Global Sea Ice Breaks Record High For The Day – Antarctic Sea Ice Also Breaks Record High For the Day

  • Paul__Revere

    OH NO! What do I do now??!! Buy more SUV’s??? Smash my solar panels and start burning a pile of tires in my yard?? Al GORE please tell me what is best!!

    • globalwarmingmyazz

      No, no, no! You must IGNORE the data and say 10 Our Father Gore’s for entertaining such blasphemous ideas!

      • Darko714

        More fracking!

        • globalwarmingmyazz

          Sinner! Repent!

          • CB

            Repenting has absolutely nothing to do with it. What’s needed is for you to accept the empirical reality of the world you inhabit. Antarctic sea ice is increasing because the continent is melting down. Ice is moving from the land to the sea.

            If Climate Depot were a reliable source of information and not a dishonest Climate Denier propaganda outlet, why would they pretend to have difficulty understanding this?

          • CBisAdunce

            Gee, I hope you’re right: I’m going to invest in coconut palm futures in Antartica. I’ll make zillions!

          • CB

            “I’m going to invest in coconut palm futures in Antartica. I’ll make zillions!”

            Who are you going to sell them to if the world’s coastal cities are drowned beneath 75 meters of melted ice cap?

  • Scottsman

    Ay – you gotta love that Global Warming. If it were not for Global Warming, I would be freezing my arse off.

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8Q0sX2cv-Q FreedomTrickle

    quick!!! send all your money to al gore, he’ll fix everything!!!

    • Darko714

      Didn’t you get the memo? The planet is cooling. The ice cap is returning. Algore saved us! Nobel prizes for everyone.

      • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8Q0sX2cv-Q FreedomTrickle

        couldn’t have done it without that awesome new pope!!! {sarc}

        • Shelby Ford

          As a Catholic, I don’t want to tear down this pope,but……….SNAPS!

          • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8Q0sX2cv-Q FreedomTrickle

            at some point enough has to be enough…

          • Tater Lumkin

            The world revolves around the Sun, too. Why are you Catholic?

          • rdf

            For the same reason Galileo and Copernicus were.

          • Tater Lumkin

            Which is??

          • MicheleLloyd

            It does? Obama has me and others convinced that the world revolves around him… Or am I confused and Obama is black hole where all logic,sanity etc is sucked down to never return?

          • Emperor Zurg

            Dat’s rayciss!

          • Shelby Ford

            Faith in something greater than me, tradition, history, being sophisticated enough and trained as an engineer to know that I’m not the cousin of an amoeba. But, this pope is doing tremendous damage to the church. He is supposed to be a spiritual leader.

          • Tater Lumkin

            Perhaps he’s not getting the correct updates from upstairs on his cell phone. I thought he was supposed to be infallible?

          • Shelby Ford

            Look, I’m not going to get into a debate on the role of the pope or his infallibility. I can tell from your snarky comment that you are just attempting to take a cheap shot at the pope because he is an easy target.

          • Steve Beckle

            He’s a human being elevated by men to a position of deity. Sorry, but the whole pope thing is a fraud. I cringe every time I hear someone refer to him as “the holy father”. Man, better start taking those Biblical warnings about idolatry seriously.

          • Shelby Ford

            He is not a deity. He is not worshiped. He is the leader of the church much like the Archbishop of Canterbury is the leader of the Anglican church. So, to even say that show your lack of knowledge.

          • Steve Beckle

            He’s not worshiped? Hah! I know many Catholics who think this man is infallible. Only God is infallible. To attribute that quality to anyone else is, by definition, worship. They call him “The Holy Father”, not “the leader of the church”. The Holy Father is in heaven. Not worship? Geesh, these people refer to him as a deity and claim he is infallible, and you don’t think that’s worship? Get a clue.

          • Rascal69

            You call him the Pope because that is the position he was elected to by a group of other Pope-wannabees. So, what if he had lost the election? We could have Pope Oscar and his world view could be a whole lot different. Catholics have to stop giving credence to this person who literally won a personality contest among a group of so-called abstinent men.

          • Shelby Ford

            He was elected because of his religious “resume”. I am sure that there was an element of politics considering that he was from Latin America, a Jesuit, etc. But he was elected to be a religious leader. He should stay out of politics.

          • Attm Motob

            Its always Politics. Especially in the Vatican.

          • Kelly Lape

            The Pope is the personal representative of God on Earth. He sits on the throne of God. His election was God’s will.

          • dgdh

            as born out by what scripture? None. Only God sits on the throne of God – Go’ds permissive will – the same will that allows you to worship false idols, follow a human instead of Jesus, murder babies, steal from others, live in sin etc. I have no doubt you believe that drivel you just spewed – sad really.

          • Kelly Lape

            I believe the best response is from your own words:

            “I have no doubt you believe that drivel you just spewed – sad really”

          • GodSaveUs

            Me, too, Shelby. As a Catholic I have to admit that this new pope is a disaster for the Church.

      • OmaJohn

        They didn’t even have to make a man-made volcano to spew billions of tons of reflective particles into the atmosphere to solve it. Man, those guys are effective. Really dodged a bullet, here. Now we should just give them billions of tax dollars out of gratitude.

        http://www.cbsnews.com/news/geoengineering-to-fight-global-warming/

    • ElmersPudd

      His bank account has sure grown off the “Stupidity of the Democrat”

      • tex

        They know it’s stupid. They laugh all the way to the bank about how it all actually works.

    • kkc003

      did he run out of fine Scotch already?

  • Jim1937

    That Global Warming is a b i t c h.

  • John

    VUNDERBAR,. I was under the impression that polar bears were drowning due to no ice. Global warming was melting it away. And East Angelia college was always telling the truth. VUNDERBAR.

    • JustDaTrufe

      Your German is impeccable.

    • Rascal69

      The polar bears are truly flurishing…now they have plenty of ice to eat.

  • pie337

    Is there a chance the rotation of the earth will go off it’s axis, and rotate out of control because there is too much weight in the Antarctic?

    • Hillary McBush

      no, but since the average american is 30 pounds overweight…if all the homegrown fatties jump up and down at the same time…it might happen.

    • Shelby Ford

      All us “deniers” think it’s flat, don’t you remember? So, it can’t rotate, or at least not very well.

    • giveusa break

      The risk is from AL GORE’S weight.

      • Tater Lumkin

        Or Hillary.

    • Tater Lumkin

      No, that’s Guam that will tip over if too many people get on one side of it. Or at least that what a Democrat loon said.

    • Emperor Zurg

      That won’t happen until we get total protonic reversal.

      • Globaloney

        Can you buy that at the supermarket?

        • Emperor Zurg

          In the dairy aisle, next to the yoghurt.

  • globalwarmingmyazz

    Oh no! How did this article get through Al Gore’s MEDIA FILTER?? Heads will roll.

  • drofmanythings

    And last year the Great Lakes were 96% frozen over for the first time in decades. I don’t care what the warmers say, I’m cold. Would somebody please forward this data along to the Pope?

    • D New

      The pope is a socialist and believes global warming is the political equivalent of the Christian Compact. In other words, it is up to the wealthy Christian nations in the world to give freely to the needy in order to follow the path that Christ set forth as the way to god. I believe in the Christian compact as well, but within the framework of free market capitalism guided by the rule of law and a democratic form of government. Remember the Pope is from Argentina. Argentina and the US were similar in almost all respects socially and economically in 1900. Unfortunately, Argentina took a different turn politically which resulted in a lost century of liberty for the Argentinian people. The pope is comfortable with the path the Argentinians took.

      • Dr_Albert_Gortenbull

        Juan Peron was a fascist and so are his successors. Albert

        • John McBride

          What is your point? Are you saying that Argentine fascists were not socialists?

          • Dr_Albert_Gortenbull

            Fascism, socialism, and communism are the same thing but packaged differently. Albert

          • OmaJohn

            Man, we’re off topic.

            But, hey, good times.

            Liberals love to claim that socialism isn’t bad, because certain socialist dictators were vaguely “right wing” in the most ambiguous definitions possible of the term. It’s like liberals insisting Hitler was “right wing” despite the modern usage of “right wing” to mean believing in limited government, and the power of the individual in contrast, not despite, the power of the state — a school of thought that failed to reach Hitler during his campaign, promises lavish social benefits, through his tenure as ruler as he created government-run companies that produced automobiles and so much more, clear through to his death after government intrusion into the private economy, to fund expansionism and socialist utopian promises, utterly destroyed German prosperity and security.

            “Those right-wing guys growing the government massively are evil. But man, we need more socialism.”

            Speaking of Hitler, socialism can be summed up in one simple statement: “[…] because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in
            the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or
            voluntarily.”

          • jj

            Emotional nutcases they are indeed.

        • xman_11530

          Facism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin.

          • Kevin

            Yes. There are no such things as right-wing fascism or socialism. Both are left-wing. The differences are in the implementation and type of force used. Fascism is more barrel-of-the-gun. Socialism is more peer-pressure-choice-limitation-censorship-information-witholding style withOUT the gun.

          • Democrats – A New Form of Evil

            Actually, Socialism (Fabian is one facet) has the ideology of waiting until you get enough of the support and policies in place. Once that is done, you kill and jail all dissenters. Kind of throws in the face of what Hillary said about dissent being unAmerican. Democrats only espouse freedom of speech and dissent as long as it serves their purpose. Ever tried to argue with a Democrat? You’ll find a very closed minded and/or uneducated person.

          • Sally Fields

            Amen to that…but they’d NEVER admit it!!!!

          • xman_11530

            Both socialism and facism use force or ‘barrel-of-the-gun’ interchangeably. Don’t believe me? Try not paying your US income taxes or selling loose cigarettes to avoid tax revenues in NY.
            The term ‘facism’ has to do with coopting or binding private interests to government interest. I am not an Italian historian, but Mussolini first used the term which comes form the Latin term ‘fasces’ or bundle of sticks.

          • Not Sure

            Yep, “fasces” as a symbol indicates power; the synchronized, coincidental, parallel application of the stick as opposed to the carrot. It symbolizes the power of those who assert it under legitimate, i.e. legal, authority. In the simplest explanation it symbolizes the power of the unity of purpose to impose the axiom “might makes right”.
            That symbol is pervasive throughout all authoritarian organizations. Do a google search on the image of “fasces” and the concept is pretty clear, but here’s a preview.

          • OmaJohn

            Depends how you define ‘left wing’ and ‘right wing’. Very ambiguous terms. They really don’t do political discourse any good at all.

            Particularly since there are plenty of things that could be considered cite-able references that insist big-government dictators like Hitler are ‘right-wing’, the conversation gets muddied.

            I define ‘right-wing’ political ideology to mean placing the power (responsibility and liberty) on the individual, and left-wing to place it in the hands of bureaucrats. Makes it simple.

            Side note: An individual standing up against hatred is good. A government using alleged hatred to grab power is a disaster.

          • gbp

            “Left-wing” and “right-wing” are not really useful terms, and mask the complicity and similarities between Nazis, Fascists, Socialists and Communists. What they all have in common is big, strong government. A more useful distinction is a “statist” axis. At or near one extreme are all four philosophies, above. At the other end, is individualism and liberty (aka our Founding Fathers).
            Too bad that “Statist” does not sound as scary as Nazi, Fascist, Socialist or Communist. In truth, it is the scariest thing of all.

      • Don’tspyonme

        As a scripture reading catholic this new pope scares me

        • OmaJohn

          Socialism is directly against Jesus’ teachings.

          Telling people to help the poor is totally different than telling people to subjugate themselves to another person’s presumed authority under the pretext of helping the poor.

          If socialists didn’t believe flagrant lies, they wouldn’t believe anything.

          • BIGDOG

            There is actually a difference between teaching someone to fish and buying them a Long John Silver meal – Oh with a diet soda -gotta watch my weight.

          • http://batman-news.com Godot

            Does LJS take the good ole “EBT”

          • ERIC STREAM

            “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels a very well known Socialist in Germany. Yes the Nazis were socialist

          • Democrats are Nazis

            And therefore…probably would have been a Democrat.

          • Jorge

            Example: “Hands up don’t shoot.” & “I can’t Breathe.”

          • Tom Harris

            Obviously, he could BREATH, or he would NOT have spoken the words that were heard.

          • hfd

            wow what an utter dolt you are… perhaps he should have said “I feel my airways are being constricted which is making it harder for me to take in oxygen and expel carbon dioxide…”? tard’s like you make it so hard to fight for critical thinking

          • Pepsi_Freak

            @hfd: And apparently you still believe he was in a choke hold when he (repeatedly) said that?

            A little critical thinking on your part would help.

          • happylada

            Both lies, made popular by liars

          • Stormrdr

            By definition, Charity isn’t charity if it’s being enforced by law, sword, or gun.
            Jesus’s teachings were to be charitable. Trying to ‘enforce’ charity defeats its very purpose.

          • http://wp1331.wordpress.com/ WarPony

            The Catholic Church isn’t worried about charity, look at the top brass with their multi-million dollar estates. It’s a fraud.

            OTH, sea ice doesn’t account for as much as total ice pack. Earth is losing ice – PERIOD. It’s cyclical, just check out wiki for “ice age” and see this cycle has about a 125K year reboot. We are spiking around the top soon to be followed by an EXTREME drop into cold.

            And, no, there are no SUV fossils.

          • King_Solomon1

            AL GORE SHOULD BE IN PRISON RIGHT NEXT TO THE PONZI SCHEME FRAUDSTER BERNIE MADOFF. GORE IS A LIAR, THIEF, FRAUD AND WORST OF ALL, HYPOCRITE.

          • Twinkies

            You forgot buffoon

          • MoFreeMoney

            Liberals made up the religion of global warming so they can PRETEND to be the savior of the planet.

            Just as they PRETEND to be the savior of the poor, the blacks, the gays, the feminists, the unions and dozens of other special interest groups too lazy, ignorant and weak minded to think beyond the media lies.

          • franknshadow

            Anybody that thinks this global warming scam is about anything other than a massive redistribution of wealth is playing into their hands.. That is all this is about period…It is the attempt at global government with global laws which loosely translates into ransacking the US and giving that wealth to a global oligarchy.. Simple.. Thats why they will never let it go. Never..

          • Richard Genco

            BINGO!!

          • guy

            we have a winner !!!!!

          • badon518

            I thought that the earth began to heal and the seas began to recede the very moment Barak Obama took office……….weren’t we told exactly that?

          • still_right

            But he’s got the chakra!

          • Der_SauerKraut

            No, Joe Biden holds the patent on Buffoon.

          • JonBarleyCorn

            With a $24K/mo electric bill. God. What a douche.

          • 1twothree4

            Will he get time off for inventing the internet?

          • Hopsaregood

            LMAO. Bet Baraq is pissed at him for not putting government controls on it at the time.

          • griefman

            You forgot to preface all those labels with “very rich”

          • Liberals stink

            You also forgot that he has sh!t for brains!

          • franknshadow

            Thug, Bully, Egomaniac, Pervert, Sociopath, Propagandist, and that covers about half of it..

          • Hopsaregood

            Twenty Four carat gold plated hypocrite. And he is a prick to boot.

          • jerseydave

            …and the bankers who knowingly sold bad loan debt to other banks and collapsed the banking system. Also, the politicians who made that possible by gundecking Federal loan reports at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years. They have the cash and the media flacking for them though. They should all be locked up.

          • Atilla Thehun

            And especially the creators of the Community Reinvestment Act and its followers, Clinton, Reno, Frank, Dodd, Waters.

          • fightconn

            Not defending them and I agree with most posts here, but multi-million dollar estates? That they own? Please, if this is not just some brown gas coming out your back side, provide some links to this, I am interested.

          • Glenda Green

            Go look it up yourself you lazy dolt. People don’t have to do research for you. Al Gore lives in a palatial estate in Tennessee and it’s easily seen via Google Earth. If I found it, so you can you.

          • http://batman-news.com Godot

            AND his beachfront Malibu home, prefectly safe from rising oceans, apparently. Right on the beach, though.
            BTW the Church of Rme, to deal with mess those touchy feelie priests made, is selling off a TON of really nice waterfront property in New England, and elsewhere. Vow of “poverty” ROFLMAO.

          • erntx

            I think warpony meant the Catholic Leaders.

          • 1twothree4

            Attenhut!

            STHU PO Green. You were too lazy to read the article, or the comments or you would know he was referring to the top Vatican officials in Italy.

            At ease and carry on

          • fightconn

            I may be a lazy dolt but the comment was not talking about Al Gore, it was talking about the Catholic Church, you ignorant dolt. And I am not backing up the Catholics, I think they have a lot of nerve wanting the US to spend on their programs while they have great wealth in buildings and art work and I think the Pope is way out of line and an Obama loving socialist, I was just asking about the comment that was made. I don’t really think it is too much to ask when someone makes a unfounded statement to ask them to back it up. If not, the entire comments section dialog is nothing but drivel and although a lot of it is, like your comment, I believe a good deal if it is healthy dialog.

