOL!

  • Bill Tilghman

    Thanks! Feel free to use it. It is what they do with all this political agendized pseudoscience. They make up some grand scheme to bilk people out of their money and are surprised when real science does not comply.

  • Watch it

    ….and some are stuffed with heads … :-))

  • Anonymous

    I haven’t expressed beliefs about global warming beyond there being reasonable evidence of long term warming based corroborated reports from the scientific community.

  • Anonymous

    If these NOAA scientists know something different, why don’t the publish it?

  • Bill Tilghman

    You and people like you don’t read what they publish, nor do you accept it. They publish all the time, it is their job, but they don’t make a political football out of the things they do.

  • Bill Tilghman

    You left out the outdated and discredited part.

  • Anonymous

    I have little invested in the global warming issue other than having an opinion, like you. Mine happens to be based on what’s published by our major scientific communities. Your premise that humans cannot influence the planet’s environment is illogical because humans are responsible for an estimated 29 billion tons of CO2 per year and climbing, which has causes increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

  • Anonymous

    I’ve never published anything on global warming.

  • Anonymous

    Oh right, let me guess, Politifact publishes leftist propaganda even though their organization’s won nine Pulitzer Prizes. And you can’t trust the Pulitzer organization because all 102 of their distinguished judges are elitists and are somehow in on the the propaganda conspiracy. Doesn’t that fall-back ever get old?

  • Bill Tilghman

    I distrust any publication that has politics as it’s focus or as part of the name it goes by.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Their reports are property of NOAA – you can try to look them up yourself. They are in the business of research, and not really engaged with politics despite being a government agency. The main concern of NOAA is in understanding and coping with nature, not modifying it or trying to manage it.

    That is where your franken-scientists take a left turn – just after they get the big fat grant checks.

  • Bill Tilghman

    You argue for the sake of doing so. Your suppositions and questions are agenda driven and I am not obligated to play along with your tune.

    Perhaps you should consider latching on to another person who disagrees with your specious assumptions and conclusions.

    I think we have already established the fact that Co2 is not poisoning life on earth, in fact many forms of life convert it to the oxygen we breathe.

    Co2 is not a constituent of acid rain or smog.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Your problem is you assume that your “knowledge” is conventional. I am telling you that you have been brainwashed into believing the biggest scam of this century.

    The weather events we experienced last week were not the result of global warming, and you are taking these studies out of context and reinterpreting them to suit your false presumptive conclusions. That is what all you global warmists do. Global temperature is an average of all the temperature data, and averages like statistics can be made to represent anything the author wished them to indicate. Merely stating that global temperature average for a particular period in time does not make a case for a general trend. The fact is for the past 15 years the world trend has been toward cooler than usual, not warmer. What you say about the upwelling of the polar temperatures causing the blast of arctic air to move nearly 2,000 miles southward simply does not hold water. I have explained this to you several times, and if you wish to remain stubbornly stupid then by all means go right ahead, just stop with this stalking troll act of yours.

    Like the ship of fools caught in the anarctic sea ice recently. It is hard to make a case for global warming when you are trapped in sea ice at a place where traditionally none is found. Where they got stuck it is almost never solidly iced.

    So much for your argument. Oh, and those 2012 conditions in the arctic – more ice than anticipated based on prior years data; you conveniently left that part out.

  • Bill Tilghman

    That assertion can only be characterized by one word – and the word is LIE. You have been arguing this for days now, and that is a fact. Read the volume of your posts, and then ask yourself if you are not expressing your “beliefs about global warming beyond there being reasonable evidence of long term warming based corroborated reports from the scientific community.”

    That is exactly what you have been doing, and now you want to deny it?

    You cherry pick your evidence and disregard all conflicting information so yes, you are expressing your personal beliefs based on the lies that you wish to propagate in this forum.

    Yet you now want to state otherwise.

    Fine. Your time is up.

  • Anonymous

    Sure, I’ve given examples supporting my reasoning, but beyond that, what have I actually advocated beyond the consensus being reasonable? You’ve made a lot of accusations about credible organizations lying about this issue. How about providing some links to reports disproving what NASA and NOAA and the following organizations believe:

    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    American Chemical Society
    American Geophysical Union
    American Medical Association
    American Meteorological Society
    American Physical Society
    The Geological Society of America

  • Anonymous

    Politifact aims to do exactly the opposite of focus on politics, i.e. clear away the politics to get a view on reality.

