‘It’s not warming. It’s dying’: Glenn reacts to the latest climate change campaign

We are all familiar with the iconic ‘I love NY’ logo featuring the red heart. Milton Glaser is the graphic designer behind the seminal insignia, and his latest design is perhaps best described as simplistic.

As The Verge reports, Glaser has created an image of “a gradient green and black orb” that is supposed to represent the earth. Why? To raise awareness for climate change, of course.

The logo is part of a new campaign with the mantra: “It’s not warming. It’s dying.” According to the website, this is “the most important fact on earth,” and supporters can order buttons featuring the orb design.

“Send $5, we’ll send you 5 buttons.
Wear one, give the others to those you love,” the site reads. “All proceeds go to distributing more buttons.
Even politicians will understand.

Below is a screenshot of the logo and catch phrase:
Screen Shot 2014-08-14 at 11.46.21 AMPhoto Credit: It’s Not Warming

In an interview with Dezeen, Glaser said he hopes this campaign will have people “acknowledging what is real” when it comes to climate change.

“There is no more significant issue on earth than its survival,” Glaser told Dezeen. “The questions is, ‘how can anyone not be involved?'”

On radio this morning, Glenn, Pat, and Stu wondered if the subtlety of the design would ultimately hinder the campaign’s effectiveness.

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

“Now, what’s unique about this button is it doesn’t have any words or letters on it at all. It’s just a black button with a little bit of green on the bottom,” Glenn observed. “It’s not even like, ‘Ask me about my black and green button.’ It’s just like a black and green button that nobody will ask you about… It looks like a mood button.”

“People will avoid you because they think you have a bad mood,” Pat quipped.

When you consider full on “climate chaos” is less than a year away, Glenn believes the hyperbolic nature of Glaser’s rhetoric is spot on.

“I think it works: ‘It’s not warming. It’s dying,’” Glenn concluded sarcastically. “Now, I don’t think that’s hyperbole. No, it’s frighteningly accurate. Come on.”

  • jon baker

    Mr. Beck I safely agree with you on about 90% of your platforms. And until recently i did agree with you and many others on climate change. However, as you always suggest, do your own homework and i eventually had to admit the evidence is a lot stronger than i thought. I would ask you, and everyone else, to take a second look at the evidence. Unfortunately the left has totally politicised this issue, and that makes it hard to really follow the evidence. Unfortunately i have come to believe this was something i was wrong about and that we really do face a serious problem.

    • Elena

      Methane and water vapor are far better at being greenhouse gases than is CO2. Sun hits water; water vapor is made. It’s all abt the solar cycle. No need to get your panities in a wad over nature. This planet has been warmer in the past and colder. It’s designed that way. Humans generally do better when it’s warmer, by the way.

    • ThorsteinVeblen2012

      80% of America has 7% of the wealth. 80% of America isn’t lazy. Many have worked hard their entire lives.

      The Walton Family alone has more wealth than 40% of Americans. Walmart workers are among the lowest paid in the country.

      What does that mean. The wealthy have the resources to shape public opinion. They don’t want things to change so they spend just a fraction of their wealth making sure it doesn’t

      There is no democracy in the media, it’s “market driven” meaning the wealthy fund much of what you see and hear.

      When you see someone telling you something broadcasting from lavish sets and telling about things that benefit wealthy people be skeptical. How are they paying for everything? From the nickels and dimes of the 80% or a fat check from a wealthy benefactor?

    • ibnsaud81

      Thanks. I have read about this beginning as an undergraduate (it was Global cooling then with Carl Sagen, Ted Danson, etc.) and, like Elena also says, it looks like the current consensus (which in any science can change with new evidence but it does not appear likely in this case) is that 99.999% of all climate is related to our sun (that leaves only 0.001% for the rest to be explained by ANOVA). So I must be reading the wrong stuff all of these years (the late Stephen Jay Gould being my favorite plus now the books his students are now writing like “Your Inner Fish” — Neil Shubin). However, could you post a brief list of recommended reading for us so that I can read what you actually mean. A short list should suffice in getting me started as I can then read the footnote references and bibliographies after that. Thanks again… PS. I actually first read about the sun’s overwhelming effect on climate in a Weekly Reader in Elementary school. Al Gore missed that issue I guess but he is many years ahead of me in age. Maybe Al was in school before Gutenberg 😉

      • LTCjRet

        Given that you know what analysis of variance is I would suggest you look into the atmospheric heat transfer equations used in the alarmist models. Don’t take my word for it. THAT is the crux of the entire AGW argument. If you look at the explicit solution to the differential equations used in them and the boundary conditions imposed by the required simplifying assumption needed for it then you will have solved the mystery by yourself with me only providing the initial hint. You won’t need convincing because you will have seen it yourself.