          • JonBarleyCorn

            If you get to live in it for life — does it really matter if you own it or not? Isn’t it semantics at that point?

          • Hopsaregood

            Old Al does live in an multi million dollar palace in TN. Cannot get near it.

          • fightconn

            He was talking about the top brass in the Catholic Church not Al Bore

          • http://wp1331.wordpress.com/ WarPony

            German Bishop Franz-Peter ($40 million dollar home)… & google “The lavish
            homes of American archbishops” – $1 million plus. And, I’m sure there’s more.

          • fightconn

            I recant my position and apologize to you.

          • http://wp1331.wordpress.com/ WarPony

            Apology not necessary my friend. And, as a disabled US Army veteran and veteran supporter, Wounded Warriors is a good place to show your support. Thanks.

          • fightconn

            A good percentage of my giving had been going to WW recently but now they get it all. Once the Bishops sell the mansions and feed the poor, I might start listening to them again. I think it takes big balls to tell the US government what to do with tax money when you live in a 14 million dollar mansion

          • morecotwo

            I can’t wait.

          • paganpink

            The church owns expensive real estate- the priests, bishops, cardinals own virtually nothing but the clothes on their back. When they are in civilian clothes, that is. When they are in their vestments they don’t own those either.

          • Hopsaregood

            Yes, but they have access to some fine vacation properties such as ski lodges in Colorado.

          • Twinkies

            Agree. It appears that we are in an interglacial period of an ice age. I looked ice age up after returning from Alaska when a glacier guide said we are in an ice age.

          • jc c

            What you do not realize is everything the Church has, was donated or given to them. Unless you know the history of the Catholic Church and how It came to be, you really should keep your opinions to yourself. You are just like the libs and perhaps you are one. You point out what is on the surface and not the truth. This is about Global warming, not the Catholic Church.

          • Paul Script

            The Catholic Church is simply the world’s largest real estate company. Ever been to the Vatican’s “Map Room”? And that’s just the Italian properties! Then they have their “other assets”, i.e., you and me, who fork over our paychecks to pay taxes, rent and maintenance on all that real estate … in exchange, of course, for a solemn assurance that we’ll have a great time after we’re dead.

          • Hopsaregood

            And after that guy forgives your sins before getting back to diddling little boys.

          • http://nouturn.wordpress.com porchhound

            I read that wiki article last week…pretty interesting that so much has been made about a natural trend with thousands of years supporting it.

          • jaybird1951

            “The Catholic Church…look at the top brass with their multi-million dollar estates. It’s a fraud.”

            I am looking but where are those ‘estates?’ Can’t you control your religious bigotry and ignorance even when the subject is the global warming fraud?

          • http://wp1331.wordpress.com/ WarPony

            German Bishop Franz-Peter ($40 million dollar home)… google “The lavish
            homes of American archbishops – $1 million plus)”

          • http://www.earlysda.com earlysda
          • Douglas Lang

            No doubt… but believing in global warming doesnt mean you must believe in a socialist fix. I infact believe in letting the earth do whatever it intends to do. It will either wipe away our existance or it will turn out to be much to do about nothing.

          • CB

            “I infact believe in letting the earth do whatever it intends to do”

            Uh huh, and why would you pretend humans have nothing to do with that?

            We have increased CO₂ from 290PPM before the industrial revolution to 400PPM today. If it’s so likely that polar ice caps will be able to withstand CO₂ so high, why isn’t there a single example of them doing so in Earth’s history?

          • glamdeluxe
          • Dirty Harry

            Believer huh? Too bad.

          • Hopsaregood

            Another one who mainlines the Democrat Plantation Kool Aid.

          • KM

            Nice try – taking this article’s snapshot of 36 years in an approximately 4.5 billion year history (shrinking it to your own 8 year snapshot), then trying to magnify the significance of your own numbers, and making your premise of cause the only available one….
            Hot is global warming. Cold is global warming. Rain is global warming. Snow is global warming. Clouds and the lack of clouds are global warming…

          • Hopsaregood

            Forget it KM, you are talking to a Democrat Plantation helot too long immersed in the Kool Aid.

          • CheshireKitty

            There you go: Reverting to your Confederate mythology of the helots slaving on plantations. At least you are honest about wanting to go against humanity in wishing to enslave your brothers.

          • Mikey

            Hurricane? Global warming. Warmer winter? Global warming. Colder winter? Global warming.

            Oh wait……it’s called “climate change” now. It is all-encompassing, and everything that occurs under the sun is the fault of greedy mankind.

          • CactusPatch

            “Global warming” was proving to be a real embarrassment. With “climate change” you can have your cake and eat it too.

          • NewbieJames

            Get with the program. “Climate Change” was so yesterday. It is “Climate Disruption”.

          • bloodaxe

            According to my personal Guru, Chicken Little, the glaciers are coming and we’re all going to freeze to death.

            We’re doomed unless you fork over tons of money to Mr. Little, via me.

          • TeaPartyPatriotTD

            Algore, is that you?

          • bloodaxe

            Damn! Busted.

          • CheshireKitty

            Little by little, car lanes are being removed in favor of bike lanes. I wonder why is that?

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            Beats the shit out of me. How many nuts would prefer commuting to work on a bike?

          • Billy Ray

            Me!

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            Have fun next snowy day.

          • http://batman-news.com oilcanp

            The eco-freak dictatorship. agenda 21. Starting with Common core. Total control.

          • Billy Ray

            You are paranoid!!

          • CheshireKitty

            Listen oilcanp – I got no problem with oil if it’s a healthy olive or canola oil dressing a dish of salad. You are obviously fixated on extracting and profiting from every last ounce of petroleum, right? Liquid gold. Well, sad to say, a big societal change is underway.. less driving, less car ownership. Why are gasoline prices falling? Because of decreased demand. What will the result be? Less driving = less air pollution, less driving = more physical activity. Score two big pluses for the environment and peoples’ health. Score two big minus for the oil industry, which has to retrench/retool/re-imagine itself which will also involve R&D costs and accept less for the product it pumps.

          • CheshireKitty

            You know, they just banned wood fires in fireplaces in NYC. I think that was the right thing to do – considering the pollution caused by wood fires.

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            Of course you do, dear. Although lunatics are gunning down cops in the streets, I’m sure wood fires are VERY high-priority concern in the Rotten Apple.

          • JohninRedding

            Just read an article that said the polar ice caps are the largest every recorded. The global warming folks have got to be getting nervous. Nothing is playing out as they predicted.

          • CheshireKitty

            Oh, maybe you want to go back to a world of dirty air and water? I guess you favor birth defects, emphysema, lung cancer, and mutations, and so forth. Most people don’t.

          • xdream

            When you are cornered and can’t rationally reply, you spout socialist claptrap. Your assertions that “…you favor birth defects, emphysema, lung cancer, and mutations, and so forth…” are not borne out by anything in this thread. They are racist insults.

          • CheshireKitty

            Racist insults? I’m telling you: Birth defects, emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease and on and on – these are your legacies. You and people like you who do not wish to have a clean environment, you brought these scourges down on us. All of us.

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub
          • CheshireKitty

            Yeah, yeah, hold on to your dream of expensive oil, and endless profits for big oil and all the business that flows from it. You should see what cities in Europe are doing – always in the vanguard of progress: Banning private cars in city centers including swaths of Paris, encouraging bicycling/walking, and installing solar/wind like there’s no tomorrow.

            Well, it’s about time we moved on from sickening ourselves and our descendants by allowing coal and heavy oil fired plants to pour out tons of emissions, as well as car exhaust, don’t you think?

          • Rick Lloyd

            There are no “heavy oil” electricity generating plants in the US.

          • CheshireKitty

            It’s still used to power residential oil burners. Diesel is still used for electrical generation. Coal is certainly the biggest culprit – isn’t it still widely used?

          • Rick Lloyd

            You are correct about coal – it accounts for approximately 40% of our nation’s electric generation. Just curious: What would you like to replace that 40% with – natural gas or nukes? Other than coal, those are the only choices. Don’t say wind and solar because they are intermittent resources and can’t substitute for base load generation.
            BTW – There is very little utility scale diesel gen in the US, Most in Hawaii and other island Territories. Plenty of small emergency diesel gensets, though!

          • John Kunnari

            Kitty… News flash! You and eco buddies wouldn’t be around, be fed, clothed, have transportation or a roof over your heads without oil. Anthropomorphic global warming is the biggest hoax perpetrated in history to control every part of human being’s lives. (e.g. “banning” what allows independence, force dependence/control). Windmills in the U.S. alone kill 1.5 million birds and bats per yr. Not very “Green” are they!

          • Billy Ray

            Ignorant

          • Flechette

            Next it will be “Climate Stagnation” since the temperature is not changing.

          • G Anderson

            Brilliant!!

          • CheshireKitty

            Laugh it up now, while oil is still ascendant. I guess you GW deniers are the ultimate carpe diem folks – the ultimate fatalists. What do you care about the future as long as you can make money today – untrammeled by government regulation or the adverse health consequences of dirty air/water/soil.

          • G Anderson

            No, typically conservatives are far more responsible with our use of energy, and how trash is handled. Liberals leave trash everywhere, don’t recycle as much, and like AlGore, have massive electric bills. Just because you buy falsified data, does not make you a better, more concerned person. There simply is no alternative to oil & coal, thanks in part to you liberals that won’t allow nuclear energy. But The US is far cleaner than China. In fact it is your disregard of China’s massive pollution that makes you the ultimate fraud.

          • CheshireKitty

            Gimme a break. Take a look at Germany – which is putting in solar at the speed of light. They are the progressive ones in the Green battle. This isn’t even a Liberal/Conservative problem. It’s a nearsighted-farsighted one: The ones that plan and think will survive, the ones that don’t – eh, sorry, maybe a flood will wash away your “sins.”

          • John Kunnari

            Current solar technology is not efficient enough to be economically feasible. It’s also not scalable. Replacement for 1 Nuclear powered power plant producing 1000 MegaWatts would take solar “farm” approx. 1/4 the size of Rhode Island 292
            sq mi.

          • CheshireKitty

            Not true. Germany is replacing nuclear with solar – and Germany isn’t even that sunny.

          • John Kunnari

            Kitty it seem you’re a Reality Denier. Gov’t regulation cost individuals and companies hundred of billions of $ every yr. $ that could in most cases be used for bettering peoples individuals’ lives, used for research to cure disease, provide for better education, used for R&D to make better use of resources, etc. etc.

          • CheshireKitty

            No – it’ll be climate clean-up, once the price of oil really collapses due to people driving less and biking more (for example) or China finally cracks down on electrical power generating stations burning coal/heavy oil (which it is about to do). I do not think you can call the Chinese “dumb” for cracking down on air pollution.. not “dumb” at all..

          • Flechette

            Again, *pollution* is not *global warming*. Stop confusing the two issues.

          • CheshireKitty

            Really? Since when do emissions/air pollution not lead to GW? China is currently one of the biggest culprits (if not the biggest) but it has recently promulgated legislation to end coal-fired power stations in three key provinces (so so many of its citizens are dying due to the effects of pollution).

          • Flechette

            Example: dump a bunch of old cares, batteries ans light bulbs full of mercury into a lake and you have *pollution*. None of these things contribute to “global warming”.

            They are separate things.

          • CheshireKitty

            I am saying emissions from polluting industry/cars lead to GW. That is accepted world-wide by now. The array of pollution from polluting industry can certainly include illegal dumping in lakes, rivers, soil. The same polluting industry probably also dumps tons of particulate matter into the air. All these forms of pollution need to be addressed – and they are being addressed.

          • G Anderson

            You just make stuff up, don’t you. Flechette did not say it was “dumb.” Perhaps you are, though.

          • John Kunnari

            Kitty the only thing that Communist Chinese gov’t is “cracking down on” are the heads of 100s of thousands of people would dare to speak out or think for themselves. Their air is dirtier than ever. Though I do think you and thousands who talk like you would feel at home there… at least until reality set in.

          • CheshireKitty

            No, China just signed on to a climate agreement with Obama – to ban coal fired electrical generating stations in 3 key provinces. I agree that there is not much freedom of speech – but there is a tradition of almost daily demonstrations/frequent riots throughout the country, and occasionally the message of people fed up with pollution does get through to the central authorities.

          • CheshireKitty

            It doesn’t matter what you call it. Those who lived through Sandy – including quite a large portion of the US population – and maybe one of the most influential sections of the country (East Coast) believe in its reality. You want to keep shelling out billions to repair superstorm damage? Then go right ahead and keep on burning coal or heavy oil to generate electricity – go right ahead and do not force industry to clean up its act. There are millions of people though who think otherwise – especially those who saw their property inundated/destroyed or swept out to sea

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            No, it’s Climate Catastrophism!

          • CheshireKitty

            Well, cactus, it’s easy for you to say that.. Try dealing with your house washed away by Sandy.. or expensive art collections of the uber-rich inundated in Tribeca, or Chelsea, or the West Village. Sandy hit some of the wealthiest zip codes in the US. These people donate – to both parties. They will make sure measures are put in place to curb emissions.. clean up dirty industry, etc.

          • xdream

            Sandy was mild. The fact that anything was left at all is a sign that the storm lacked the strength of past storms.

          • CheshireKitty

            So you Sandy had washed away the E. Coast. I bet you wish that. Nice – it would have washed away the cradle of our United States: Boston, NY, Phila, and on down to the Virginia and the Carolinas. How unpatriotic.

          • xdream

            Public Education? Do you know what a barrier island is?

          • CheshireKitty

            Yep. Have also visited many. Your point is? The barrier islands will “protect” the cities? Umm.. it didn’t quite work out that way with Sandy unfortunately. Water washed into Lower Manhattan – filling the construction pit at the WTC site for example, the Bklyn-Battery tunnell, the trans E. River and trans Hudson transit tunnels, and so forth.

          • xdream

            No. Barrier Islands are a natural feature created in a large storm. They are the last “sand bar” before the mainland, where the waves break. In the storm that creates such a feature, the “barrier island” is nothing more than a submerged sand bar. They don’t protect anything.

          • CheshireKitty

            Gimme a break. This is typical oil-based-economy-justification-talk – you know it and I know it – all of a sudden you are going to “scientifically” prove that Sandy was umm… just “par for the course” and has nothing to do with “the environmental depredations caused by decades of air pollution.” You can’t admit the environment is all screwed up even though 2014 was a record warm year. So you’ll try to say Sandy wasn’t so bad and even worse storms are possible – even when nobody was driving. Right. Maybe from your perspective (doubt if you’re on the E. Coast of the US) it was a walk in the park. Guess what – it was a nightmare, xdream.

          • John Galt

            Actually I think it has been re-branded yet again…it is now climate disruption. Now any variation or anomaly that any Stalinist enviro-idiot perceives to be real is caused by man disrupting the climate.

          • TL Thompson

            At the core of this madness: self-loathing.

          • John Galt

            and ignorance

          • CheshireKitty

            I think you are the ignorant one if you doubt the reality of what rampant un-regulated development leads to: Air pollution off the chart, thousands if not millions unable to breath, prematurely dying, sky-rocketing health care costs,and so forth Why do you think China has instituted strict controls on coal fired plants (also possibly heavy-oil powered electrical generating plant)? It doesn’t want millions of its people dying of basically smoke inhalation… and having to pay the cost in hospital/disability expenses.

          • John Galt
          • CheshireKitty

            You sure do. Otherwise, we’d still be living in smog-choked cities world-wide. Look at the increase in life expectancy since the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were introduced here, and anti-air pollution measures were enacted in England. China is now going through the same process – the backlash to the harmful effects of breakneck development, without the least thought for the environment.

          • CheshireKitty

            No – at the core of the madness is greed and the rush for development, be it under capitalism or communism. Also, the fear of being taken over by other countries, and the rush to be armed to the teeth and economically “strong.” Things today are exactly as they were on the eve of WWI: Alliances tested by crazy nationalist outbreaks, such as Ukraine. The difference is that the superpowers today fight limited wars rather than all-out self-destructive conflicts.

          • TL Thompson

            Interesting take! Greed is an interesting concept. One man’s greed is another’s ambition. I supposed every collector, and hoarder, can be considered greedy, along with everyone who desires upward mobility. And greed is not limited to material wealth. I suppose it’s a question of degree, which, at the far end of the spectrum, bleeds into obsessions.

            As I see it, greed is a common, almost universal human characteristic. We see it on the Green Left, with partisans hustling after public subsidies, not to mention the Big Players (i.e., the greediest, so to speak) who seek to establish entire markets (e.g., cap and trade), and far-reaching global regulations, from which they derive considerable profit. And, of course, every ambitious capitalist (from businessmen, such as myself, to artists) can be considered greedy.