  • Anonymous

    You claimed that agreeing with global warming theory is nothing more than politically driven junk science. Now you claim these organizations do research and are not engaged in politics, implying that their endorsement is untainted by politics. Which is it?

  • Bill Tilghman

    See, here you go trying to spin the conversation again.

    I stated that NOAA is not politically engaged, and it isn’t. That is not the same thing as you have just stated it. Global warming theory IS politically driven junk science.

  • Anonymous

    I wonder what you think my agenda is beyond arguing my opinion. I certainly agree with you that CO2 is not poison, which is precisely why the EPA has repeatedly argued that it should not regulate it under the Clean Air Act. I’ll bet, though, if you tied a plastic bag around your head, CO2 might start to feel like poison. The states have sued the EPA arguing that alarming increases of greenhouse gases will threaten public safety. I really suggest reading this http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf . My point about smog and acid rain was about whether regulation is in the interest of public safety.

  • Anonymous

    So NASA and NOAA are doing junk science? Surely you don’t think they’re falsifying their published results, which show warming. Why would they if they’re not political?

  • Anonymous

    I never made mention of last weeks weather events. It’s shortsighted to claim one event was caused by global warming. Long-term increased frequency of events that correlate to global temperature rise may be reasonable. I completely agree with your remarks about a 15 year view. However, the flat temperatures over the past decade or so remain the highest on record. These plateaus exist elsewhere in the data and scientists fear the 80-year trend will continue. You continue to say it’s all a lie and the majority of scientists are fooled, but you fail to be specific as to the scientific theory that disputes the warming trend.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Your agenda is to be a nuisance.
    Below you will find your true image. I’ll bet if you try that plastic bag experiment yourself we would all be much better off.

    The states, huh? Which ones specifically? You are good at using generalities and then asking specific questions to the responses you get.

    I am no longer interested in this useless banter –

    Stop bothering me.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Your statement here; “This issue will progress regardless of what you think because, like I said, it’s being litigated by the states and it’s now coming to a head. States are demanding regulation that forces lower carbon technologies.” has the ring of bullcrap.

  • Bill Tilghman

    They don’t unequivocally support global warming – only idiots like you SAY they do. That is very easy to do, it is another entirely to prove that there is a consensus, and another yet again to prove that this is a subject that should set government policy that causes negative impacts on the budget and the fortunes of individuals.

    Your kind has too much power, but the joke will be on you in the next ten years because the kids of today are going to realize the load of garbage you and others like you have been feeding them, and they will refuse to dance to your tune.

    Progressives like you always try this overt controlling bullcrap, and you always fail when the people realize that the technology isn’t cost effective.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Simple – you are implying these organizations are agreeing with your insipid ideas. They are not. You are behind the times. Your arguments are old and outdated.
    All of this theory was debunked and there have been thousands of scientists sign agreements that state the truth – that truth being there is no scientific support for the popular but inaccurate global warming disaster theory. It’s bunk.

  • Anonymous

    That statement is not an agenda or opinion. It’s fact. Just a little digging and you’ll find the court cases. I even sent you one.

  • Anonymous

    NASA sure seems to present the impression they think climate change is unequivocal: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus. Taking NASA’s opinion seriously is progressive?

  • Anonymous

    I sent you the copy of the Supreme Court opinion! Here it is again: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf You apparently don’t want to see what I’m saying is true! Who’s bothering who? You responded to me!

  • Bill Tilghman

    You want specific, I’ll give you specific –

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/

    http://www.thedailysheeple.com/global-warming-debunked-nasa-report-verifies-carbon-dioxide-actually-cools-atmosphere_052013

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/13/1972-cru-chief-said-that-earth-would-definitely-cool-over-the-next-two-centuries/

    And the piece de resistance is this:

    Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA’s Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence.

    As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth’s upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth’s lower atmosphere.

    The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA’s own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in the earth’s upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy rather than absorb it.