        Don’t be swayed by the lamentations of those that think fractions are higher mathematics. The key is in the simplifying assumptions they use and their validity in light of the ends to which they are pushed.

        Godspeed in your quest.

        • ibnsaud81

          Cheers. A weekend project for sure. But, yeah, the models are flawed. It’s not “What does 2+2 equal?” but “What do you want it to equal?”

    • jumara

      you need help even al gore’ wife left him.

      • Kat Mando


  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Kenway

    Someone should make a shirt that says Global Stupidity and have Al Gore on it eating a Polar Bear.

    • BlueMN

      Because it would be stupid on any part of the Earth to buy or wear a shirt like that, as it makes no sense because Al Gore is not known for eating polar bears? Just get a Glenn Beck Show t-shirt if you want to advertise how stupid you are.

      • Elena

        I wonder if they are as tasty as black bears are?

        • Mary Casanova

          Only if you cook them well. rare bear= trichinosis.

      • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Kenway

        You are a special kind of stupid aren’t you?

    • japedio

      Nice. I’d buy one..

    • Mary Casanova

      Does it come in 2x?

    • Watch it

      LOL. Luv it.

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Kenway

    Yes the button is accurate to how the Global Warming stupidity is dying.

  • landofaahs

    Sadly, in this world, evil moves in violence and the only way to keep it at bay is by superior violence. The church preaches forgiveness but the state must act to protect the citizens from evil by all means necessary.

    • BlueMN

      Your quote from Mein Kampf seems to be posted in the wrong article.

      • landofaahs

        That was America’s attitude in ww2 so I suppose you are against what they did back then too huh.

    • Jerry Bresser

      The church teaches forgiveness, but it also teaches accountability.

      • landofaahs

        True. But it does not say that established governments are to forgive because we as individuals can only forgive the sin we have had committed towards ourselves. I cannot forgive someone for sinning against you unless through a minister but even then it does not protect one from the consequences of actions committed towards the State.

  • Elena

    CO2 is a trace gas, trace gas, TRACE GAS! It does not contribute to warming.

    • Kat Mando

      CO2 is also removed from the air through plants and the plants give off oxygen. Plant more trees!

      • BlueMN

        We’re too busy clear cutting rain forests.

        • Overheten

          Did you know there are more trees in the US than there were 120 years ago?

          • Deeznuts

            Yes, yes I did. Did you know there are far less trees on every other continent? However, we are clear cutting earths lungs, the rainforest. Did you know there is exactly the same amount of carbon on Earth today as there was a million years ago? I think people misunderstand these facts. Yes, we have more trees but they are concentrated in less areas meaning habitats of animals are altered. That is fine for most but does lead to unbalance. Just as in an ecosystem there is no net gain or decrease for the most part. However when you change the form of this distribution of an ecosystem, ie, turning fossil fuels in the ground to a gas in the atmosphere can take a massive toll on the environment.

          • tonybigs

            Welcome to a world that is bent on comfort and “saving” itself (or just saving some). The act of typing this note and sending it out is built upon the heap of billions of tons of waste and billions of human and animal bodies.

            Is it proposed that we simply stop at this time? Perhaps eschew technology? Live a nomadic existence of 10,000 years ago?

            Human greed, envy, gluttony and the methodology to enact same will put a stop to such proposals.

          • robbiekburger

            The ecology of the Earth is always in a state of unbalance. That is what causes all the changes we experience such as day and night, the seasons, tectonic activity, etc.

        • Jacob Bordner

          Dude, does the Coolaid make you choke? I bet you have an Al Gore bed spread. LoL! Your ignorance of reality is obvious, and apparently willful. Good luck, and move toward the light!

          • The Nasty Bits

            It ‘s kool-aid. You might need to return to your private school for a few extra years.

      • Bert Defasko

        Notice how the media neglects to include that fact when they report on co2 levels.