            The problem with the advocates of Slow Growth (or, more extremely, No Growth) is that they are typically members of highly advanced capitalistic economies — places where they can routinely visit grocery stores and shopping malls that offer a mind-boggling variety of consumer goods — 6 varieties of apples, 25 flavors of yogurt, dozens of automobiles, every book you would ever want to read, dozens of movies — all within a short radius, all at competitive prices (driven by the efficient market). Along with high technology. And indulgent luxury goods. And a crushing volume of information.

            People in this culture have no right to demand growth limits on 2nd- and 3rd-world economies — as if to say, I’ve got mine, and you can just live with your primitive economy. That’s not going to happen. The 2nd world is catching up, as well they should, and the even the lost causes in the third world (e.g., Haiti) are making some progress. This is, after all, the Age of Global Capitalism.
            “Armed to the teeth”? Easy to say if you live under the nuclear umbrella of the United States. Again, can we tell the developing world to just live as primitives, and hope for the best, while America can assure it’s actual and would-be enemies that death and destruction are only minutes away if they cross the line (as we define it)?
            I think Americans (actually, the entire ‘1st world’, as we define it) has forfeit its right to place limits on the economic and military development of the developing world. The hypocrisy is beyond the pale.

          • CheshireKitty

            Whoa – the old Soviet Union was the biggest enviro-criminal state – much worse that the “capitalist” states of the “West.” In the “East” development led to actual ecocide. Even though things got pretty bad in the US – remember the smog of LA? – I’m not sure we actually ever completely poisoned the Earth as thoroughly/mindlessly as they did in E. Europe and Russia. Of course – forget about ecocide in China today – a carnival of untrammeled capitalist-communist development that has surely led to thorough poisoning of that land.

          • Flechette

            Hey, today is cloudy when it was sunny yesterday! Oh teh noes! It’s “climate change”!

          • CheshireKitty

            Continue to live in your Pollyana world of denial. Maybe you would want to take a dip in Newtown Creek – which partially forms the border of the boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn, NY – a nice refreshing dip in some of most polluted water on Earth, the direct result of untrammeled development/dumping of industrial waste since Colonial times! If you think capitalism (or communism for that matter – since the communists have been equally oblivious to the effects of untrammeled development) is so great, be my guest – take a nice refreshing dip in those polluted waters!

          • Flechette

            I never said that we should stop trying to clean up our water. I am against dumping arsenic in our rivers. Who isn’t?

            But *clean water* is not *global warming*.

            I find it amazing that so many people use pollution in order to justify “global warming” regulations. It is a DIFFERENT ISSUE!

          • CheshireKitty

            Really? You explain how the issues are different. The ideal is the cessation of the use of coal to fire energy stations, as well as the cessation of heavy oil. After that, we go after gasoline-powered cars. Any dirty/polluting industry must also be cleaned up. Have I missed anything?

          • Flechette

            Yes, you missed the basic premise: *pollution* (like dumping toxic waste into the water) is not *global warming* (which is supposedly caused by carbon dioxide…even though the earth has only warmed 0.8 degrees in a century).

            If you are against *pollution* then lobby for trade restrictions on China; they produce the majority of the *pollution* on the planet.

          • CheshireKitty

            Air pollution leads to global warming. As far as China is concerned, there is only so much any country other than China can do. How much leverage do you really think the US has over China at this point?

          • Flechette

            1. Pollution does not necessarily lead to “global warming”. They are two different things. Arsenic in a river is not “global warming”.

            2. If China is causing the majority of the pollution then we have a *duty* to try to get them to clean up. Just looking the other way and saying “we can’t really get them to do anything” is a cop out. Do you *really* care about the environment? If so, do not cop out.

          • CheshireKitty

            Pollution does not necessarily lead to “global warming”. If you are referring to air pollution (AP) that is a matter of opinion. I suppose you would advocate for no regulations whatsoever on any polluting business, right? Do you also feel AP does not lead to any adverse health effects?

          • Flechette

            Absolutely not! Of course we should have regulations restricting pollution. I am just making it clear that “global warming” is not “pollution”.

            The reason I insist on correct terminology is that bad decisions get made when the two issues are confused. Reasonable regulations controlling pollution are a good thing, but many people carry that argument into the “global warming” debate, which is a different subject entirely.

            Many people will see smog around a city and then conclude that we need “global warming” regulations. Two different things.

            It is important because a bad regulations can hurt the nation’s economy AND hurt the *environment*as well. If you *really* want to help the environment then you have to make sure that the regulations being passed are valid, not just political insider money manipulation.

          • CheshireKitty

            I suppose you disagree with the Pope on the issue of the need to curb pollution and so forth, and the link between global warming and super storms such as Haiyan.
            http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_REL_POPE_ASIA_CLIMATE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-01-15-08-14-58

          • Flechette

            I am for curbing pollution, so I obviously disagree with the Pope on that. I do not think that “global warming” is a real issue at all, man-made or otherwise

            From the artcile, note this quote, “The ultimate goal of U.N. climate negotiations is to stabilize greenhouse gases at a level that keeps global warming below 2 degrees C (3.6 F), compared with pre-industrial times.”

            This is absurd since the earth has only warmed 0.8F in the last 110 years, and the temperature has not risen signifiacntly in the last 17 years. If we can only raise is by 0.8F how could we possibly reduce it by 3.6F?

            If you believe in man-made global warming this means that if we stopped ALL human activity we would only lower the earth’s temperature by 0.8F. Lowering it by 3.6F would be *impossible*.

            Back to the Pope, his statment that “Man has slapped nature in the face” is actually blasphemous if you are Catholic. “Nature” is not a living entity, it is simply the way the universe works. To imply that nature has some sort of concience, that its feelings can be hurt is akin to saying that it is another God. Catholism is supposed to believe in one God.

            This would not be the first time a Pope has committed blasphemy. I am not religious so the Catholics can figure this out for themselves.

          • CheshireKitty

            You love pollution caused by rampant capitalism/communism (take your pick) – go live in Beijing, China! There, you can’t see your nose in front of your face for all the smog. Oh wait! China is alright, because without China churning out the world’s cheap goods, we wouldn’t have capitalist penetration/subjugation of the world’s economies on a global scale! Thus, you should be perfectly happy choking on the foul air of China!

          • Margaret Shepherd

            Last time I checked, we don’t live in China. You are comparing a country with absolutely no regulations to one that is so over-burdened by regulations we have no JOBS!

          • CheshireKitty

            You can blame NAFTA for the lack of jobs in the US. It was an intentional plan by the powers that be on both sides of the aisle to ship US jobs overseas, the idea being that our amigos south of the border would then buy more US goods, leading to more US jobs. Well, it didn’t exactly work out that way – either for Central America or the US.

          • Mikey

            You sound like a stupid c#nt trying to use big words to make yourself seem smart. Shut the hell up before I cock-slap you. Can you even define communism or subjugation you fat cow??

          • John Kunnari

            Huh??

          • Mikey

            Duh??

          • Billy Ray

            Global warming and climate change are two different but related things.

          • Mikey

            You f#cking retard…shut up.

          • Richard_Iowa

            Religion is global warming, meaning global warming is religion.

          • Not Sure

            Global Warming is religion.

          • Unopinionated

            It’s worse than that. It’s a cult that prays to a statue of Al Gore.

          • jon doe

            maybe they will drink the Kool’aid and die like Jonestown

          • Globaloney

            If only…

          • Unopinionated

            If only Darwin was a god they would. Wishful thinking. Must think harder. Maybe if we all pray like an Atheist: Kumbiology, me lord Darwin, kumbiology!

          • CheshireKitty

            You wish. If that was the case, the entire structure of science would come crashing down. And then you’d have no more “progress.” I guess you would like to see the world petrified – like your precious fossil fuels – in the 50s era, wouldn’t you, with gas-guzzling autos, and no thought at all for the future. Unfortunately, your thinking is a fossil too: Out-dated, brittle, and broken.

          • Pendy1

            And sends money to HIS carbon credit company, Generation Investment Management.

          • Victor Zusman

            This is one fat statue… Shouldn’t M. Obama cut on fat Gore consumes?

          • CheshireKitty

            Keep clutching your Bible – as GW-caused flood-waters rise. I doubt if it’ll “save” you, unfortunately; but science will. And 99% of scientists accept the truth of GW.

          • G Anderson

            There you go lying again. You must be,what 7th grade? Believe all the propaganda you’ve been taught?

          • CheshireKitty

            Lying? You really think Sandy wasn’t caused by GW? You are the one who defies common sense in disbelieving data that describes the deleterious effects on the environment/human health of air/water pollution.

          • Unopinionated

            hahaha ROFLMAO It’s funny you say this, you little puss, as you type this on your Chinese-made computer, made of oil-based plastic, shipped by communist billionaires burning fossil-based fuels to your local Best Buy so you can buy it on your Arab-owned credit card (again, plastic) and plug it into your wall outlet (Chinese plastic) so you can power it up (burning oil-based fuel) so you can waste your time (and ours) spouting your hatred toward Christians and those with different belief that have not drank Gore’s koolaid-laced pee and begged

            “Can I have some more, sir?” http://media0.giphy.com/media/mpQkJpBMbSxMs/200.gif

            You’re kind of a liar and a hypocrite that makes things up to look smart but you fool only yourself.
            I truly doubt you know many scientists yet you come up with a startling “99%” statistic. How very scientific of you. Actual scientists roll their eyes at you at parties when you start smacking your ‘brilliance’. Soooo cute when you try acting smart!!!!! You must have gotten this 99% from a government-funded scientist. Do share your source! Please. In your response, cite the 99% source or STFU. Such a puppet: Sit up. Beg. Memorize. Regurgitate. Repeat.

            Is this as reliable as the 100% of Koreans that voted FOR their ‘Dear Leader’?! I don’t have stats (so I dont make them up like you) but my parents go to a Church in a VERY progressive Ivy League community blocks from campus. No liberal arts profs amongst them, mind you. Only hard sciences. Several are Rockefeller and Rhodes Scholars and all patent-holders. Their advanced education and research behind the microscope has only strengthened their belief in God, Two dozen professors in a single Church among dozens in this community that also have professors that believe in God and that science is simply God’s programming language. One professor, a volcanologist, states that the planet ‘breathes’, expanding and contracting, consuming and exhaling. Our body temperature rises when we are more active and declines as we slumber. Ditto with Earth. People that fail to understand this are the ones that are the troglodytes with false gods. It takes a real self-centered simpleton to believe that a God did not create a massive planet but that little men, like you, can actually have an irreversible impact on it.
            News Flash: You’re not the Sun. Get over yourself, little man.

            BTW, I hope you live at Sea Level…….and while you do keep in mind that fossils have been found high in the mountains and that land bridges once existed connecting to what we now call islands. All of this occurred long before Detroit ever made cars. The Earth is constantly changing. Glaciers once towered over where I am now typing at 1200’ASL

          • abner

            Excellent Unopinionated. Like Al Gore who’s carbon footprint is many times the norm she makes use of every convenience fossil fuels prrovide. Like our prez who preaches green living but burns 5 gallons of jet fuel per mile on his frequent 9,500 mile round trip Hawaiian vacations along with a giant support an security detail. Gotta love the ironic hypocrisy.

          • CheshireKitty

            Is engorging yourself on the products of our petrochemical based culture something to brag about? Did you or me have a choice in the matter? We were born into the culture – which once was a car worshiping culture in the days of cheap gasoline. We also were once a tobacco worshiping culture – before the axe fell on that particular poison. Or do you doubt the science on tobacco as well?

          • CheshireKitty

            Let’s stick to the topic. If we are going to veer off onto religion, there’s no end to discussing why it’s so vital to maintaining the social status quo – especially the patriarchy – worldwide. But hey, the Pope is religious, and he has bought into global warming, which means that even religious folks can “see the light” and accept GW as a fact.

          • Unopinionated

            So…….let’s get this straight……Religious people are nuts and completely wrong (according to you) but then you bring up that the pope has bought into global warming so all the Christian sheeple should, too. You seem to endorse patriarchies when it comes to supporting your causes but otherwise they are evil white men billionaires and colonial overlords. Frankly, the pope is about as whacko as the POTus. The Chinese communist dictators, on the other hand, are admirable ‘rag-tags’ who ‘kept it together’ despite killing millions through pogroms, intimidation, genocide and starvation. REALLY?!?!?

            Look, China is made up of as many different peoples and nations as Europe. It isn’t mutual brotherly love that keeps them together: It’s the tip of the bayonet and threat of execution. Spout your liberal philosophy there and see how long you survive! You clearly do not know what you are talking about. China has invaded and absorbed other sovereign countries and parts and has forced other countries to pay ‘protection money’ to them. Right now, China is practicing colonial power over large swaths of Africa. China has invaded Japan, Vietnam, Korea, Tibet, Nepal, India, Mongolia, Russia, Silla, Hami, Formosa, Kotte, the Tocharians, Myanmar/Burma and others. Hami is now a prefecture of China. Tibet was a HUGE country swallowed up by China. Today, the US pays ‘protection money’ in the form of trade to China. If the US went cold turkey and banned Chinese imports to the US then China would invade us tomorrow.
            It’s ironic how you frame Westerners as evil colonizers since the Chinese committed a genocide against the Dzungars of Xinjiang, conqueredd it and then brought in Han Chinese settlers to colonize and secure it as their new Western Frontier from 1760-1820. Please note that this was well BEFORE the British gained Hong Kong Island through a treaty that did not involve genocide.

            You are like swiss cheese, man. You deplore the West for GW but then you praise China despite the fact they are the most flagrant generator of it and have to spraypaint their mountains green.
            BTW, Mao did not defeat Japan in China. Mao and KMT had a United Front during WWII and the US continued their support of KMT throughout war. When Japan surrendered to US Mao then continued the Civil War against US-allie KMT. Get your facts straight.

          • Crystal Smith

            Yes, it’s a NEW religion and DOGMA they so HATE in religion so they passed their own brand of dogma to the Pope so it looks like legit dogma.

          • Grumpy Cat

            And it now has its own “Pope”. I wonder how the Marxists deal with that one in their feeble minds.

          • CheshireKitty

            Everyone knows Jesus was a proto-socialist – at the very least an anti-establishment agitator/rebel. If Jesus were alive today, I’m sure he’d be very comfortable in the pro-GW camp, lined up in opposition to big/polluting business and pro-the little guy.

          • RIMSPOKE

            SO THAT’s WHY THE POPE IS GETTING IN ON IT !

          • CheshireKitty

            The Pope is nominally the religious leader of the West – of all Christendom, East and West, Catholic and Protestant. If he says we must respect the Earth and rein in capitalist/communist untrammeled development/pollution – then we should listen to him.

          • RIMSPOKE

            IT IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME WHEN PEOPLE CHANNEL RESOURCES AWAY FROM REAL POLLUTION PROBLEMS TO CURB CO2 WHICH IS NOT
            A POLLUTANT .

            BOTH YOU & THE POPE SHOULD KNOW BETTER

          • CheshireKitty

            Let’s not talk about CO2. That’s not the only thing that is contributing to GW. Also – typing in caps is not helping your arguments.

          • RIMSPOKE

            WHAT DOES TYPING IN CAPS HAVE TO DO WITH ANY ARGUMENT?
            IF YOU THINK IT HURTS MY ARGUMENT , THEN YOU MUST BE EASY TO FOOL BY PEOPLE WHO TYPE LIKE YOU .

            OK , LET’s TALK ABOUT THE BIG ENCHALATA .
            IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE EARTH’s AVERAGE TEMPERATURE
            FOLLOWS SOLAR ACTIVITY .

            THE GW PEOPLE CAN’T EVEN TELL US WHAT THE TEMPERATURE
            SHOULD BE . SO ATTEMPTS TO CONTROL IT ARE NOT ONLY FUTILE
            BUT MISGUIDED .

            THE CLIMATE ALWAYS HAS CHANGED AND IT ALWAYS WILL .
            THE TRULY CRAZY PEOPLE ARE THE ONES WHO THINK THEY CAN STOP IT .

          • CheshireKitty

            I guess you feel science is religion? Or maybe we should all just accept Scripture as the “truth” which explains “everything?” How would you like it if all the “progress” since the Renaissance, Enlightenment up to the modern era, were dialed back, and we ended up back in the Faith-obsessed Dark Ages?

          • CheshireKitty

            Science is not religion. Science questions all, and is constantly evolving. Also – the empirical evidence of measurable increases in dirt/smog/ozone and so forth – don’t lie. The effects of GW? Take a look at what happened on the E. Coast a couple of years ago (October 2012) with Sandy.

          • Not Sure

            Then embrace this science or hold firm in your faith.
            Sandy was a hurricane. It may be hard to believe but they’ve happened before.
            Climate has never been static. It’s constantly changing but in such small increments that our perception is skewed such that 20 year warm periods make people believe that things are going out of control (weather things have never been in control) and then people commit to a dogma that gives them the illusion of control and this prevents them seeing the clearly contradictory empirical evidence that violates their closely held beliefs. Or maybe you have a good explanation for the 18 year pause? Go consult your book of revelations (Earth In The Balance) written by your prophet (Al Gore) and supported by your priests (government funded scientists) and get back to me.