    “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” says James Russell from Hampton University, who was one of the lead investigators for the groundbreaking SABER study. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

    Almost all ‘heating’ radiation generated by sun is blocked from entering lower atmosphere by CO2

    According to the data, up to 95 percent of solar radiation is literally bounced back into space by both CO2 and NO in the upper atmosphere. Without these necessary elements, in other words, the earth would be capable of absorbing potentially devastating amounts of solar energy that would truly melt the polar ice caps and destroy the planet.

    “The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet,” write H. Schreuder and J. O’Sullivan for PSI. “[T]his compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA’s chief climatologist, Dr. James Hansen and his team over at NASA’s GISS.”

    Dr. Hansen, of course, is an outspoken global warming activist who helped spark man-made climate change hysteria in the U.S. back in 1988. Just after the release of the new SABER study, however, Dr. Hansen conveniently retired from his career as a climatologist at NASA, and reportedly now plans to spend his time “on science,” and on “drawing attention to [its] implications for young people.”

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html##ixzz2qQcvDWZe

    As I have been telling you – you are W R O N G !

  • Bill Tilghman

    Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA’s Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence.

    As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth’s upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth’s lower atmosphere.

    The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA’s own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in the earth’s upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy rather than absorb it.

    “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” says James Russell from Hampton University, who was one of the lead investigators for the groundbreaking SABER study. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

    Almost all ‘heating’ radiation generated by sun is blocked from entering lower atmosphere by CO2

    According to the data, up to 95 percent of solar radiation is literally bounced back into space by both CO2 and NO in the upper atmosphere. Without these necessary elements, in other words, the earth would be capable of absorbing potentially devastating amounts of solar energy that would truly melt the polar ice caps and destroy the planet.

    “The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet,” write H. Schreuder and J. O’Sullivan for PSI. “[T]his compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA’s chief climatologist, Dr. James Hansen and his team over at NASA’s GISS.”

    Dr. Hansen, of course, is an outspoken global warming activist who helped spark man-made climate change hysteria in the U.S. back in 1988. Just after the release of the new SABER study, however, Dr. Hansen conveniently retired from his career as a climatologist at NASA, and reportedly now plans to spend his time “on science,” and on “drawing attention to [its] implications for young people.”

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html##ixzz2qQcvDWZe

  • Bill Tilghman

    You are wrong and you know it. Now, many more people know it. Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA’s Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence.

    As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth’s upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth’s lower atmosphere.

    The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA’s own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in the earth’s upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy rather than absorb it.

    “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” says James Russell from Hampton University, who was one of the lead investigators for the groundbreaking SABER study. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

    Almost all ‘heating’ radiation generated by sun is blocked from entering lower atmosphere by CO2

    According to the data, up to 95 percent of solar radiation is literally bounced back into space by both CO2 and NO in the upper atmosphere. Without these necessary elements, in other words, the earth would be capable of absorbing potentially devastating amounts of solar energy that would truly melt the polar ice caps and destroy the planet.

    “The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet,” write H. Schreuder and J. O’Sullivan for PSI. “[T]his compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA’s chief climatologist, Dr. James Hansen and his team over at NASA’s GISS.”

    Dr. Hansen, of course, is an outspoken global warming activist who helped spark man-made climate change hysteria in the U.S. back in 1988. Just after the release of the new SABER study, however, Dr. Hansen conveniently retired from his career as a climatologist at NASA, and reportedly now plans to spend his time “on science,” and on “drawing attention to [its] implications for young people.”

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html##ixzz2qQcvDWZe

  • Bill Tilghman

    I am not interested in court cases. I am interested in fact – and you don’t have any on your side of the ledger.

    Accept the defeat you are so in need of. You are trying your damnedest to get it.

  • Bill Tilghman
  • Bill Tilghman

    You are misinterpreting NASA’s opinion – you are basing it on one man’s work and not on the entirety of their scientific knowledge base.

    You also keep switching from global warming to climate change. Then you deny you are blaming it on human beings. Next you will claim the stars are fueled by kerosene.

    I am done with your circular speak and lack of critical thinking skills. You can’t even follow one logical thought to the next and you want to blame me for that? Sorry, Mr. Bean. I’m done and you are through. Go troll someone else.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Read this and try to understand what it says –

    “As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth’s upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth’s lower atmosphere.

    The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA’s own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in the earth’s upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy rather than absorb it.”