    • Jason

      For the record, I don’t support many of the views on Global Warming. But I feel compelled to intervene, from a basic scientific point of view, and let you know your statement is false. C02 contains carbon (the C), which absorbs heat. The more carbon you release into the ocean or air, the more heat it absorbs. And as far as “trace gas” is concerned, the best way to understand it is this: Regardless of how much of a percentage carbon makes up of our oceans or atmosphere, if you increase or decrease said percentage, it WILL affect conditions in some form or fashion. Even if man made C02 makes up less than 1% of the C02 emitted, it might still have an affect. Can nature compensate for extra C02? Sure…but by how much? We just need to make sure we are balancing the emission and remission of C02, and make sure we are not going into the “red”…so to speak.

      • LTCjRet

        The question is not if CO2 effects things but to what DEGREE is the affect. And that is where the “science” is flawed and does not support the observations. There is a fundamental assumption built in to the alarmist models that is being pushed beyond its valid limits. I will be glad to discuss the details but it does involve some heavy duty math. I’m game if you are.

        • Jason

          We agree – hence the “I don’t support many of the views on Global Warming”. My only point is that there is an affect, we just don’t know how bad or how long. It doesn’t serve any argument well to bury our heads in the sand.

        • LTCjRet

          Fair enough, Jason. But I’d point out that if the models are corrected for the flawed assumption they actually match the observed data remarkably well. And I do mean remarkably well. The problem for the alarmists though is that the CO2 forcing function is about 1/10 of what they have been claiming. So, even though I live at sea level by the ocean I have no qualms about leaving my home to my children when I shuffle off this mortal coil.

      • Duane L Petersen

        Of the twenty + graphs that these “scientists” have work out not one agrees this the others nor does anyone of those agrees with observations over the last 20 years.

        • Jason

          Yeah, seems to be all over the place. But that does not negate the affects that DO take place. It’s important to not take a “Us vs. Them” stance on Global Warming.

          • Duane L Petersen

            You need to go on You tube by Lord Monckton???????????????????????????????????????????????????

          • Jason

            I’m not sure what you just said…but to clarify my previous comment, I only meant that scientists can spout of as much true and/or false info as they want. This does not change what is actually happening. The biggest mistake we can make is politicizing the issue to the point that it becomes “Us vs. Them” or “Republican vs. Democrat”. Let’s seek the truth instead.

          • Duane L Petersen


          • robbiekburger

            Science is the art of selectively ignoring variables.

      • Something Is Wrong

        Hmmm, so the atmoshpere is made up of less than 1% (around 0.04% to be more precise) Carbon Dioxide, and each CO2 molecule is only one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. Oxygen atoms are larger than Carbon atoms so lets say Carbon makes up around 28% of a CO2 molecule. So if my math is correct, Carbon makes up aproximately 0.0112% of the Earh’s atmosphere. So, if Carbon absorbs heat and if hypothetically raising this number by even 1% could have a noticeable effect (not affect), then why the crap do I get cold at all when my body is compose of roughly just over 18% Carbon? I feel like I’m getting the short end of the stick here. Just so we’re clear, I’m not really asking for an explanation of why I get cold, just applying the logic of your post and being a bit of a pain in the butt.
        Apparently we’re all going to burn up the earth if we increase CO2 levels yet for some unknown reason, nobody has spontaneously combusted yet from their own extremely high percentage of Carbon. If there is anything we should learn from the Earth’s crazy history full of meteor strikes, unimaginably huge volcanoes, wildfires with no technology to even attempt any controlling of the blaze, constant dumping of raw sewage in waterways, etc, it is that the Earth knows how to take care of itself and somehow always finds a way to reset and clean itself up. Global nuclear war? That might do something the Earth has a much harder time dealing with. Living your life? Not gonna phase the Earth at all.

        • Jason

          Once again, it doesn’t matter about percentages…it’s a balance. If you add or take away Carbon, that otherwise would not be there, and there will be a change. I don’t claim to know how large of a change AND I agree with you that I’m sure that Nature/God has a way of trying to counterbalance such things….but to what degree? Listen, I’m a believer in God and I use to be the one that was unwilling to hear anything these alarmists had to say, and for the most part still don’t as they have politicized the issue. Until one day I felt like God asked me, “Can you not salt your own earth?”. Can nature undo that? Yes, but it will take a LOOONG time. Think of Chernobyl…can we really say that man has had no impact on the earth? No arguments here, just asking you to chew on it.

          • robbiekburger

            There is no more carbon on the Earth now than there was a billion years ago.