          • badon518

            As in almost all human created things, follow the money. Know also that at least one US agency as well as the UN are preaching that mankind must be removed from the earth to almost completely lower carbon (dioxide) emissions. And we would give these people governance over a free people?

          • bgulick

            Follow the money?

            How about we follow the money to the funder of this site!

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

            OOPSI!

            Billionaire right-wing industrialist oil baron.

            That was fun! We should play “follow the money” again some time.

          • Atilla Thehun

            And, in this case, what data changed?

          • Whatever

            Same thing can be said about every “scientist” who is still pushing this scam…

          • iRick

            ATTENTION Eco-scammers……..for the right amount of “research funding” (eg:cash) I will endorse your fake science too. I need a new Lexus BAD

          • bgulick

            Your claim is that every scientist is paid by billionaires to lie?

            “Whatever” is an amazingly appropriate name for you, clown.

            Whatever, indeed.

          • rockribbedrushy

            Hey, BG, Time wants to know where to send you their latest issue, eh?

          • bgulick

            Oh that’s PRECIOUS!

            You pulled out that old denier chestnut, the faked 1970s Time magazine cover!

            http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/

            It’s always great when you clowns post this, it’s so easily debunked a child wouldn’t take it seriously, but NOPE!

            Denier clowns just KEEP ON POSTING IT!

            hahahahahha

            Because DERP!!

          • rockribbedrushy

            A denier is one who denies truth when faced with a fact. The fact is there has been global cooling and temperatures today are lower than the peak of 1998. That is fact, not opinion. When faced with this fact, WHO IS THE DENIER? Anyone who still clings to outdated and false science when faced with the fact of global cooling is a denier.

          • bgulick

            The magazine cover you posted is a fake.

            You don’t care in the slightest about facts, and you obviously don’t care about looking like a fool.

            Why would I continue to talk to you, clown?

          • rockribbedrushy

            Consensus? You talk about a ‘consensus’ among “scientists”?
            Several hundred years ago there was also a consensus among scientists. It involved the sun revolving around the Earth.
            They put people to death for believing otherwise.

          • bgulick

            Aaaand your fake magazine cover means what then?

          • bgulick

            Actually it was conservative religious nuts that put people to death. Scientists only care about evidence.

            But thanks for playing!

            Shake it off and do a little research, and next time you won’t come off as such a lightweight.

          • rockribbedrushy
          • rockribbedrushy

            BTW I was making a point about ‘consensus”. Just because a lot of people believe something does not make it true.
            You know, like people who believe that you can tax yourself into prosperity?

          • OmaJohn

            Simple absolutes.

            The cornerstone of the mislabeled “liberal” mindset.

            For calling themselves “progressives” they are profoundly incapable of progressing an argument, virtually categorically.

            It takes a very empty soul to see the world through such simple, naive eyes.

          • bgulick

            Yeah, I’ve been meaning to see a doctor about my empty soul.

            Do you think by becoming a right-wing shill loon clown I could fill the void?

            Did it work for you?

          • bgulick

            Oh, and hey everyone else out there-I’ll spare you having to slog through “OmaJohn” here’s disqus comment history by linking to a single image that sums it up nicely.

            http://memedepot.com/uploads/0/178_libszv1.jpg

            Just another predictably partisan clown, stepping up to bat and striking out again and again and again.

          • OmaJohn

            Actually, bgulick, after reading your comments, a more appropriate meme to personify me would be this:

            http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/i-am-jacks-complete-lack-of-surprise-1.png

          • bgulick

            No, no clown.

            You’re a “libs” ranting fool, nothing more.

            Your capacity for thought ranges from “LIBTARDS!!!!” to “GAAAAAA! OBOZO!!!!” and that’s about it!

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Pot meet kettle. Basically your post is typical for your kind of low-info warmist. When you run out of anything credible to say, you put on your Saul Alinsky panties and fall back on Alinsky #5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon”

          • bgulick

            Warmist!

            That’s rich!

            I also eat food, so am I a foodist?

            I am affected by gravity so am I a gravityist?

            I don’t mean to ridicule you clowns, in fact you do it perfectly fine yourselves, but I have to admit it’s a blast to step into your little echo chamber and set off a few firecrackers.

            Look how you scramble and buzz!

            Like a hornet’s nest with some mud sprayed on it, except instead of hornets you’re a bunch or regressive clowns.

            It’s adorable.

          • Todd

            What is the ideal temperature of the earth? If we are going to spend money to try and change the earth’s climate, how do we measure when we are done?

          • bgulick

            http://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/firefly-mal-naked-1.gif

            Whattya know?

            Ridicule IS a potent weapon!

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Ummmm, you do know that isn’t me, right? I just wanna keep you grounded back here in reality where, when your intellect comes up short, you resort to the stupidity infesting every one of your posts on this page.

          • bgulick

            Yeah, since you’re too cowardly to comment under your own name you stole the name of the captain from Firefly.

            So to goof on you I posted a picture of Captain Reynolds from the show Firefly, naked.

            You then demonstrated that you don’t even know who it is.

            Ridicule is a very, very potent weapon.

            Too bad it’s wasted on the dipwads that need it the most.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Omg, you’re dumber than a bag of hammers. OF COURSE I know who the picture is. How the hell do you ridicule ME by putting up a picture from a scene in firefly? When you can answer that, then reply please, otherwise, STFU moron.

          • Roger Jones

            Your blind ignorance is amazing! Scientists are just like everyone else — plenty of them will say almost anything if it will fatten their wallets. Read history again. People were put to death by arrogant, power lusting people in charge of government as always. Whether they were corrupt, self-worshiping Catholics or corrupt, self-worshiping Hedonists is irrelevant. The most dangerous people that have ever existed are those that demand we let them control the economy because they are smarter, wiser than millions of people making individual decisions. Granting them control has always led to more power, more wealth and more debauchery at the top, and more poverty and suffering for the average family.

          • John Galt

            Actually over 126 million people were put to death in the 20th century by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. All of them were radical leftists.

          • David Langley

            To equate modern-day Conservatives with religious leaders of centuries past on another continent is absurd, especially from someone who can’t see the connection between the modern Leftist movement in this country, and the totalitarian Socialist/Communist regimes of the 20th century and today. You have, once again, opened your mouth and removed all doubt.

          • bgulick

            Yawn. Whatever.

            History reveals you to be a bunch of anti-science, torturing, loon scumbags and it’s borne out today in the efforts of the Cheney regime and clowns like Michelle Bachman, Ted Cruz etc.

            You’re on the wrong side of history and you always, always will be.

            Every advance society has ever made, from fair pay to the 40 hour work week to women’s suffrage has been a PROGRESSIVE movement, and you right wing clowns fought tooth and nail against it.

            You’re a stain on history.

          • Doc

            Yes oh how true that great leader SC Pomeroy from Kansas introduced woman’s suffrage to the senate floor, oh wait he was a republican. No wait is was Theodore Roosevelt that great democrat who adopted is as a national party plank, oh wait he was a conservative too. No wait civil rights were championed by those great democrat leaders, Robert Byrd, and Al Gore Sr. Oh wait, shoot the opposed it and it was the republicans that drove civil rights legislation. Oh well, guess the progressives aren’t so progressive after all. Better luck next time!!! Thanks for playing though.

          • bgulick

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

            It must hurt to be as dumb as you.

          • Doc

            Lol, you leftist really crack me up. You make stuff up and then expect us to us accept them without checking any facts. I offer you facts and you call me dumb. Wow, have you looked in a mirror lately. Does that style of discourse really work, LMAO!!!!

          • bgulick

            So you’re saying Teddy Roosevelt WASN’T a leader and founder of the Progressive movement.

            You should totally go edit wikipedia and fix that then.

            hahahahhahah

          • Doc

            He was still a republican, and having a progressive tendencies doesn’t make you a hard core progressive of today. See it all in such simple terms, it must be a wonderful carefree life LOL. Can you even keep a job, I suspect not.

          • bgulick

            Ohhh, I see.

            You’re one of those people that holds labels in higher esteem than actions.

            Gotcha.

            And as far as holding a job goes, you’ll be derped to derp that I own my own business.

            Derp.

          • Doc

            I doubt both your sincerity and truthfulness considering your disregard for anyone. Furthermore, you websites are very left leaning, so you are the pot calling the kettle black. A progressive today is more a communist, or socialist at best, Teddy was neither. You can’t accept that truth, good luck to you.

          • bgulick

            You’re a goalpost-moving disingenuous partisan jerkoff, and it’s been a waste of time goofing on you. This year I’m turning over a new leaf, and I’m gonna stop goofing on the right wing deranged fringe..it only makes things worse.

            So go on back to your swine posts on your swine site everyone, and keep patting each other on the back for out-derping one another.

            I’m on to better and more challenging things…if NASA and NOAA can’t convince you clowns then what hope does a raghead libtard marxist fartbama blower like me have?

            You all are a disgrace on your families and this great nation, and you should hang your heads in shame for your willful stupidity, and support of oil baron billionaires and their agendas.

          • Doc

            Yes and their manipulating data is noble, and you calling everyone an idiot is so honorable. You are the problem with politics today, you can have a civil discussion with you degrading everyone around. You are paid troll and you act like a petulant brat. Good luck in life with that style of discussion.

          • Doc

            Here is your cite :) http://www.heritage.org/events/2012/10/teddy-roosevel

            Now run along and play like a good boy.

          • bgulick

            Oh!

            A link to the Heritage foundation.

            Surely that’s a neutral site with no bia-…….oh wait.

            “The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. ”

            Ah, right. I knew I’d heard the name.

            Yeah, great source, “Doc”.

            You really know how to derp a good derp.

          • http://kevincdavis.net Kevin Davis

            I remember when a famous Atheist Adolf Hitler put people to death..

          • bgulick
          • bgulick
          • bgulick
          • David Langley

            Lots of people believed him then, as did so many people today believe Obama. Liars tell lies. They are believed by the gullible. Dictators will use lies to consolidate power. Do you believe every word Hitler spoke was undeniable truth? Do you believe the ACA saved every American more than $1000 per household? Do you believe Obama wants to disarm law-abiding citizens for their own safety (you know, like Chicago and Detroit)? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you may need a cradle-to-grave nanny state controlling your whole life. That would explain a lot.

          • bgulick

            “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. …Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. … ”

            – Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922

          • Doc

            Yes, just like those scientists who said the world was flat. You do understand those people are the same folks who now make up your wonderful left wing buddies in Europe. So much for defining them as conservatives. Maybe you should go back to school and read up on what a modern day conservative is, you may find that they want much of what you do, freedom, a clean planet to live on, etc. They just don’t think you need to round up the world and kill off 3 quarters of the population to do it, like your buddies Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. FYI, being a Christian doesn’t mean you can’t be a whack job lefty. Hitler was a socialist, not a conservative. Nazi, National Socialist Party.

          • bgulick

            http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/germanyandprussia/fl/Was-Adolf-Hitler-a-Socialist-Debunking-a-Historical-Myth.htm

            Debunked in a single click, which is one click more than it usually takes.

            I see plenty of what “modern day conservatives” are all about..on this comment thread alone I’ve been called a “raghead” about a hundred times.

            Now buzz off, fool.

          • Doc

            http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/adolf-hitler-was-a-liberal/question-1407869/

            Oh debunked in one click too!!!! I never called you a raghead or anything, yet you seem to be fit to call me names. Your lack of civility is showing your true nature. Good luck with that hating in life.

          • bgulick

            Wow! Your link to sodahead with a slideshow by “Oreillyfan” is pretty much a grand slam!!

            Who could ever argue with that?

            Oh wait, I know. Let’s look at Hitler’s actual words.

            “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. …Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.”

            – Adolf Hitler

          • Doc

            Yes, who could ever argue with the left wing professor who wrote the article you cited. LOL, you argument is ridiculous. Being Christian or Jewish doesn’t make you a conservative. But if it does, then I guess Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter would be conservative as well as FDR and LBJ by your logic. So much for logic from you, oh well, again nice try. :) Have a great day!!

          • bgulick

            No, being retarded makes you a conservative.

          • Doc

            The last bastion of great political debate, call people names when you can’t win an argument, ROFL!!!! Maybe you should try the “liar, liar pants on fire” method next. LOL, you are so funny.

          • bgulick

            hahahahahhaha no but seriously you have to admit conservatives are retarded.

            Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Ted Cruz…these are your heroes.

            Rick Santorum. hahahahahahah

            George Bush. hahahahahahahahahahah

            Real intellectuals there.

          • Doc

            I will raise you a Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Jimmy Carter and a Barack Obama. There are idiots on both sides dude.

          • bgulick

            If you think the people you listed there are as pants-on-head retarded as the people I listed there’s something deeply wrong with you.

          • Doc

            And your Doctorate is in what that qualifies you to say those people are all idiots, of that’s right you don’t have one. People say stupid things, here is a few quotes for you ” you have to pass it before you know what is in it” “I haven’t been to all 57 states before” and I raise you a Joe Biden. You are completely clueless if you think everyone is an idiot who says something stupid at some point. That is my point man, wake up, people aren’t perfect and say dumb things on both sides of the isle. You really need to look in the mirror and stop being such a partisan. Good luck to you.

            Now call me a bunch of names and jump up and down like you normally do.

          • bgulick

            The argument was won long before I even entered into it.

            This is just me having some fun toying with right wing loons while I wait for the clothes to dry.

            As soon as the buzzer goes off, I’ll go fold laundry and leave you clowns to derp freely in your echo chamber.

            Say it with me now, “DERRRRRRRP!!”

            http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/tobuscus/images/9/9f/Xzhibit-heard-you-like-derp-Pdn4FA.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130507200742

          • lloydc1234

            Those were not scientists, but religionists.

          • HandyGeek

            There was no difference at the time between “scientists” and “religionists” – which is true of far too many in academia, politics, & scientific circles today. The correct term is “climate cycles” because there is no global change but merely shifting patterns & rebalancing. That’s true science.

          • Independent

            I was alive in the 70’s when my school and all the papers were preaching global cooling not to mention there is sane person can deny it My point is what are you trying to say. That they were never preaching global cooling?

          • Alan

            Me too Independent. 1974, the first Earth day. They told us that there was a coming ice age, the world would be overpopulated leading to mass die offs, and we’d be out of oil, all by the year 2000. Look magazine told me in 1968 that we’d all be driving flying cars by then too.

          • bgulick
          • Bigdickdaddycane

            Big daddy say you be dee fool trying to defend the indefinsabilitys!!!

          • OmaJohn

            bgulick, you really shouldn’t. If you can’t have a thoughtful discussion — and you obviously can’t — you may as well just give up. You’re certainly not going to convince anyone of anything. All you’re doing is acting childish and patting yourself on the back while belittling and demeaning others.

            Of course, for certain types of people, that can feel rewarding, so maybe you’re actually getting something out of this. If that’s the case, why are you asking him why you would continue to pretend to respond to what’s being said?

          • bgulick

            Crushing right wing clowns is its own reward.

          • David Langley

            So “crushing right wing clowns” means “acting like an ignorant child to people your masters tell you to hate”? After you performance today, they might decide you are not such a useful tool after all.

          • bgulick

            You know, my masters tell me that all the time.

            I call in to the main Libtard office and check in with the Liar in Chief Presidum B HUSSEIN FARTBINGO III to see what my marching orders are for the day, and they tell me “Bruce, you’re not so useful after all!”

            When I ask what they mean they tell me that right wingers already do so much to discredit themselves, that I’m just gilding the lily.

            And you know what? I have to agree. Nothing I type here could make you clowns look any worse than you already do, so it’s a moot point.

            So why do I continue?

            The sheer SPORT of it, I suppose.

            It’s just a BLAST to mock shills and clowns, and it’s cheap entertainment.

            So I’ll keep doing it gratis, even though my libtard masters tell me my effort is wasted.

          • OmaJohn

            Oh, side note, in that very article the author states directly that there was plenty of ‘scientific’ assertion that we -were- entering into an ice age. So the date of the image on the cover is more important to you than the reality of the discussion. I’ll borrow one from your playbook and call names for a moment: Congratulations, you’re a weak-minded parrot. :)

          • bgulick

            So why do you think someone found it necessary to fake the cover?

            Why did you find it necessary to continue the lie by reposting it?

            See, things like this reveal clearly that you don’t look into things, and instead happily parrot whatever right-wing clown sites tell you to.

            You’re a disgrace.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Notice that the cover he posted may be a fake, but the fact remains that “scientists” thought it was globull cooling then.
            Remember, you’re the denier here.

          • bgulick

            And you’re the one who can’t spell “global”.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Ummm, it’s intentional. As in, you’re so dumb you believe in BULL crap. You’re a special little snowflake, yes you are.