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html#ixzz2qQfy6Icx

    That is exactly the reverse of the un-learned opinion of the Justices, and Dr. Hansen’s work which you have used to support your specious argument. You can’t have it both ways, troll.

    You like to make all sorts of statements and claim they are fact, when upon further inquiry it becomes apparent that they are nothing of the kind.

    Now, cease and desist.

  • Anonymous

    Bill, No disrespect, but those sites are very disappointing. I was hoping for some sort of non-partisan scientific organization’s work, but here’s what you’ve given me:

    climatedepot.com run by Marc Morano, former employee of Rush Limbaugh? Could he be more political. I’m going to read some of this stuff, but it hardly seems non-bias. Geez.

    thedailysheeple.com run by Mac Slavo, overpriced gold peddler?

  • Anonymous

    I read the news at http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ Indeed, the article explains how CO2 and NO in the upper atmosphere reflect solar flare energy, which is a well known process. But the greenhouse gasses live in the lower atmosphere where long infrared rays re-radiated from earth are impeded to space. Two different phenomena. The upper atomsphere reflects radiation as normal, the lower atmosphere with high greenhouse gases builds earth-radiated long IR. I didn’t see anywhere on NASA’s site saying that that the observations during the solar storm discredited global warming theory.

  • Anonymous

    Bill, What you’ve sited in your post is true, except the part about greenhouse gasses not absorbing heat. The fundamental error is that carbon dioxide cools the thermosphere, even though it acts to warm the atmosphere near Earth’s surface (the troposphere). This paradox occurs because the atmosphere thins with height. Near Earth’s surface, carbon dioxide absorbs radiation escaping Earth, but before the gas molecules can radiate the energy to space, frequent collisions with other molecules in the dense lower atmosphere force the carbon dioxide to release energy as heat, thus warming our environment. In the much thinner thermosphere, a carbon dioxide molecule absorbs energy when it collides with an oxygen molecule, but there is ample time for it to radiate energy to space before another collision occurs. You can have it both ways.

  • Bill Tilghman

    You are stubbornly stupid! Read the NASA report again – it clearly states the opposite of what you said in this statement:

    “Bill, What you’ve sited in your post is true, except the part about greenhouse gasses not absorbing heat.”

    Not only are you wrong but you used the wrong homonym!

    Cited isn’t the same as sited. Where did you go to school again? Demand your tuition be refunded immediately!

    You can’t have it anyway – be gone troll.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    I wonder how this troll explains the moon Titan having nothing but green house gasses in it atmosphere but still be cold enough to hold liquid methane. If these so called greenhouse gases do as he claims they do then why is it not as hot a Vensus?

  • Anonymous

    Bill, Why not dispense with insults and semantics? I re-read the article and it clearly states that the upper-level thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy from space and re-radiated 95% back to space. The greenhouse effect, on the other hand, occurs at the lower level and higher density troposphere by impeding Earth’s radiation to space and reflecting it back to earth. This is the fundamental and observable cause cause of warming.

  • Anonymous

    Well, if you’re not interested in the judicial record on this issue, then you’re just not interested in knowing what’s really being debated. Too bad, because that debate is what drives policy.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Actually it is global warming nutcases that are driving Co2 policy. Fearmongering at it’s finest. The fact that some activists in the judiciary are using their positions to be a de facto legislature is the only thing going on in the courts.

  • Anonymous

    I agree with you about the lack of legislation. All these law suits and regulations may have been avoided if Congress got ahead of this issue. It seems like the EPA has been kicked around on this issue. For many years the EPA didn’t think it should regulate CO2 because it wasn’t a danger to human health. Then 12 states sued the EPA and the court decided it must regulate. Then other states challenged that decision, but it was upheld.

  • Bill Tilghman

    As stated previously, I am simply not interested in discussing this or any other subject with you. I know a lot more about things you assume I am uninformed about, and your continued effort to have the last word is unnecessary, and annoying.

    You may have your last word; the only response you will be getting is crickets.

  • Anonymous

    Sorry you’ve been annoyed, Bill. I thought we were having a discussion.

  • ..

    Obama’s spokesperson. He wants to keep his job. I thought the debate was over, it’s “settled science”.

    Obamafools buy this crap hook line and sinker.