          • Jason

            True but when you dig up carbon out of the ground and release it as a gas you add more carbon to the atmosphere

      • Roy

        And as has been shown, the CO2 levels have been many times higher according to ice core samples but the climate was much cooler. That data however has been pushed aside since it did not agree with the “Established Science” of the global warming community trying to secure more federal funds as their Porches all needed leases renewed.

      • robbiekburger

        The water we drink today has been water for billions of years. This is also true for all the natural elements. There have been periods of ecological adjustment during which far greater shifts have occurred and the Earth has remained viable. The only imbalance that concerns me is the disparity between our technological and our spiritual development.

    • BlueMN

      CO2 is a greenhouse gas and reflects heat back onto the Earth. While it is a minor component of the atmosphere, it plays a big role in the greenhouse effect and therefore global warming.


  • JD1956

    I am happily willing to wager any amount of money that I have that within two years Glenn Beck will have done a complete flip-flop on this subject. Not just that but he’ll also say that he knew it was coming all along.
    Any takers?

    • Waclaw Jerzy Borken-Hagen

      We can only feel sorry for you. You are delusional and need professional
      help. I wish I could help you but “confirmation bias” obsession calls for a

  • sofia1948

    How do you think this lazy MORON ALL GORE became a multi millionaire,because of GLOBAL WARMING or COOLING.This man never worked a day in his life.

    • Kat Mando

      Didn’t he invent the internet too? ha

    • Overheten

      Well that and his parents were rich also. And members of congress have access to all insider information and can make trade deals on Wall Street using that information. They are allowed to do so. We are not.

  • tonybigs

    The Earth has been renewed many times over the billions of years whether it be from internal or external forces. There is absolutely *no* reason to believe that the Earth will not continue to renew over the coming billions of years (God willing).

    I find it rather ironic that the groups that tout “hope and change” and “progress” are trying so hard to stop the Earth from doing what it does naturally. The same groups abhor this kind of “change” and have assumed that they have the hubris to decide and control what is “right” for people and this Earth.

    We are part of this Earth. This is our home. Every living animal has waste products — all of them. Every living animal must destroy *something* to survive. While it would be prudent for people to do as little (apparent?) harm as practicable and keep it tidy, the Earth has a way of taking care of itself.

    • Cindy Harper

      God has a way of taking care of the earth. He created it by speaking it into existence and, He has no problem taking care of it. One day it will come to a point that, unless they come to their sound mind that God gave them, and they follow His plan, then God will take care of the clowns that think they can control the weather and the world. The clowns include all those that are pushing world government. They think they’re in control, but in reality they are being controlled by satan.

    • Deeznuts

      The “Renewing” you talk of is the Earths ability to heal itself after a catastrophic event like a meteor strike. The Earth survives and heals but most of the life does not. You climate change naysayers are right that the Earth will survive the abuse we do to it, but will humans? We won’t face extinction anytime soon but our standard and ease of living will be greatly affected. I cannot believe, 2014, that people still think pumping billions of tons of CO2 in the air won’t cause harm even though we know what it does to the environment. Ridiculous.

      • DonP727

        What does it do to the environment?? Have you seen any warming lately? NOAA finally admits that 1934, 1936 were the warmest years so all the industrial age CO2 hasn’t changed anything in 80 years.

      • tonybigs

        We know that humans sucking in CO2 is harmful to human health, We also know that not all CO2 is bad. Whatever is coming, try to stop it — just try. If we (Earth’s entire population) suddenly stopped driving cars, stopped producing electricity, stopped making plastics, stopped all destructive means to provide heat or food do you really think we can stop our own destruction or create “ease of living”? The Earth will continue on: erupting land-based volcanoes, undersea volcanoes, seismic shifts, erosion (wind, rain, gravitational), constant bombardment from space particles both large and small. Not to mention that in roughly 25,000 years the Earth’s axis will have precessed enough so that we will start experiencing winters in July (like the southern hemisphere and our last major global glaciation activity in the northern hemisphere). The animals, bacteria and other micro-organisms are still going to do their thing (migrate, eat, breathe, produce waste) regardless of whatever we do.

        Standard of living affected? By whose measure? China’s? India’s? Somalia? The ELF? This is the point where the “climate change” people start hinting at ways of “population control” under the false belief that if we start “humane methods” of killing off people we can revive this supposedly dying Earth. The “less humane” , however, will whisper about “those who deserve”, “those who contribute”, “those who matter”, etc.