          • bgulick

            OOOOOOOH!

            It was intentional.

            Kind of like when you call President Obama “Fartbummer” or “Obozo” and then Michelle becomes “Moochelle”.

            I get that, I see it a lot with you right wing clowns.

            And yes, now that I look back at your comments, I can see you do it every single time, so it’s definitely because you’re a partisan hack shill, and not that you’re actually ignorant of how to spell the word “global”.

            I stand corrected, shill.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            No, more like when I call him Obamao, cuz (<— oh ohhhh) he's a freaking Marxist like…you know…. Mao. I don't call him Obozo and I don't call Michelle Moochelle. I call her 'the wookie' or just Chewbacca outright because…you know…ugly critter.
            Good grief dude, you really are a simpleton.

          • bgulick

            And you’re a racist traitor clown disgrace.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Mmm, I’ll run home and tell my wife who is not of the same race as I am then. HEY HONEY, I’m a racist. You’re an idiot. I think we’re done.

          • bgulick

            “U.S. corporations’ after-tax profits have grown by 171 percent under Obama, more than under any president since World War II”
            – Bloomberg

            “The deficit is now only 4% of the GDP, down from over 10% at the end of Bush’s administration – and projections are for it to be only 2% by 2015 (before Obama leaves office.) America’s “debt problem” seems largely solved, and almost all due to growth rather than austerity.”
            – Forbes

            “The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index has more than doubled since Barack Obama took office”
            – New York Times

            “The Dow Jones industrial average hit 16,000 for the first time this morning, and the Nasdaq began within 15 points of 4,000 (last seen in 2000). The S&P 500, which passed $16 trillion in market value for the first time, is up 26.1%.

            “Obama has now stolen national security and the economy from Republicans. The media tells us Obama is finished as a President because of the website glitches, but my money is on what other issue he can steal from the GOP before 2016.”
            – Politicususa dot com

            Barack Hussein Obama: Worst Marxist ever.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Now talk about the CPI, QE, record low labor participation and more debt than ALL other presidents combined. Otherwise you’re telling yourself lies to make yourself feel better. MORON.

            Back in reality, being a Marxists doesn’t automatically mean he gets everything he wants. But then you knew that didn’t you, idiot.

          • bgulick

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

            Debunked in a single click.

            Thanks for playing!

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Except uhhh, not so much.

            http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

            You see, to leftwing dumbschlitz (<— Oh ohhhh) like you, debunked means someone, upon whose knob you slobber, went 'nuuu uhhhhh' and off you little dopes run to proudly proclaim DEBUNKED. Back in reality, nahhhh.
            As you said, thanks for playing.

          • bgulick

            Son do you even English?

          • Roger Jones

            The only denier here seems to be you. You foolish posts make the rest of us feel sorry for you. The entire climate change religion has been proven to be a total lie. The results are in and all the major predictions have been wrong! No one can predict the future climate, not even close. Have you not read how the rain forests are growing faster due to the increase in CO2?

          • bgulick

            Man! You shills really come out of the woodwork!!

            I have hit the HONEY HOLE OF DERP!!!

          • SymphonyX4

            That cover might be fake, but the articles are real…

            http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

            http://content.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,918620,00.html

            Here are 68 other mainstream articles from the 1970’s that discuss “the coming ice age”

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/

          • Thor

            I thought they adjusted their numbers and 10 years later it was:

            https://climatesanity.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/heidi-cullen-book-cover-detail1.jpg

          • David Langley

            Leftist Projection Syndrome.

          • RIMSPOKE

            ONCE UPON A TIME THERE WAS A SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS AND THE SCIENCE WAS SETTLED .
            THEN THEY DISCOVERED THAT THE EARTH WAS ROUND .

            IT DOES NOT TAKE A BILLIONAIRE’s BACKING TO FIGURE OUT THAT THERE IS
            NO SUCH THING AS SETTLED SCIENCE .
            IF YOU THINK THAT THERE IS , THEN YOU DO NOT THINK SCIENTIFICALLY .

            THE CLIMATE ALWAYS HAS CHANGED AND IT ALWAYS WILL .
            THE TRULY CRAZY PEOPLE ARE THE ONES WHO THINK THEY CAN STOP IT .

          • Doc

            You claim every scientist agrees, the truth is the don’t all agree. Thanks for playing.

          • bgulick

            No, you’re right.

            Only 97% agree.

          • Doc

            http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

            Oops, it is on .3%, So sorry you have no facts to back up you claim again. Thank you, “pats you on the head” Nice try :)

          • bgulick

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif

            *Pats you right back and gives you a lolly.*

          • Doc

            No arguing with fake facts LOL. Just ask those guys at EAU. LMAO, man you kill me, thanks for the wonderful laugh today. You should hide behind trees and jump out and say boo too !!! :)

          • bgulick
          • Doc

            That nice, more sophomoric behavior instead of a real discussion. Yup, is that a picture of you, what are you like 12? Dude grow up.

          • bgulick

            http://theconsensusproject.com/

            You know, not that your opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal doesn’t hold more water than 97% of climate scientists that published peer-reviewed articles on climate change.

            hahahahahhahah

          • Doc

            Yes 200 of 11,000 plus equal 97% in you world of math. You do realize that the 200 are those support it and funded for such research. Posting a cite that is not a neutral scientific site, but a shill group for global warming is meaningless. Not that you opinion of 200 verse 11,000 holds water LOL!!!

          • bgulick

            I know you’re derping but all I hear is derp.

            Try derping a little derpier.

          • http://oneroomschool.net Principalwilkins

            As if there’s any thing wrong with being a billionaire, or an industrialist, or right, or an oil baron. Must be jealous.

          • bgulick

            Yeah, dipsh*t, I’m super jealous of a dead guy.

            ANYHOO, please keep frantically scrambling to figure out a way to explain why the only “news” sources that pump out this denier nonsense are owned by rich right-wing oil barons like this jerkoff and the Koch brothers.

            Hmmm?

            Anyone here honest enough to give it a shot?

            Not gonna hold my breath, facts and right-wingers are oil and water..you’re all a disgrace to your families and whores for billionaires.

            Slurp, slurp that big ol’ billionaire dong..

          • rockribbedrushy

            And you can tell that to your BFF Tom Steyer, eh?

          • Roger Jones

            Hmmm? How about you stop being a foolish worshiper? The most important fact is that no one, absolutely no one, is even close to being able to predict the future climate. All of the significant predictions of the last 20 years have been wrong! There have been less major storms, not more. There is more polar ice, not less. There has been no warming as predicted. How can anyone be so stupid as to sell their soul to people whose words have been proven wrong much, much, much more often than they are correct? Al Gore and friends are the most wickedly rich charlatans in history. The climate change religion is all about centralizing power into the hands of the elite. Wake up before it is too late.

          • David Langley

            If his masters say it’s so, he believes unquestioningly, no matter what he experiences personally.

          • bgulick
          • Independent

            Silly left wing wacko facts are for people who can think by looking at all the (FACTUAL) data no matter where it comes from not just from your liberal rags. See not everyone believes everything they read in the NYtimes. DIPSH#t.

          • zarnon

            Right! Why listen to a bunch of scientists who spent their entire lives in the field? We have Breitbart! LOL. God the stupidity is amazing.

          • Dale Patterson

            I guess you missed the memo stating that those scientists were on the take, being paid by leftists… by the way, more scientists believe that global warming is a bullshit conspiracy…

          • bgulick

            You’re right!

            I should totally ignore those leftard clowns at NASA and NOAA, and instead I’ll come here, where guys like “Independent” and “bigpinch” can tell me what’s REALLY happening.

            Scoot off, you silly git.

          • RIMSPOKE

            BETTER YET , LOOK AT THE PREDICTIONS MADE BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CONVINCED
            THAT THE “SCIENCE IS SETTLED” . ( A BIG RED FLAG IN ITSELF )

            THEY HAVE NOT ACCURATELY PREDICTED ANYTHING UP UNTIL NOW SO I HAVE NO IDEA WHY
            ANYONE WOULD THINK THE LATEST ROUND OF PREDICTIONS ACTUALLY MEAN ANYTHING .

          • bgulick

            Your all-caps make you seem 31% smarter!

          • RIMSPOKE

            DOES IT MAKE ME WRONG ? CAN YOU PROVIDE A GRAPH ?

            I GUESS TELLING OTHER PEOPLE HOW TO TYPE MUST MAKE YOU FEEL SMARTER .
            BESIDES , THEY IS NO BETTER WAY TO REPLY WITHOUT ACTUALLY SAYING ANYTHING .

            FACT IS , I LIVE IN A CAPITAL CITY THAT HAS BEEN FREE OF GLOBAL GUILT SINCE 1792 .

          • bgulick

            No, clown, you were wrong despite the all caps.

            All caps just makes you HYSTERICALLY wrong.

          • RIMSPOKE

            YOU ARE CLEARLY ONE WHO SHOOTS THE MESSENGER .

            CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS HAVE BEEN HYSTERICALLY WRONG .
            BUT IT IS EASIER TO BLAME ME THAT ADMIT YOU HAVE BEEN HAD .

          • bgulick

            WELL GOOD JOB THEN BROTHER KEEP UP THE DERP

          • bgulick
          • http://oneroomschool.net Principalwilkins

            I’m not trying to explain, I’m saying so what?

          • David Langley

            Just because they don’t regurgitate the same garbage peddled by your your Leftist master’s mouthpieces doesn’t mean it’s an evil attempt to burn the planet down.
            Here are some things for you to consider:
            -You don’t live in a comic book.
            -You don’t understand what political Right and Left means.
            -Someone who has built a fortune with his bare hands has a much better understanding of the real world than a bunch of egg-headded scholars and bureaucrats living off money taken forcibly from people they are unaccountable to, and God bless them for spending large amounts of that fortune fighting the those bureaucrats and egg-heads who are bent on world-wide tyranny.
            -Think about the logic of claiming a particular news story is somehow part of the master plan of a dead guy to destroy the planet.
            -What has Socialism built? Communism? Fascism? Those are the force of destruction. People build, create, and innovate. Governments restrict the actions of people in the name of an ordered society. The brilliance of our Founding Fathers forged a compromise between personal freedoms and a government that was limited to protecting those freedoms. Jerkoffs like you have supported tyrants who have whittled away at our freedoms because you are afraid of having to be responsible for yourself.
            Insults, mischaracterizations, and lies don’t work outside your cadre of losers.

          • zarnon

            This in a nutshell is why we shouldn’t listen to the FrightWing radicals on this. So you’d rather listen to a billionaire than a scientist who’s PHD is in the field he’s talking about. In other words Donald Trump knows more than any climatologist. This was an IQ test. You failed.

          • TMAN

            You lost him as soon as you told him he wasn’t living in a comic book.

          • bgulick

            You spelled “headed” wrong.

          • David Langley

            That’s all you’ve got? One measly typo? Pathetic, but the Tools of Tyranny can’t win debates with substance or rational discourse, so I’m not too surprised.

          • John Galt

            See East Anglia University where emails between “climate scientists” were exposed and prove that they changed statistics to support their theory. They were proven to be liars who willingly schemed and distorted data in order to maintain the money flow. AGW is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            If there’s one thing that guaranteed besides death and taxes, it’s that every time there’s a news story that goes against globull warmist dogma, there’s a cretin that will comment

            “news sources that pump out this denier nonsense are owned by rich right-wing oil barons like this jerkoff and the Koch brothers”

            Thank you for being today’s ‘Cretin of the day’. Here’s your cookie.

          • bgulick

            Oh! Are you claiming Climate Depot isn’t funded by a right-wing billionaire oil baron?

            Is the Heartland Institute not funded by the Koch brothers and the Walton family?

            Are you really making these claims with a straight face?

            Well bless your heart!

            Here’s a gold star for effort, a pat on your dear little head, AND a big cookie!

            Clown on, clown.

            Clown on.

            Oh, and by the way, I know Malcom Reynolds is a fictional character, but you’re still not man enough to carry his jock strap.

            Ya hear?

            You’re more of a….let’s see….a Mr. Furley.

            http://img5.bdbphotos.com/images/orig/p/f/pfhhfubxsh29hs9u.jpg?djet1p5k

          • sgb

            Who cares who funded the website. Is the ice data accurate or not?

          • bgulick

            It’s not.

          • sgb

            Do you have a link to different ice data?

          • bgulick
          • sgb

            Interesting. Thanks.

          • bgulick

            PS you should ALWAYS care who funds the website. You can save yourself a lot of derp.

          • bgulick

            And again, you REALLY should learn how to spell “global” if you’re gonna come stink up threads like these.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Oh, you still haven’t figured out that’s intentional? I guess you’re determined to earn every last drop of that cretin award.

          • srbenedicta

            “Globull” is a clever play on words. Mencken, Shaw and Clemens would have liked it.

          • bgulick

            SUPER clever.

            There’s a reason right-wingers are so famous for their comedic skills.

          • thaidude

            Is it billionaires you dislike or is it just Republican billionaires….Bloomberg, W. Buffett, Tom Steyer, G. Soros all leftist/progs. Biggest PACs were the Senate Majority PAC and the House Majority PAC both Dem PACs. Your boy/prez BHO is the first pol in history to raise over 1 bil in campaign funding…none of the top 10 donors were to the Repubs…..so you can now resume breathing, little thronelicker.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            “thronelicker” Lol!
            I’m sure he licks the royal staff too.

          • mysteriousguy48

            How much money are the Clinton’s worth these days? How many hundreds of millions of dollars has Al Gore made peddling Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change since he left the Vice Presidency? Obama isn’t terribly wealthy now but is there little doubt he will worth well in excess of one billion dollars within five years of leaving the Presidency? How much money is Nancy Pelosi worth compared to when she went to Congress? The Democrats do not really represent the regular people either.

          • bgulick

            No, clown..but when one of you shills links to a site owned directly by an oil billionaire as if it’s “science”, I feel it is my duty to mock you and shame you.

            Just as I’ve done here to you.

            Now go back to being a shill for your republican scumbag overlords.

          • bgulick
          • zarnon

            Wish I could upvote this a million times. If you want to find bought out scientists and tons of money pumped into science denial look at AGW denialists. Over 500 million in the past 9 years by FrightWing groups operating under Donor Financial. The largest contributors are Exxon and the Koch brothers. LOL at the easily manipulated dunces dancing to the tune of their corporate masters.

          • krusatyr

            Modern day climate kahunas exactly modeled after pagan priests of yore who demanded sacrifices from villagers to control drought, floods, volcanoes. When the natural events occurred anyway, shamans shouted: Sacrifices too meager! Give us more or else!

            Same as climate hustlers of today.

          • zarnon

            OK, where’s your equivalent list? After all, it’s just a big hoax. Tell us where exactly each climatologist got his funding. Also look at who gave them the money so we can look precisely at what strings are attached. For example, Donor financial has pumped over 500 million solely going to anti-global warming denier groups. Show me the equivalent on the left with facts and figures.

          • Sparky McBiff

            The determination of the reality of nature (ie. Science) is not discerned by who9 funds what. It is discerned by the evidence.
            Anyone who endlessly argues about who funds, or “believes” what is completely irrelevant.
            I’m sure that Hitler and the Nazis believed that water fell from the sky but because according to your apparent main argument because they were evil Nazis then their belief in water falling from the sky should be ridiculed and ignored simply because people that you don’t like believe in it.
            That said, there is FAR FAR more money supporting the AGW theory than anything supporting those that refute it entirely for the fraud that it is.
            But that is completely irrelevant.
            Those of us who have studied this issue for years (which includes reading EVERY SINGLE email involved in the released IPCC’s internal University of East Anglia fiasco) know for a fact that the AGW theory is based on blatant fraud.
            Those of us that practice critical thinking skills examine ALL the evidence, from all sources before we even consider having an opinion either way.
            Apparently this is a completely foreign concept to those few people here who have apparently immediately chose what their belief system will be and then spend all their energy in attacking those who don’t choose to believe as they do.
            Either that or they’re simply one of the endless thousands of employees that are paid handsomely to sit at home and fill comments sections on all sorts of sites with trolling attacks that support the fascist elite’s agenda.

          • rockribbedrushy

            A denier is one who denies truth when faced with a fact. The fact is there has been global cooling and temperatures today are lower than the peak of 1998. That is fact, not opinion. When faced with this fact, WHO IS THE DENIER? Anyone who still clings to outdated and false science when faced with the fact of global cooling is a denier.

          • krusatyr

            BGulick misspelled BJquick cause Grubered pigressives gobble obamunist dicta and spew it out on public keyboards at libraries between trix.

          • zarnon

            Love those people who can barely scrawl a sentence point out the spelling errors of others.

          • bgulick

            You make an EXCELLENT point.

            Please, do go on.