  • ..

    Please post your scientific proof that GOD doesn’t exist. Be specific. Thank you.

  • ..

    Please post your scientific proof that god doesn’t exist. Be specific and post verifiable evidence. thank you.

  • Guest

    Please post your proof. Be specific. Thank you.

  • Howdy Boyz

    As this article points out, the weather isn’t actually getting weirder at all: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630

  • ..

    That’s a load of BS. All you leftists are liars. You all claim to be geniuses and here you are posting on GB .com. You guys are a laugh riot. Too funny.

  • ..

    The climate has been changing for a billion years. It will go on changing for the next billion years.

    What is the optimum temperature for the planet?

  • ..

    You seem to have an above average anus, I own a toilet paper factory, how many rolls do you want?

  • ..

    Those companies have very good public relations people and they put out statements they know will keep the environazi’s off their backs. The big Oil companies do the exact same thing.

  • ..

    The EPA overstepped it’s authority in 2009.

    EPA Determines Greenhouse Gases Harmful to People and Environment

    WASHINGTON, Dec. 7, 2009

    By DAVID WRIGHT

    “The Environmental Protection Agency declared today that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are harmful to people and the environment.

    “The administration will not ignore science or the law any longer, nor will we avoid the responsibility we owe to our children and our grandchildren,” EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said.

    The EPA administrator ruled that six greenhouse gases constitute toxic air pollution and are therefore subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.”

    You’re anus is spewing toxic gasses that will eventually destroy your brain. OOOPS, it already has.

  • Anonymous

    Odd of you to compliment one’s anus.

  • Anonymous

    It is impossible for you to know whether I’m truthful or not about my career. Claiming you know something that is impossible to know shows that you’re willing to believe whatever you like.

  • The truth about spammers

    Those scientists are not even looking anymore. The science is settled! There’s no more reasons to investigate the subject. The computer models have decided everything already and when they show something that’s not in line with the AGW cultists theories, they just spit out new information from new programming to make things OK again.

  • The truth about spammers

    Ocean PH changes all the time. There’s nothing new there. It will continue to change up and down for millions of years to come.

  • The truth about spammers

    “”Although similarities exist, nothing in the last 300 million years parallels rates of future projections in terms of the disrupting of ocean carbonate chemistry – a consequence of the unprecedented rapidity of CO2 release currently taking place.”

    Which scientist took the samples from 300 million years ago? I’d like to meet him.

  • Guest

    Nothing but projections. You don’t read the complete articles you quote. It’s a flaw leftist AGW cultists make much to often. A computer projection depends on the computer’s programming. You never take into the account natural factors of increased volcanic activities in the pacific rim in any of the articles posted.

    If you can’t dazzle hem with facts, dazzle them with bull sh*t. It’s an IPCC thing.

  • The truth about spammers

    Is “Wavier” a scientific term? The polar ice cap is growing not shrinking. At least NASA thinks so. What this video doesn’t tell you is that Obama is depending on AGW hysteria to spend billions more tax payers dollars and give it to companies like the failed Solynda.

    Tesla also need more Government funds, their bleeding money like a stuck pig.

  • Uncle Richie Doofus

    Uncle stinky!

  • Uncle Richie Doofus

    They’re all plying for the same funding. It’s called “scientific welfare” and it’s not new. When this AGW hysteria ends, they’ll find something else to get Government money.

  • Uncle Richie Doofus

    You can leave any time you like. Disqus has taken away the down vote.

  • Uncle Richie Doofus

    Just like scientists who go to their computer models and change them to fit their projections of doom and gloom.

  • Uncle Richie Doofus

    Yet you spend hours upon hours condemning it!

    You’re wasting your time.

  • Uncle Richie Doofus

    I don’t think God measures time by the rotations of the earth. His watch is much more sophisticated. Billions of years in a blink of an eye.

  • Uncle Richie Doofus

    People don’t have any say over God. He moves in his own time. He’s not defined by “failed predictions by people”.

  • Uncle Richie Doofus

    As an engineer you should understand that everything follows certain rules and science can’t change them.

  • Uncle Richie Doofus

    Right out of your Atheists handbook.

    You don’t believe in bronze age men but pre-bronze age men is just fine. Youz funny!