        How about for a moment just stop and consider that maybe we are on the “right” path. To get where we are, technologically, took thousands of years of evolving technology from mining, building dams, burning, deforestation, coal fired ovens, smelting, gasoline, killing animals, life threatening compounds, chemicals and radiation, building factories, homes, roads, bridges, pipes. The list is virtually endless. Maybe we have a (long, if ever) way to go before humanity is revealed a balance between survival and waste. Until that time: untold pollution, destruction and garbage.

        This “climate change” rabble is about control: Control of the uncontrollable. Control of things we shouldn’t control. Control of things that we have *no idea* how the outcome would be.

        Change is definitely coming with both the next second and, perhaps, the next billion years — including ways we never considered and in ways others say are “good” or “bad”. Are we prepared to adapt to the change? Some have. Some have not. Some refuse.

      • robbiekburger

        All vegetation requires CO2 to survive. Forests cleanse the air of the C(arbon) and release O(xygen). Ergo, CO2 is just as essential to our survival as is Oxygen. Without the respiratory action of vegetation we would soon suffocate.

    • Craig Braun

      I understand what your saying but you got to think about bigger things that we are doing not only to the earth but each other as well. Geo-engineering, Nuclear disasters, massive oil spills, and dumping garbage are a huge problem for the planet and in turn are a problem for us. So when you kill off an entire ecosystem like in the Gulf of Mexico with the BP oil spill or forever changing the Pacific Ocean with the Fukushima disaster you are going to change the earth and her ecosystems witch include us. We need to be smarter and come up with more solutions that fix these problems because Mother Earth cant do it all by herself.

  • Waclaw Jerzy Borken-Hagen

    The most obvious thing that has been dying is the demagoguery of Global Warming.
    Overwhelming majority of thinking people in many countries including USA can see
    through the non-scientific, political, manufactured hoax.
    Perpetrators are desperate to revive it. Good luck ! (sarc)

  • Waclaw Jerzy Borken-Hagen

    Troll Alert !
    JD1956 and Blue MN are paid trolls spreading misinformation and fear mongering.

    • BlueMN

      You can get paid for this? Actually Wacly, I’m here to spread truth, social justice, and the new American way, that’s why I’m so feared amongst the baggers of Tea sect.

      • Brian Thompson

        what exactly is the “new” American way??

        • raybbr

          It’s called “fascism, American style”. People like BlueMN want to be in on the game so they will be exempt from the new laws and can dance while their neighbors are hauled off to camp.

  • SunnySD92101

    You ever wish you could make millions on just an idea? Take note of the global warming investors and see how much money can be made through fear and activism. Hint; Carbon credits, LEED certifications, Energy taxes, Green cert. Need I say more?

  • jumara

    ith loser al gore as their poster idiot no wonder climate change I stupid

    • Kat Mando

      Could you please start rereading your comments before you hit post? I’m sure they are probably auto corrects but it was kind of hard to understand at first lol

  • larhof52

    They finally gave in to the truth in a way. They might as well say, We don’t know how you are killing the planet, but you are, now give us $5

  • Dan

    Why must the Conservative discussion boards always be filled with asshats? Even if global warming is a hoax, even if some may be blowing it out of proportion – what is so terrible with environmentalism if done within reason? “It’s stupid ’cause someone that’s a Democrat promoting it!” God forbid we should do something that makes sense despite political indifference.
    And speaking of God, doesn’t the Bible say something about being good stewards of that which He has given to us? (That is rhetorical)
    Grow up and start doing the right thing. Your ignorance not only is hurting the environment, but also destroying the beauty of the American system that was to allow common sense to prevail.
    Coming from a Conservative – you are more destructive than most liberals.

    • LTCjRet

      As you were there, sonny. I was active in cleaning water and air most likely before you were born. I went on to a career in engineering with a fundamental understanding of higher mathematics. The AGW argument has nothing to do with reason. Entire industries and political movements (and fortunes) are built around it but “carbon pollution” has nothing to do with something that makes sense. It is a theory. A theory with a fundamental flaw that doesn’t match the data but does serve a political and monetary purpose for those that push it. Running a fools’ errand does not qualify as responsible stewardship. I’ll discuss the details with you all you want but you can take your “grow up and do the right thing”, wrap it in your diploma and choke on it.