          • TL Thompson

            Some people have managed to convince themselves of astonishingly irrational conspiracies. Yours has a decidedly homoerotic flavor. Interesting mix — right-wing oil barons, ‘jerkoff’, disgrace, whores, and your favorite flavor of Slurpee! That’s a fascinating case study in self-loathing. I think psychologists refer to this as ‘projection’ — projection to achieve repression, as it were.

          • bgulick
          • TL Thompson

            Confirmation! I knew it!

          • bgulick
          • lloydc1234

            IT depends on how YOU got there.

          • http://oneroomschool.net Principalwilkins

            Exactly.

          • Shaytan Bozorg

            You know nothing about the animal abuse in China, so why are you arguing about the issue?

          • http://oneroomschool.net Principalwilkins

            What are you talking about?

          • CheshireKitty

            Nothing wrong with making something of yourself and making money – just try to do it in a less polluting/harmful way. That’s all we are saying.

          • Boog

            So what. That just means he is smart. Then aren’t you just as concerned that the majority of rich people donate to liberal causes and to Democrats or progressives?

            When money is taken from people in the form of taxes then given to scientists by politicians to support causes that will enrich them, that raises much more concern than rich industrialists spending his own money to support a cause they believe in. They put their own money where their mouth is. The corrupt politicians don’t give a hoot about any of us. And none are as corrupt as Democrats.

          • bgulick

            OMG HE SMART

            HE BILLIONAIRE

            HE MUST HAVE WORLD BEST INTEREST AT HEART

            HE FRIEND

            DERP

            GUBMINT EMENY

            DERP

          • Doc

            You do realize “DERP” isn’t really a word. Probably not!!

          • bgulick

            What’s that you derp?

            I can’t derp you.

            Derp up a little!

          • Doc

            You know, I read your comment below, btw first, thank you for your service. Second, your attacks on me and complete disregard for my service by calling me a “retard” and “dumb” etc… Your sense of service and decorum is about as pale as your skin.

          • bigpinch

            Poverty and incompetence are not the moral high ground, rag head.

          • bgulick

            Rag head! That’s great! You have revealed yourself to be both stupid and racist in one sentence.

          • bigpinch

            Expanding the definition of Racism now, are you? Well, since you are raising the bar for idiocy, you might as well fill out your resume.

          • bgulick

            Hmm, what’s that clown?

            I can barely hear your little squeaks..

          • bigpinch

            Sorry, I’ll say it louder. YOU ARE A RAG HEAD, rag head! Pull your rag heqd out of your raggedy a$$ and you might hear better.

          • bgulick

            Oh, that’s lovely. It’s much less racist when you scream like a child.

            Also, a quick spell check will make you appear 90% less retarded.

          • bigpinch

            Rag head! Rag head! Rag head!

          • bgulick

            hahahah

            There you go!

            With GUSTO, now, clown!

          • bigpinch

            RAG HEAD! RAG HEAD! Can you hear me now?

          • bgulick

            Loud and clear, clown.

          • bigpinch

            Rag head.

          • bgulick

            See everyone, this is how right-wingers treat veterans.

            Four years serving my country, and “bigpinch” comes along and calls me a “raghead”.

          • bigpinch

            Rag head. Why don’t you whine some more?

          • bgulick

            I think I may have stumbled across a five year old.

            Are you up late, son? You should check with your mommy and see if she says it’s okay to keep derping.

          • bigpinch

            Squirt a few more tears, Rag head. You intellectually vacant stooge.

          • bgulick

            The child screaming “raghead” calls me “intellectually vacant”.

            Classic!

            Please continue, little boy..did your mommy teach you any other slurs than “raghead” or is this as far as you got?

          • bigpinch

            It’s the only one I need for you, rag head.

          • bgulick

            Well, it’s been great conversing with you then “bigpinch”!

            It was awesome when you said raghead but then when you said raghead it really made me think…then you were like “RAGHEAD” and that was an excellent point and then to wrap it all up with that grand slam “raghead”! That was MAGNIFICENT!!

            As usual it’s an honor to debate a member of the right-wing, I’ve learned a lot, and I’ll bid you a good night!

          • bigpinch

            Nighty night, rag head.

          • bgulick

            AND HE TOPS IT ALL WITH ANOTHER “RAGHEAD”!!

            Man, I never saw THAT coming!

            You’re just full of surprises, aren’t you!!

            You right wingers should be proud of “bigpinch” here..he’s a true master of the English language, and a rapier with the likes of which I’ve seldom seen.

            I bow to your obvious brilliance.

          • bigpinch

            You ought to, rag head.

          • John Galt

            Would you like some cheese with your whine, RAGHEAD?!?!?!!

          • bgulick

            You right wingers are a class act.

          • John Galt

            Well I do believe it is just as good to be despised by the despicable as admired by the admirable. (Thomas Sowell), and leftists are despicable.

          • bgulick
          • John Galt

            Whoever that is does have the elitist, smugness, and aloofness of a typical leftist.

          • Doc

            Yeah and you have called me dumb and multiple other things, and I have served during the first Gulf War and was in Afghanistan. I didn’t call you anything, but you went right ahead a insulted me without me attacking you at all. So stuff your fake sanctimony and indignation.

          • bgulick

            Derp?

            Derpy derp derp?

            Derp, derp.

            Derp.

          • bgulick

            Also, you really are dumb.

            Now, call me a “raghead” like your pal “bigpinch” there and we can all confirm it.

          • Doc

            I never called you a “raghead” no matter how much you wish it were true. Still calling me names. Wow, bet your buddies in the service really respected you and your ways, NOT!!!. Anyway, thank you for service, but you are about as gracious to your fellow veterans as an IED. Don’t bother replying to me, you have worn out your welcome with your complete lack of civility and respect. Good day to you.

          • John Galt

            Any word deemed offensive by the Left is either racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic. Only they and they alone have the moral authority to decide what may be uttered in public.

          • bigpinch

            How convenient for them. Saves having to think about it.

          • rockribbedrushy

            Hey BG, what ‘race’ are arabs, eh?

          • bgulick

            “Rag-head” is a racist slur.

            Or are you one of those racists that’s so deeply racist he says things like “rag-head” in casual conversation?

            You don’t have to reply, I’m just toying with you, fool.

            Now scurry off and find someone who has an iota of respect for you or what you say!

            Toodle-oo!

          • TeachWorldToSing

            WE’ll take our rich guys over yours – Al Gore, George Works. And Warren Buffet

          • bgulick

            hahahaha, I think I struck a nerve!

            Who signs your checks, little shills?

            hahahahha

            You climate change denier clowns are an absolute delight.

            Now please go back to sucking that big old billionaire dong.

            😀

          • rockribbedrushy

            A denier is one who denies truth when faced with a fact. The fact is there has been global cooling and temperatures today are lower than the peak of 1998. That is fact, not opinion. When faced with this fact, WHO IS THE DENIER? Anyone who still clings to outdated and false science when faced with the fact of global cooling is a denier.

          • bgulick

            Oh you sad, silly little shill.

          • rockribbedrushy

            So, prove me wrong dude. Show me higher temps since then and tell me all bout Maunder Minimum, eh?

          • bgulick

            I’ll just save us both the trouble.

            http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

            Isn’t that handy?

            Just look up whatever right-wing talking point you believe, and this page should cover it.

            That way I don’t drive myself crazy trying to reason with every clown on the internet, and you don’t have to be humiliated any further in public.

            Win/win, wouldn’t you agree?

          • Alan
          • bgulick

            Ope! Another link to the right-wing billionaire oil baron-owned “Climate Depot”.

            Hey, how about you link me to “iceagenow.com” or the Heartland Institute while you’re at it.

          • badon518

            Ever hear of Al Gore, George Soros and most of Hollywood?

          • David Langley

            Please define Right-Wing.

          • Bigdickdaddycane

            Hey aint you that little lib biotch that we used to pass around in the pen???

          • John Galt

            The same thing can be said for Al Gore and his company which sells carbon credits…whatever the hell those things are. Get real.

          • bgulick

            Al Gore is a billionaire oil baron industrialist right-wing sugar daddy?

            Dang!

            Never let ’em tell you a regressive internet clown can’t teach you something new!

          • bgulick

            An heir to the Mellon banking, oil and aluminum fortunes, the Pittsburgh-based Mr. Scaife spent hundreds of millions of dollars of his estimated net worth of $1.4 billion to counteract what he called “the liberal slant to American society.”

            On the other hand, Al Gore has about $200 million. Not bad for a former vice president!

            But you’re wrong by about oh, a factor of five.

            Nice attempt at false equivalency though!

            Keep practicing and you may come up with something a five year old couldn’t debunk.

          • John Galt

            So Scaife made his money by running a business which provides a commodity that people want and/or need. Gore made his money by lobbying Congress to pass laws and Gov’t agencies to implement regulations which will directly benefit him. So Al is like a pimp and politicians are his whores? I get it. That guy Scaife who ran a company that employed people and allowed them to provide for their families is really a big, bad guy. The nerve of him!!!! I know…the Gov’t should run the oil and gas industry like in Venezuala. Yeah, yeah, that’s the answer.

          • bgulick

            Clown:

            The question isn’t whether or not Scaife was a good businessman. He obviously was.

            The question is whether a right-wing oil billionaire’s climate site that’s run by Rush Limbaugh’s protege can be taken seriously.

            Actually, it’s not a question at all.

            It can’t.

          • John Galt

            Asshat:

            The question is whether data knowingly faslified by climate hysterists at East Anglies University can be taken seriously. It can’t.

          • bgulick

            The place you referred to doesn’t even exist, except in your fevered right wing clown brain.

          • John Galt
          • bgulick

            Ohhhhh, the sad little “climategate” scandal right wingers always trot out.

            Yeah, good stuff.

            http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

            Alas for you, like every other denier “gotcha”, it’s nonsense.

          • Unopinionated

            Dude, this story is on the wire service. Even MSNBC, Yahoo, Google, Centrists and liberal rags have covered it.

            Follow the money my ass! So, now, people with different faiths or ideologies than you are no longer allowed to own businesses or express opinions?!?!?! Quite the Democrat you are!!!!
            Liberal rags cover originate and promote primarily topics that promote their liberal agenda……yet I dont see you up in arms over that. You know what you are? You are like Al Sharpton: Any time a black person dies….BOOM…..there you are, like a bad penny. Any time a cop or white dies…..*crickets*

            Unless, you are going to be fair and balanced dont bother trolling here because you arent doing anything to add anything meaningful to the discussion. You are just argumentative……and that will never win hearts and minds.

          • bgulick

            Wow! You know a lot about me!

            http://replygif.net/i/199.gif

          • CheshireKitty

            Well, well, well! Whey doesn’t this surprise me? Anyway, it’s fun pricking the thought balloons of the big oil-oriented balloonatics commenting on this thread! Bring ’em on!

          • CheshireKitty

            No, I think the reasoning is quite the opposite: In order to save the people, we must rein in polluting business/industry. If that means removing the coal-fired electrical generating stations in favor of sustainable, so be it. Even switching to natural gas for fuel to fire power plants is a big step forward. How does cleaning up industry equate to removing people off the face of the Earth?

          • CactusPatch

            Though I disagree with his premise when applied to Christianity, at least in this case Marx’s observation appears to be correct: religion, global warming, is the opiate of the masses.

          • bloodaxe

            …and Algore is it’s Oracle. You must grovel at his feet.

          • CheshireKitty

            I think maybe your brains have been cooked if you equate science (GW) with religion (superstition). Also – GW/effects of rampant pollution/untrammeled development – are actually things you can see, such as the gigantic disaster of Sandy. Other than its ethical precepts, religion is based on “blind faith” alone.

          • Mr. Fever Head

            Global warming ate the pie my wife left in the refrigerator last night.

          • Globaloney

            Don’t you just hate it when that happens, Mr Fever?!?

          • CheshireKitty

            Well, you should know, as you sit there and thumb through your profits – profits at the expense of clean air, water, and soil. No pie for folks like you – Santa won’t allow it!

          • G Anderson

            You’re really strange. I would wager your electric bills, gas purchases, etc are right in line with everyone else. Which would make you a hypocrite.

          • CheshireKitty

            A) I’m not a driver – never have been. B) NYC has made great strides in cleaning up its air since ConEd switched to natural gas. Oil is only used if there’s a shortfall of gas shipments. C) So everyone who tries to curb the pollution caused by big oil is a hypocrite according to you; that would mean most people who want to survive and not be inundated by floods are hypocrites. You should try to sell that line to the millions who lost homes and property in Sandy.

          • G Anderson

            You’re so freaking weird. Floods?! You are a joke. Sandy was a hurricane. Guess what? Hurricanes happen, not because oil, you nincumpoop.

          • billybob

            Good one!

          • CheshireKitty

            Too bad the Pope-endorsed Santa doesn’t think so: No pie for GW deniers! You get a coal in your stocking instead – a worthy symbol of your enduring “marriage” to dirty coal fired power plants/industry/gasoline-based economic model..

          • xdream

            If it was real global warming, it would have eaten her as well.

          • CheshireKitty

            Maybe Santa ate it – since everyone knows all GW deniers are very bad boys who don’t deserve Mamma’s pie..

          • abner

            Excellent! Unfortunately that’s what constitutes scientific proof to a politically indoctrinated warming alarmist. I laugh watching them shove groceries into their green reusable bacteria farming bags at check out.

          • willsk8sjax

            Hey, I think this climate change stuff is natural and the earth is going to heat and cool differently as it wobbles on it’s axis. I do use the reusable grocery totes because they are stronger, bigger and I wash mine regularly . Plus, do we really need more plastic that is very slow to break down on this earth, piling up in landfills and in the ocean and driving the price of oil up?

          • bloodaxe

            I bet you have a halo. Is it visible in daylight?

          • willsk8sjax

            Nope, it’s covered in smog from the truck I drive.

          • bloodaxe

            Get a new muffler, you gross polluter. All your brownie points are cancelled and you have a big black mark against you. Get a Prius and beg forgiveness.

          • willsk8sjax

            Do I beg to you or Al Gore?

          • John Galt

            Oh no, no, no. Al will not tolerate any begging…only cash and certified checks.

          • willsk8sjax

            …and DNC votes.

          • CheshireKitty

            Progress in combating pollution is always difficult for big business to accept – since it means millions will have to be spent in cleaning up dirty industry. Look at the landmark anti-fracking decision in NYS – and XL. Do we really need to keep polluting the Earth – especially when more and more people are turning away from cars?

          • CheshireKitty

            LOL. Best to park it and go ride a bike instead… pretend like you never bought it… anyway, the heyday of motor vehicles powered by gasoline/diesel is probably drawing to a close (finally).

          • CheshireKitty

            California is often in the vanguard of progress. Just wait until California’s emission standards are adopted by the other States.. then who will have the last laugh? The Prius owner!

          • CheshireKitty

            LOL. Not in California.. with the strict emissions standards – exceeding Federal regs and all..

          • CheshireKitty

            No – but it’s probably a solar-powered glow of health – as opposed to the smog/soot that must accompany you everywhere you go…

          • CheshireKitty

            The reusable totes need to be washed as often as you wash your clothes. But, I guess the GW deniers don’t wash their clothes too often, so they wouldn’t understand that. Maybe they are the biggest “spawners of bacteria i.e. toxic ideas?”

          • CheshireKitty

            Yuck it up – your views are unfashionably yucky. Respect for the environment, along with evolution, are taught nationwide in schools today.

          • abner

            Respect for the environment has been taught since the days of Teddy Roosevelt. It used to be called conservation of natural resources. It just wasn’t taken to the ridiculous end of the world / human beings are a pestilence extremes of today. BTW, no arguement that Evolution was part of God’s plan. Happy New Year and yuck yuck yuckety yuck yuck!

          • CheshireKitty

            Well, because in TR’s day the environment had not yet been thoroughly trashed. If TR was a conservationist then, no doubt he’d be an environmentalist today.

          • rural_americans

            Astute observation KM. The socialists tried to pivot to “climate change” which seemed to play well to the uninformed majority. However, common sense (the principled application of logic) tells us that the earth has been changing climate for millions of years.

          • Paul Key

            (In the voice of Chevy Chase’s Fletch’s “Gordon Liddy” the airplane mechanic) Come on, guys, maybe you need a refresher course. It’s all global warming these days!

          • Dale Patterson

            MAN BEAR PIG !!!…. IT’Z COMIN !!!…

          • CheshireKitty

            No – Sandy is global warming. You should have been on the E. Coast when Sandy occurred and you would have been convinced in a flash of the reality of global warming. Sandy disaster and its continuing after-effects don’t lie.

          • Billy Ray

            Except that much of it is scientifically linked to global warming….and we are warming

          • franknshadow

            That is quite simply a bald faced lie, and I’m sorry there are people like you that buy into it.. When these faux scientists create a model that allows them to adjust the data and the results from it, well, how in the world can that go wrong? Fact is, the earth has warmed in the past and that caused the CO2 levels to rise.. When it cooled they decreased.. I can make my models too sweety..