      • Dan

        Your user name indicates that you’re a retired field grade officer. With that being said – I find your response rather surprising considering – you more than any should know that in order to be successful, you need to rely on your subject matter experts in order to make accurate decisions on various issues.
        Never have I stated that I am an expert – but when the vast majority of those who are state that our present actions are detrimental to our environment (the degree of which is where they vary), we should be inclined to act with an appropriate and proportionate response.
        But to be naive and reject the issue on the sole basis that it is jettisoned to the forefront by an opposing political party is reckless and stupid.
        It is this and other like mindsets that have Conservative ideology as a whole rejected by a large portion of young Americans. And unfortunately, it will probably be another 15 or 20yrs before we have a younger more sensible group of politicians that place common sense ahead of political agenda.
        You sir, are part of the problem. “Choke” on that.

        • LTCjRet

          I indeed retired as a field grade officer. That was my weekend job. As such, I know that in order to successfully manage details supplied by subject matter experts you must have a modicum of understanding of the subject matter that is their stock and trade.

          I was professionally trained as an aerospace engineer with both undergrad and masters degrees and completed the course work at the PhD level. I specialized in the stability of dynamic systems (the subject at hand) and have worked in conjunction with both the Center for Atmospheric Research and the UK Meteorological Office.

          I am not naive nor am I rejecting the issue on the sole basis of opposing political philosophy. I understand the mathematics. I have studied the claims and I have seen the flaw in the methodology. It is not me touting the opinions of others here.

          And you really need to catch up on the ‘vast majority’ thing. Do a little research on the origin of that claim and the ‘statistics’ behind it.

          Lack of education and sheep-like behavior is the problem, Dan. I can breath perfectly fine.

          • Dan

            And yet your conclusion has failed to be a sufficient resolution to the majority of the scientific community. Get off your high – horse and come to the realization that there much more intelligent people collaborating with varying ideas and models viewing this issue from all angles: and still see a problem. I have read your other comments and I can only conclude that you are so self absorbed with your own education and research that you feel threatened by opposing ideas. Good luck trying to be an influence to anyone with that mentality!

          • LTCjRet

            I am not threatened at all. I have studied the claims and I understand the flaw. And your faith in the popular impression of hosts of lab coats not withstanding, the equations do not change one iota. I am not alone in my conclusion and your lack of exposure to that fact does not weaken my position in the slightest. Now if you wish to go deeper into the details I will oblige. But if your argument has devolved into, ‘well, my dad can beat up your dad’ then we are both wasting our time.

          • Dan

            Again, I am not an expert in these matters – so I would have to side with the majority.

            But answer me this: does our current way of life cause any level of disruption to the ecosystem? And if so, what harm is it to create awareness and take appropriate precautions to ensure that we are not abusing our resources and preserving our planet for posterity?

            I am not advocating giving money to any particular group – because I trust that many are corrupt. However, I guarantee that there is at least one group that is honest and ethical and dedicated to preservation that is well worth investing your time and money into.

          • LTCjRet

            Dan, as I have stated previously, as a young man I was in the vanguard of environmental activism in the early 70s. I don’t know how old you are but there was SERIOUS air and water pollution at that time. I would find it hard to convey the magnitude of the problem. I am proud of the part however small that I may have played in giving you what we enjoy today. Yes, there are problems remaining. I currently live in one of the most natural and undeveloped land on the east coast of the United States and am dedicated to keeping it that way.

            Of course man can disrupt an ecosystem. The first mathematical model I ever constructed as a student was of a closed ecosystem of a pond. You are preaching to the choir on awareness and, yes, action should be taken appropriately. But I will counter with a question, what is the harm if all our reactive resources are directed up a blind canyon? What if the credibility of our efforts are heavily damaged by crying wolf? Will our ability to mobilize against a true problem then be compromised?

            I think you will find we are much more aligned than you might imagine. I’m just concerned that my limited firepower is applied to the right threat and doesn’t do more harm than good if misdirected. And even though I’m not currently wearing a white lab coat, I’ll try and leave you with a bit of hope. Three and a half decades of modeling dynamic systems has taught me to recognize the resiliency of a well balanced system. By all I can see, Mother Nature is one tough lady. I really do care, Dan.


          • jonsen

            Even if “man-made” global warming exists and IF it’s a problem that nature cannot balance on it’s own, don’t you think humans will eventually find a technology that allows us to live peaceably with the planet? Man adapts. Right now, I’m more concerned with basic man-made pollution that damages our water supply and food chain than I am carbon dioxide. These are things where each human can do something about right now in their own lives.

          • raybbr

            What majority? The 31,000 scientists that have signed on that the global warming is a hoax? http://www.petitionproject.org/

          • Hy Alldredge
        • Hy Alldredge

          Conservative ideology has always been rejected by young people. It’s the nature of youth to rebel against the older generation, but lots of them eventually grow up. Young people are often filled with starry eyed idealism and are easily manipulated by emotion. It’s not their fault. Our frontal lobes aren’t fully developed until our mid-twenties. After a while lots of them get some real world experience and common sense and change their minds. Very few forty year-olds view the world the same way they did when they were twenty. I work with young people on a daily basis, and while I admire their spirit and energy, I don’t rely on their judgments.

          I believe in conservation Teddy Roosevelt style, but the clear political agenda behind AGW, the smearing of people who disagree as dangerous “deniers,” the blatant manipulation of data to arrive at the 97% figure, it all stinks to me.

        • Watch it

          So then, you believed the experts who not long ago declared that we were heading into an ice age?

    • Bat Masterson

      Well said.
      Asshats is putting it delicately.

  • Thomas

    look everyone we have 34 years of climate data since the mini ice age of the 80s to predict the next 100 years of climate change ….and the climate is changing every minute of every day……….. just like stoplights

    • Bat Masterson

      That was some ice age.

  • wildbillsooner

    I am a scientist and wildfire ecologist and this propaganda about Global Warming is a total Fraud! The natural environment is cyclic it always has been it always will be unless a huge Volcano erupts or the sun has an unusual amount of solar storms! We are called flat earthers I call the ones who believe in Man made global warming the Chicken Little Society (Henny Penny)! So Al Gore is the President of the Chicken Little Society!!!

    • BlueMN

      LOL Let’s see some credentials.

      • jonsen

        the world is still waiting for Al Gore’s credentials and he hasn’t offered any.

      • wildbillsooner

        Let’s see Al Gores credentials! As for me I will be happy to show you my credentials and I do it all the time when my clients request them. I own my own company called Wildland, Inc. we do wildlife prescribed burns and habitat improvement! If you want to hire me as a consultant at 500 dollars/ day I will be happy to provide you with my resume and a copy of my university degree. I will also provide you with my certifications! If you want to do a prescribe burn to improve wildlife habitat we charge 85 dollars/hour for fire line construction, burning costs are 32 dollars/acre. I am also available to speak or debate climate change (global warming) any where anytime all you have to do is cover my expenses! I have challenged Al Gore to debates and if you are part of his group the chicken little society all you have to do is pass another challenge on to Al or anyone in your group to an open debate! I will bring with me facts not hypotheses to base my findings on the fraudulent climate change (global warming) data!

        • Bat Masterson

          Get over it.
          Gore won and we would be a more sound nation.
          But things eorked out different.
          And the crazy train is off the tracks.

    • LTCjRet

      Thank God. Finally someone who doesn’t think fractions are higher mathematics.

  • Dave Fritzler

    Global Warming or Climate change, is a natural cycle that happen over and over again. The biggest difference this time is that we are here to witness it.

    But there are people out there who saw it as an opportunity to profit from it – especially governments.

    Human activity didn’t cause it. It will happen with or without us. CO2 is less than 4/100 of one percent! That barely makes it a trace gas and the amount is insignificant. Water vapor is the dominant GHG and we had nothing to do with that, so they have not figured a way to limit water vapor emissions. That’s like trying to control the clouds and ocean air. But since CO@ can be traced to human activity and the convenient manipulation of the facts, they spun it into the cause.

    We can not stop it, let alone slow it. We really should not even try to mess with nature on the global scale. Things do not turn out well.

  • Andy

    Stop Climate change, man is bad, cows are bad, Let’s just kill off 4 billion people and kill alt the cows. Problem solved. All hell now let’s make life more miserable for folks to live and enjoy their life. Let’s tax then more; turn food to gasoline additive and cause the price of their food to double.

  • SuperBeeee

    I don’t know about the earth but The United States is close to death due to our incompetent Marxist Boooob named Obama.

  • therain

    Nope, it’s still a myth,

  • Roy

    Another group getting rich off the global warming yet solving nothing, only lining their pockets.

  • jonsen

    The earth will far outlast humans. We’ll be extinct for billions of years before the earth finally dies.