          • IT Guy

            Well, if you have all the answers, then let’s talk about the mass extinction of millions of wooly mammoths and about 30 other mammals that went extinct just after the last ice age of 15 to 20 thousand years ago. Climate changers incessantly hang on to increases of CO2 which even if doubled is still a trace gas. Please don’t let yourself be Grubered.

          • Atilla Thehun

            Love it. BTW, can you conjugate the verb “to gruber”?

          • CharlieB

            I grubered, you grubered, he/she/it grubered.
            We grubered, you (all) grubered, They (all) grubered

          • lee

            That’s past tense. Start with I gruber…

          • Accurite

            Using Gruber is well stated

          • franknshadow

            I’m not sure I understand your response. But this is what I’ve posted before;

            // Anybody that thinks this global warming scam is about anything other
            than a massive redistribution of wealth is playing into their hands..
            That is all this is about period…It is the attempt at global
            government with global laws which loosely translates into ransacking the
            US and giving that wealth to a global oligarchy.. Simple.. Thats why
            they will never let it go. Never..//

            Yes the climate changes.. Always has and no one needs a “model,” to know that.. I am simply pointing out that the whole premise of man made CO2 pollution is a myth just like the rest of it.. The, “scientists.” that came up with this crap got it backwards.. CO2 doesn’t drive the climate.. The climate drives CO2..

          • jaybird1951

            There is no example of their doing so in Earth’s history for the obvious reason that the ability to measure it was not yet available. I imagine though that the polar ice cap was shrunken during the Medieval Warming Period, a time of great cultural and economic flourishing when average temperatures are estimated to have been 3-5 degrees Celsius higher than the scare scenarios of the warmists for the end of this century. And by the way, humans had NO effect on that development. That period was followed by the so called Little Ice Age.

          • guy

            because we do not, just as the flea rarely is noticed by the elephant, 20,0000 years form now no one will know we were here

          • http://www.earlysda.com earlysda

            You seem to have not read the article, CB. Try again and you will see that there is more sea ice today than ever recorded before.

          • Richard_Iowa

            Think about what you just stated. CO2 has increased from 290 – to 400 ppm, and temperatures have dropped over the past 2 decades. That is only 2 decades, you might say. But, if there is a causation of warming by CO2, then the temperatures should have increased. Unless this is a religion to you, that is the only conclusion that can be logically reached.

          • Scotty Gunn

            Then stop yapping so much. You are spewing CO2 every time. Shees…

          • Story

            So what exactly is your solution? You’re so sure of the cause, you must certainly have a solution. Please enlighten us.

          • Recovering Liberal

            Uhh…I’m sure it involves higher taxes.

          • NotThatStupidYet

            If it weren’t for global warming, this exchange of opinions wouldn’t be taking place, as a large portion of the northern hemisphere of this planet was under a very large ice sheet 10-15k years ago. I am all for global warming.

          • Pepsi_Freak

            Yes, thank goodness the cave men had SUVs or we’d still be freezing.

          • homiegot
          • http://www.theantiliberalzone.com/ Gunny G Alz

            There is this thingamajigger called Photosynthesis. I learned about it in the 4th grade, maybe you slept through that part. more CO2 = more plants = more O2.

          • Tarpey

            Common Core?

          • Danny K

            Was higher 2-4.6 million years ago. All evidence melted.

          • Jim_Morris

            Actually, the core data shows that the changes in atmospheric CO2 lagged behind the changes in global temperature, and that by an average of about 200 years. That data therefore says exactly the opposite of what the AGW people say. It says that changes in atmospheric CO2 were caused by changes in average global temperature, rather than changes in average global temperature were caused by changes in atmospheric CO2.

          • Atilla Thehun

            Yep. But try telling that to the Kool Aid drinkers

          • Recovering Liberal

            Keep looking for that missing heat CB, it’s got to be around here somewhere.
            In the meantime, I’m going to buy two or three pounds of dry ice just to watch it sublimate. Then I’m going to fire up the grill and release some more carbon dioxide (plants love that stuff, ya know), and cook some steaks from Brazilian cattle that were raised on a pasture that was once rain forest.

          • It Guy

            Just so you don’t antagonize the AGW nut jobs, make sure your Brazilian beef is certified fart free.

          • CactusPatch

            Did you bother to consider the data included in this article? Man-made global warming is propaganda, pure and simple. Goebbels would be proud. The doctrine of man-made global warming is as essential to plans for global governance and wealth redistribution as the doctrine of evolution is to providing cover for immoral lifestyles. Both doctrines are propagated by the state and its so-called “public education system”.

          • Globaloney

            Exactly right, CactusPatch, and well said.

          • sirgareth

            How much has man increased
            corn over its natural level. We should never have started messing with fire n’ stuff like that.

          • Atilla Thehun

            Have you studied it? Turns out CO2 increases lag warming. It’s an effect, not a cause. Pick up a book. Read. Please

          • Globaloney

            HEY, ATILLA! Don’t confuse the putz with facts, okay?!

          • dbski4it

            I apparently did not grasp the meaning of the above article or you did not even take the time to read it. Also your graphs have 9 years of history as opposed to the millions of years that the earth has been here.

          • Scott

            So how do we decide what is “normal” for Co2 and ice mass?
            This is the exact opposite of what this article says and a new study has come out saying that increased co2 is good for the rain forests growth. Don’t you like rain forests?

          • John Galt

            We don’t decide. They decide. We, the uneducated masses could never muster the complex thought patterns to decide “normal”. Much like paying your “fair” share. They will decide what is fair for us to pay.

          • merely_speculating

            hey dumbass. Have you done any ice core samples recently…heck, ever? I can name lots of scientific articles the liberal media doesn’t talk about since it doesn’t increase any hype.

            How about looking at oh, any ice core sample that goes back a thousand years or so to way back 100,000 years ago and you will start seeing a pattern, fluctuations, that show higher and lower CO2 levels. While we’re talking about ice core samples you can research how in the past 20 plus years ice has been melting at one pole and being redistributed at the other pole. But all you dumbass liberals like to show are pictures of one spot in Greenland or one spot in Antarctica that is losing ice. Sheesh. What kind of an idiot are you? Do you ONLY read what some dumbass liberal on tv talks about or do you actually read the studies regardless of bias? Maybe if you did that you’d get the whole picture and not just the picture you want to portray.

            Oh…and tell NOAA that many of us Geologists were laughing at their hocus-pocus waaay before it was reported as fraudulent. It just doesn’t make sense when you look at other planets and AMAZING….those planets temperatures are fluctuating too. Makes me think its solar…not human….in basic cause. Yeah…the SUN. Try proving the Sun is our fault too.

          • Brian D

            If CO2 is high as the result of burning “fossil fuels”, how is such burning not just putting back into the atmosphere that which was previously there and sequestered by those long dead plants (fossils). The idea that the earth can not sustain much higher levels of CO2 is demonstrably absurd.

          • Rusty Brown in Canada

            As I understand it, the problem is that we are burning in a very short period of time that which took a very long period of time to accumulate as fossil fuels.

          • Brian D

            On the other hand, if the CO2 was in the atmosphere to begin with to be “sequestered” by trees and grass and unicorns frolicking in the meadow then how can putting it back even in a “very short” period of time destroy the planet (as global alarmists clearly believe).

            Focus your energy on deforestation and pollution of the seas (Fukushima?) where it belongs so the rate of re sequestering can keep up if your only issue is one of rate, rather than CO2 being a pollutant as the EPA tells us it is.

          • Mr. Fever Head

            *Snicker*

          • Jeffrey9167

            CO2 levels have been much higher than 400ppm in the past. The fact is, we have already seen the most of the warming that 400ppm will produce. Additional increases in CO2 will have much smaller impacts on global warming. An increase to 640ppm will have about 10% of the impact that the initial 120ppm increase had. Most people are ignorant of this fact.

          • Boog

            Scientists have now also shown that CO2 levels have nothing to do with causing global warming.

          • King_Solomon1

            YOU SOUND LIKE AN ARROGANT LEFT WING LOON. WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE “EARTH’S HISTORY”? THE EARTH IS 4 AND 1/2 BILLION YEARS OLD. EVERY 20,000 YEARS THE SAHARA DESERT BECOMES A LUSH FORREST. EXPLAIN THAT??? MAN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. LOONS LIKE YOU IGNORE THE FACT THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO GLOBAL WARMING FOR TWO DECADES AND THERE IS RECORD ICE COVERE AS WE SPEAK. CO2 ALSO IS ESSENTIAL TO LIFE AND IS SPURRING RECORD GROWTH IN THE RAIN FORRESTS. HERE IS THE BOTTOM LINE—THE EARTH HAS BEEN COVERED IN ICE AND THEN LOST ALL OF ITS ICE SCORES OF TIMES LONG BEFORE MAN EVER EXISTED. EXPLAIN THAT ONE MS. LOON???

          • VahallaGuardian

            Cherry pick much?. You have to use all relevant data associated with the subject. If you want to be believed on a specific subject at least use all available information. Doing otherwise, you sound as though we need to add bleach to the shallow end of the gene-pool. I’m only spitballing here, but, it seems as if you missed class the day they taught earth science.

          • bloodaxe

            Boolsheet. Mentiroso. Pendejo.

          • barackem1

            CB, I’m trying to understand your chart. If it is a chart that shows how much the ice mass changed per year, it would indicate that in most years the ice mass went up from the year before. If that is the case, even if the mass went up by less in one year than the year before, the mass is still going up even if the chart shows a downward trend. Correct? If so, even in the short trend that you posted, it appears that there would be an overall increase in mass. It also would make little sense for the mass to endlessly rise every year or we would at some point be in another ice age. If you look at your chart, it increased most years from 2002-2007, then decreased in years 2007-2009 when the chart ends. Without looking at current charts, I believe it did lose mass for a couple years after but has made a huge gain in the last couple years, as the article claims. Nobody wants to kill the planet but they have good reason for skepticism now that science and politics have become completely intertwined on this subject. Keep an open mind. look carefully at this issue before you allow the blowhard politicians to steal your personal and economic freedom.

          • OldManMtn

            here’s and inconvenient truth for ya:

            plants grow MUCH better with 1200-1500ppm CO2 — this is why grow-houses increase CO2 inside… and guess what, there is no need for air-conditioning as a result.

            Also, 290ppm is dangerously low. Increasing to 400ppm is a good thing, even though humans had nothing to do with it. The amount of CO2 we output is extremely minuscule in the grand scale of the atmosphere. The sun and water vapor are the primary drivers of climate.

            http://plantsneedco2.org/html/CarbonStarvation.gif

            More CO2 = more food = less hunger
            Less CO2 = less food = more hunger = less us

            And so the real goal of AGW is exposed –> population reduction, a high goal of the elites.

            congrats, you are tool and useful idiot on behalf of the elites.

          • SineQua0

            All vegative life hits saturation CO2 between 1k-2k PPM we could easily double our current concentration and the only effect would be…..more plant growth

          • Glorious_Cause

            An 8-year chart?? bwahahahaha

          • Der_SauerKraut

            Indeed. A perfect illustration of something one of my physics professors warned us about 60 years ago: “…the unwarranted extrapolation of insufficient data.”

          • Thor

            In the age of dinosaurs when no humans existed, the CO2 level of the atmosphere for 100s of million of years were between 500 ppm and 1400 ppm. Lush Vegetation EVERYWHERE. Animals growing to huge sizes. The bountiful earth giving forth life everywhere. Stop believing CO2 is something “bad” for you.

          • David Langley

            If people are the problem, why don’t you kill yourself? Hypocrite.

          • RoyBaty

            Take another look at algores giant graph of ice cores (CO2 vs. Temp), you will see that the rising global temps PRECEED the rise in CO2 (and SUVs were not even around back then), so when the earth warms (from SOLAR radiation), the oceans give off more CO2 into the atmosphere (and hence the ice core samples).

            Also

          • RoyBaty

            The area of sea ice on Earth has moved into unprecedented territory. When it was declining, they blamed it on global warming. Now that it is increasing, they blame it on global warming.

          • Randy Hurley

            Parts per million. Get real

          • david russell

            This is an example of your lunacy. It’s complete scientific speculation.

          • TeaPartyPatriotTD

            So let’s declare Carbon Dioxide a pollutant and stop buring all fossil fuels. Then when 7.1 of the 7.2 Billion humans die (because without fossil fuels, nobody eats, has a place to escape the weather elements, no medicine, no transportation, no Internet, no iPhones, no Tweeting, you get my point), the Earth will finally be “in the balance”. What a crock!

          • Max Casey

            The earth has been hotter with more co2 in the past. To support dinosaurs, specifically the plant eaters, vegetation should need to be prolific and the temperature of the planet much warmer to support cold blooded animals of that size. Simple observation to anyone who’s ever kept reptiles really.

          • Rocky

            “If it’s so likely that polar ice caps will be able to withstand CO₂ so high, why isn’t there a single example of them doing so in Earth’s history?”

            IF the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is as high as you claim it is currently then we have the proof you seek right now. The polar Ice caps are still there aren’t they?

          • Ashley Trey

            Yes, they are still there. Are you disputing the graphs that show land ice melting?

          • Ashley Trey

            It seems simple that land ice melting would cool the sea and result in more sea ice in the winter. This is not surprising.

          • ObviousTruths

            10000 years ago my house would have been under 10-20 feet of water. was it AGW then? Drone.

          • thomaswood

            It’s absolutely laughable that you post graphs with no data later than 2008. Over the past six years, nature has demonstrated that there is no basis for your projections of unceasing ice loss, and therefore no clear link between higher CO2 levels and temperatures.

          • hargen

            And there were times when temperatures were warmer pre-industrial revolution. I don’t see that in your 8 year graphs. Nice try at skewing data, meanwhile, I’m putting on a coat.

          • Dale Patterson

            Shhh… stop flappin… yer makin too much CO₂…

          • Dan Titsworth

            And I suppose solar storms and volcanoes had absolutely nothing to do with your charts, its all man-made, right? By the way could you give me a chart that shows what the ice mass change was for 640,000 years ago when the Yellowstone Supervolcano, the Lava Creek eruption, put about 240 cubic miles of particles into our atmosphere? (Even though I don’t believe the guesstimated age of this eruption since the earth is only about 6,000 years old.)

          • Xerxes

            Sure there are examples from prehistory. Old atmospheres are examined using bubbles trapped in miles of ice cores, drilled from the ice pack. Way back when, CO2 was many times todays concentration. What does that tell us? – that permanent ice was being laid down at vastly higher CO2 concentrations than we have…. Relax, get a life…..

          • Kevin

            Well, I can tell those charts didn’t come from the NSIDC. The Antarctic sea ice coverage has set all time record high levels the last 3 years, and is even showing that in the charts used for this article. Making up charts from your behind and posting them here does not make it ay more science than when Al Gore did it.

          • Scott

            OK, good, now do some thinking on your own. Calculate the weighted, specific heat capacity of the atmosphere before and after the CO2 changes. CO2 contributes such an insignificant role in the atmosphere’s ability to hold energy, it doesn’t make a damn difference if you quadrupled CO2. CO2’s specific heat capacity value is amazingly unimpressive. CO2 is also .035% of the atmosphere. Hell increase it 1000%. Did all of you global warming scammers skip chemistry 101?

          • Flechette

            “We have increased CO₂ from 290PPM before the industrial revolution to 400PPM today.”

            and the *temperature* has gone up a whopping 0.8 degrees as a result. That’s right, not even *one* degree.

            Why is this alarming?

          • TomInGreeley

            Don’t you believe in doing research of your own ? First of all there has been no significant warming in almost 2 decades. http://linkis.com/www.climate.gov/news/99xxE . Second, I hear people saying that this is the warmest decade ever! Try the 1930s, they blow this decade away! http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/07/extreme-climate-change-severe-weather-events-1933-1938.html . Arctic sea ice shrinking ? It shrinks, grows, shrinks, etc..as in a cycle. If you can read a map, you can see the cycle http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-seaice.shtml . Here’s something for you. Some people are happy about the sea levels shrinking: http://www.porttechnology.org/technical_papers/dubais_wonderland_developing_a_coastline_one_grain_at_a_time/ Finally, only because I have better things to do than teach warmers about reality, 11 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/ . I hope all these links work automatically. If not just copy and paste.

          • Daniel Haney

            Riddle me this….What is the SINGLE largest source of CO2 emissions?
            And, as a bonus, What percentage of the Total Global CO2 is NOT man-made?
            Look these two facts up and get back to us about how Man is causing Global warming via CO2 emissions.
            Hint: I know the answer and will cite the source if you are afraid to…..

          • Daniel Haney

            Natural sources:

            Ocean-atmosphere exchange = Annually this process creates
            about 330 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.

            Plant and animal respiration = Annually this process creates
            about 220 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.

            Soil respiration and decomposition = Annually this process
            creates about 220 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.

            Volcanic eruptions = Annually this process creates about
            0.15 to 0.26 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.