  • RagsOnYouSchwags

    “’There is no more significant issue on earth than its survival,’ Glaser told Dezeen.”

    climate change is going to kill the planet? um, do you know anything about the natural history of the earth? lol, this just more monkey talk from yet another castrated, kumbaya, eco-puss. so altruistically concerned yet he’s not giving buttons away, he’s selling them…how typical. milton glaser you’re a schwag.

  • Tracy_Andersen

    Yupyup…. Peepuls are roooning the earth!!

    The moral I draw from such unwarranted conclusions can be summed up in another slogan — “Okay, everybody off the earth, we are giving it back to the bugs and the weeds!”

    As if mankind is an unhealthy infestation of the earth. (— Hmmm, maybe we ARE a big bad infestation!!!) Still, I thought the earth was made for us? — Naaah, that involves God, and we have discounted Him. —Or have we?

    Okay, place your bets, and let’s see what the eventual outcome really is. We will settle up our wagers in a millennium, or so. Sounds good?

    Laus Deo

  • seatuna

    Plant more trees, clear cutting the rainforest! You’re all being very silly, 90 percent of the co2 to oxygen conversion is done by the ocean and the plant life therein

  • Jack Reacher

    Those who preach from the altar of man-made global-warming purposefully confuse natural climate change with man-made global warming.

  • kieramccarthy

    my Aunty Audrey got a nearly new yellow Mercedes-Benz C-Class Convertible by working from the internet.}}

    For more information >>>>>>>>>>> JOBSFISH

  • https://www.facebook.com/Dundee.Rattlesnake Tlactecatl Tlacaxipe

    I’m getting warmer.

  • Bat Masterson

    We are all more stupid ,crazy and for some of you ,more confused because of Beck’s” bipolar for bucks” campaign.
    Enjoy your insanity.
    Darwin wrote about species like you.

  • ken.

    aaahhhh!!! the sky is falling, the sky is falling, oops, sorry, it just raining.

  • DJPittman

    Deeznuts and BlueMN… Do you understand the divisiveness of what you’re saying?? Do you understand the things you’re spouting in such a nonchalant way are doing nothing but helping the powers that be divide us. Are you that short sighted that those of us who are everyday people, like yourself, actually agree on a lot of issues and want essentially the same things?? You’re a fool if you see it other wise and are doomed to the consequences that foolishness brings. You’re better than that. I know you don’t want to be used by the powers that be to push climate change or whatever the “method du jour” is to keep us fighting each other. Instead of bashing each other we need to start looking at what’s ACTUALLY motivating us become divided. Stop feeling guilty that you life has been eased by some technology or invention, and understand that you’re NOT A VICTIM. You’re not a victim and no on else is either, you’re better than that and you know it. Rise above. Stop believing that one persons success is only derived at the loss of someone or something. That way of thinking only leads to in-slavement. Putting yourself into that role is like playing poker with your cards facing the wrong way, the people you’re playing against will use it against you every time and you’ll be left wondering why you’re lost and broke. You’ll wake up the next morning and say “why is my window open? Where’s all my money? Why are my pants around my ankles? WHY IS MY BUTT STICKY!!??” You will have been, as Joe Pesci put it, “drive throughed.” Again you’re better than that, WE ALL ARE. Remember that the next time you want to take a swipe at someone. And remember that all of this climate control is exactly that CONTROL. Control of US.
    Just a thought.

  • gadrogeek

    Wow, we have an amazing group of stupid people here in Canada, too. Google Ezra Levant for some real insightful news from abroad. And hey, guess what, nobody knows how OLD the Earth is! Neither pro-climate change people nor the deniers should be playing the AGE card to support their position.

    The tundra is melting. Some articles point to the increase in carbon dioxide, but it is the methane that is more problematic (at least 20 times more effective at increasing the Greenhouse Effect than CO2).


    If you want to ignore the mounting evidence that we need to get away from our fossil fuelishness ASAP, fine, but don’t expect any sympathy as your island continues to grow smaller due to rising sea levels.

    I believe in the Creator and thank God we have “free will”. Unfortunately, that comes with a big RESPONSIBILITY!

    Being “good stewards” is far more important than “having dominion”.

    Our Prime Minister apparently believes that something called the “rapture” will somehow save us. That’s as bad as nonbelievers blaming God for all the evils in the world. We have choices to make, but time is certainly of the essence.

    Good Luck to you and your followers.

The 411 From Glenn

Sign up for Glenn’s newsletter

In five minutes or less, keep track of the most important news of the day.