            Added together – 770.15 to 770.26 Billion tonnes

            Man made sources:

            Fossil fuel combustion/use = 33.2 billion tonnes of carbon
            dioxide emissions worldwide.

            Note: This is 87% of ALL
            Man made CO2.

            The site remains vague about the total “Man-made” CO2 and
            includes such things as land use.

            “From 1850 to 2000, land use and land use change released an
            estimated 396-690 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.” In 150 years man crated the equivalent of 1.5 years of the amount occurring NATURALLY in the Oceans alone.

            A little math and we can deduct that the other Man Made CO2
            created by ALL other sources after fossil fuels equals 4.3 billion tonnes.

            That makes 37.5 billion tonnes per year.

            Or, as a percentage of the total: 770.15 Billion (natural) /
            37.5 Billion Man Made = 4.84 % of the total CO2.

            This from the Global Warming fear monger site http(colon)//whatsyourimpact(dot)org/greenhouse-gases/carbon-dioxide-sources.

          • unbeliever17

            The climates change. Greenland was a lush “green land” when it was named. I guess there were too many cars and heavy industry 900 or 1100 years ago. England used to be known for their fine wines (before the climate change). The Mayan calender predicted today’s climate change 5000 years ago based on repeating cycles of climate, not cars and industry.

          • xdream

            The Mesozoic Era had CO2 Values in excess of 2,400 ppmv for several stretches exceeding 20 Million years. None were due to Human activity.

          • John Kunnari

            Polar ice caps have melted and grown many times across millennia. Even in the past 500-600 yrs. Greenland was called that because it was actually green…. well before the Industrial Age. Arctic and Antarctic ice caps are growing, not decreasing. The global as a whole has not warmed for over 18 yrs.

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/12/30/global-sea-ice-breaks-all-time-record-high-antarctic-sea-ice-also-breaks-all-time-record-high/

            “Global Sea Ice Breaks Record High For The Day – Antarctic Sea Ice Also Breaks Record High For the Day”

          • Sanity&Reason

            The power of earth and it’s systems is unspeakably powerful- far beyond what we know now. The “people are a pox on the earth” just make me so tired..

          • bloodaxe

            It’s leftwing lunatics, communists, fascists, Nazis and assorted criminals who are a pox on this earth. What a wonderful world it would be if none of them existed.

          • Mike Richards

            Absolutely. Orwell should be Man of the Century (20th)(ironic that he was a socialist – God works in strange ways). Add mozilms to your mix of people with FITH Syndrome.

            Problem is: what to DO about it is always left hanging, even by brilliant and courageous commentators like Daniel Greenfield. We are not yet at the precipice; the tiger is not yet fully awake.

          • TeaPartyPatriotTD

            I suspect that it will take a major event such as an EMP or some other act of terrorism 10+ times worse than 9-11-2001, or perhaps a partial or complete collapse of the U.S. economy before enough people wake up. I Guarantee that the first day after the welfare checks and other batches of other people’s money don’t get tranferred to the takers, riots will erupt across the nation and that will result in falling into the precipice. It will be quite a show for those prepared for it and a nightmare for the rest.

          • 4BlueStars

            But that’s the plan, don’t you know. Cause the whole house of cards to come tumbling down, the masses demand that the government DO something and presto-change-o: Socialist Utopia. It’s the Cloward & Piven plan.

          • It Guy

            The presto chango is technically known as the Hegellian Dialectic Thereom. This is the lever that social engineers use to affect change over and over and over again.

          • it_begins

            Unfortunately, some folks, far too many, will never wake up until they are no longer capable of doing so.

            Far too few people realize how little separates us from barbarism and a new “dark ages”.

            If an EMP event hit America, official estimates are 90 casualties within one year primarily due to starvation when the food distribution network breaks down, and later due to unsanitary conditions because of little things like no more indoor toilets.

          • tibet

            I used to watch Star Trek, those huge, graceful starships, and think, that’s the dream of the West. Then the announcement that warp drive is theoretically possible got me excited. Then ISIS came. And I began looking into history, how classical civilization continued in the Eastern Empire even though Rome fell in the West. But then Islam came, and attacked it in the 7th century and destroyed it in the 15th with the fall of Constantinople. And I realized that the dream of the West isn’t going to happen, because Islam is going to kill it. And maybe us, as well.

          • Billy Ray

            Ahhhhhem, the Arabs had paper and other technologies first, which the West did not acquire until the Crusades where they invaded the region. That right there helped break Europe out of the Dark Ages.

          • policygeek

            I have been reading diar predictions from right wing economic snake oil salesmen for the past 7 years. None of Obama’s policies have caused our collapse, infact 6 years on, our economy is stronger than ever, gas prices have dropped to decade lows, and yet you continue to scream doom and socialism. Hell, we could probably use more of what you dolts consider socialism. What’s funny is that some Scandinavian countries have started litterally handing out money as a minimum living stipend. Their economies are doing great and they have a higher quality of liVing than the US.

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            1) “Dire.”

            2) “Literally.”

            3) The price of gasoline is a) the result of Saudi trying to undercut both us and Russia and b) is STILL higher than it was the day he took office.

            4) Socialism is a pyramid scheme, and eventually you run out of other people’s money. Or else you start printing it and giving THAT away. Germany and Rhodesia can tell you a lot about that method.

            5) Scandinavia also does not have a permanent underclass which has become rooted and bonded to government handouts and criminal/gang culture. Although they are starting to catch up, with their growing population of Middle Easterners*. Read up on Scandinavian crime statistics. Read up especially on rape in Norway.

            6) “None of Obama’s policies have caused our collapse.” Huh? I thought the “obstructionist Congress” has kept him from getting ANYTHING done. Make up your mind, you can’t have it both ways.

            7) How’s that whole business of race relations coming along?

            *Yes, that’s dog-whistle code-word for Moslems.

          • tibet

            Uh oh. Someone’s been paying attention. I name you…the ANTI-GRUBER!

          • Billy Ray

            Anti-truth person?

          • Billy Ray

            1, 2. Who cares about spelling these days?

            3. The reason it was so far down was because the economy and demand collapsed. Before that it was at record highs. Presidents don’t have much impact on prices.

            4. You meant to say Ponzi scheme, which it isn’t.

            5. Way to blame the poor and minorities for our problems.

            6. He is referring to all the Obama doomsday sayers, and those prophecies are false.

            7. Race relations are fine. The media blows it out of proportion, both left and right.

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            “1, 2. Who cares about spelling these days?”

            Says it all, folks, says it all.

          • http://batman-news.com oilcanp

            The U.S. is doing that now. Going deeper in debt. & spend more than we take in on junk.

          • USA1776

            You can thank fracking technology and oil company ingenuity in navigating the EPA barricades erected by obama’s administration the past 6 years. In addition to obama’s misguided opposition to the Keystone pipeline. New technologies and low oil prices have spurred the economy and job growth. Nothing obama has done has built this economy. Nothing.

          • policygeek

            Sure he didnt. I gus it’s true what they say about you repub tools; you Blame the black guy when he’s cleaning up your conservative pig mess, but demand credit when things are finally working thanks to 6 years of democratic governance.

          • bloodaxe

            You are out of your mind.

          • policygeek

            And you apparently think you can burn billions of gallons of oil and release all that into the atmosphere with no consequence.

          • dwf73

            Do you understand why the gas prices are dropping and what it means long term?

          • bloodaxe

            I bet you do. Please enlighten us, O Wise One of Infinite Knowledge.

          • dwf73

            Oh, and I am wise and I do have infinite knowledge, but if you want to pretend I’m an idiot, Google “petrodollar” and see what you find.

          • bloodaxe

            Google “Communist fool”. See what you find.

          • policygeek

            Yeah, Putin suffers. Obama wins again.

          • libtarded

            Socialist Utopia Venezuela suffers (they’re in a depression now because of it)– and they can no longer keep Cuba afloat with aid. Thus– Obama bails out Cuba (loosening restrictions so people in the US can subsidize the Communist regime).

          • Billy Ray

            That is Baseless.

          • dwf73

            Obama has had little to do with it. The Saudis are deliberately flooding the market with excess oil to tackle the issue with Russia (yes, a nice side benefit), but also to knock the legs out from under our natural gas industry which will not survive if the price/barrel stays below $60 for much longer. Our “recovery” is shouldered by the natural gas boon. When it collapses, so does the dollar. But I’m sure you knew that, right? Love the arrogance of you lefties. But makes it all that much more fun to watch your mental gymnastics when the wheels come off the bad policy.

          • policygeek

            “Blame the black guy. Take the credit.” Did your white Supremacist majority whip think this up?

          • dwf73

            Such an easy, no-thought, inaccurate assessment. Dispute what I said with tangible fact. Stop name calling. Otherwise, you have no credibility whatsoever.

          • policygeek

            First, as usual, your rightwing analysis of the situation is wrong. Fuck natural gas, it’s environmentally damaging and I see no reason to support it since it only benefits degenerate red states. Electric is the future. Gas is just a stop gap.

          • dwf73

            Maybe. But a necessary stop gap to get to the future. And electricity has to come from somewhere. And, with no money, who do you assume will get you through that stop gap? But glad to see your civility is well in tact.

          • Sleepy

            Unless you have a lot of hydro, electricity is either generated from dirty coal, nuclear, or natural gas. Clean burning natural gas is the future for electricity.

          • policygeek

            You missed thermal, solar, wind, and emerging technologies. Ever hear of the sun?

          • SpaceCadet

            No I did not. They are not economically viable.

          • USMC2010

            Yes moron. It’s called solar power, not electric.

          • policygeek

            USMC2010, I’m not going to be mean to you because i genuinely think you may have a learning disability. Solar power generates electricity. It’s the same thing.

          • USMC2010

            Every other power source I mentioned can also be converted to “electric” so by your logic all of the actual sources I stated are the same thing. You are a moron.

          • Billy Ray

            Yeah, because the future is only 90 years long? That’s how long til it runs out.

          • SpaceCadet

            How do you figure that?

          • USMC2010

            My God you are a moron. “Electric” is not a power source. Coal, oil, NG, nuclear, wind and solar are power sources. “Electric” is one of the products for consumption. Here’s electric for you…you are a 5-watt light bulb. Not so bright.

          • policygeek

            USMC2010, I’m not going to be mean to you because i genuinely think you may have a learning disability. Solar power generates electricity.

          • USMC2010

            Gee…solar generates electricity…really? I guess they built the Hoover Dam to generate moonbeams. Wonder what diesel generators produce…perhaps butterflies. Idiot.

          • policygeek

            Like I said; Learning disability.

          • USMC2010

            You really are weak. A man could admit an error. Solar is a source…electricity is a product from EVERY SINGLE POWER SOURCE WE UTILIZE. Those following the thread know how dumb you sound trying to justify such a dumb initial assertion that, “electric is the future.” But, then again, liberals are known to be weak, illogical and just plain stupid.

          • policygeek

            Only an idiot could misread/misinterpret what I said. You’re twisting in the wind.

          • Billy Ray

            Electric car?

          • USMC2010

            Ignorant and off topic. Stay up…we were talking about his assertion that the best future power SOURCE was “electric.”

          • Billy Ray

            Off topic, and austerity measures don’t usually work well and can be senseless

          • DaveT

            Orwell’s political ideas changed several times during his life.

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            Animal Farm was much more a critique of what Stalin did with Communism, rather than Communism itself. And of course 1984 is largely apolitical — totalitarianism can spring up from any quarter.

          • DaveT

            His first political orientation was Anarchist. He later became a Socialist writing a book called, “The Road to Wigon Pier”. He went to Spain where he ended up fighting communists in Barcelona. He returned to England as a Conservative and wrote, “Coming Up For Air”. He went through a period where he was a sort of a Libertarian while turning once again to Socialism. He became the editor of a left-wing socialist newspaper, but his experience in Barcelona fighting communists left him with a lifelong dread of Communism. Only after that, he wrote Animal Farm and 1984.

          • lloydc1234

            Maybe, AND you.

          • bloodaxe

            STFU you pile of shiit.

          • Billy Ray

            Make better arguments and you won’t find yourself swearing as much

          • bloodaxe

            That would be true if I encountered fewer rabid fanatics like you. They’re so annoying and so full of bullshiit.

          • Billy Ray

            By bullshit you mean facts, evidence, and concern for our future?

          • ph74

            That’s why I can’t really oppose abortion or gay marriage. Good conservative people don’t engage in that. We should be having as many kids as we can. The bed wetting moonbats can abort and swallow themselves out of existence.

          • TMAN

            That’s funny!

          • Joe

            Good saying.
            I’ve come to that conclusion, too, but you say it well.

          • Stewie Driscol

            Opposition to abortion should be based on the fact that a human life is being taken (murder) If you support abortion, you’re in favor of wanton murder. Just my opinion

          • SteamingPileofObama

            You are just murdering future liberals. No loss there.

          • King_Solomon1

            AL GORE IS A LIAR, THIEF, FRAUD AND HYPOCRITE. HIS GLOBAL WARMING POSITION IS A LIE THAT HE HAS USED TO DEFRAUD PEOPLE OUT OF HUNDRED OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. FRANKLY, IN BELONGS IN PRISON RIGHT NEXT TO PONZI SCHEME KING, BERNIE MADOFF.

          • Geepa

            Isn’t the Social Security system we have in this country the ultimate Ponzi Scheme?
            The US should get out of the disability and health insurance business.

          • Billy Ray

            Except that other industrialized nations often do a better job than what we or the private industry could do.

          • justsaynotosocialism

            Billy Ray sees the IRS, USPS and public housing as shining examples of how a big, overreaching government can do a better job of managing our environment.
            What a fool.

          • policygeek

            You love corporations so much that you’re willing to hand them the keys to the kingdom.

          • http://Www.soulkuhl.com Traveler1055

            SS do not count on it, Best to put away money through the underground economy that is now about 20 % of total GDP.
            With the internet it is quite easy to sell and save 10 to 20 k a yr. buy and sell what you have a passion for.

          • bloodaxe

            He owns a magnificent beachfront hacienda in Santa Barbara and is probably bravely battling gnarly surf dudes who want to surf on his beach. He really hates peasants.

          • policygeek

            And you hate logic reason and science, so gfy.

          • bloodaxe

            No I don’t. Stop telling lies and making stuff up.

            yer stoopit.

          • policygeek

            LOL. You’re such a pleb.

          • Arminius

            Pleb? Language dictates thought goofy, and you are someone who believes that your basic lefist moral superiority equals mental superiority. Nice try.

          • policygeek

            2014 was the hottest year ever recorded. You are arguing with the thermometer.

          • Richard W Ferris

            2014 was hottest only to those who will not actually look into the facts. Taking your facts from the media will make you think how the people that own the media want. Doing your own research will always lead an honest informed citizen to see human caused warming as the FRAUD that it is.

          • Mogumbo Gono

            WRONG.

            Last year was only the 6th warmest of the new century — sixth, out of 14 years.

            Now the alarmist crowd has resorted to outright lying, since they don’t have credible facts.

          • CaMaven

            Gee- such powerful, rational scientific argument, geek.

          • policygeek

            2014 was the hottest year ever recorded.

          • Richard W Ferris

            repeating a lie is a socialist/nazi tactic……..satalite records do not agree with you.

          • greenthinker2012

            …Says Richard repeating a lie,

          • CaMaven

            That must explain the record ice expansion. Wake up. Google “ClimateGate”

          • CaMaven

            Actually, 1934 was. In addition, global warming trend is now broken. Climate is more closely correlated to solar activity than any crackpot Liberal theories. There’s a reason that your progressive masters have retreated and are now calling it “Climate Change.” That way, no matter what happens, they’re right :-). I passed by Al gore’s oceanfront house in Montecito, CA, right on the ocean :-). Wonder why he bought it if it’s gonna be inundated soon. Sounds like you’re the “plebe” geek :-).

          • policygeek

            Wow, maybe if you could just get this schlock through peer review you would win a Nobel Prize! Lol.

          • Mogumbo Gono

            2014 was the hottest year ever recorded.

            As if.

            It wasn’t, but even if it was:

            I am the tallest I have ever been. I am 6’2″ tall, and by your silly logic, that means:

            a) I was always this tall, and

            b) I will surely get taller [globaloney warming will only get ‘worse’]

            Really, the alarmist cult is now using pathetic arguments. And they are simply lying because they don’t have credible facts.

          • policygeek

            Perhaps I don’t have data, but scientific american does.

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-to-be-hottest-year-ever-measured/

          • greenthinker2012

            Yeah like yours is any better?
            Is this an elementary school playground?
            This is a serious issue whichever side you are on and deserves far more maturity than you are showing.

          • CaMaven

            Actually yes. The grown-ups have been showing the hyper-greens some facts hey’re not hearing in their echo chamber. I’ve heard it all after many years in Sierra Club. When I started seeing the other side, I started doing some checking and found ouit GW was being vastly overhyped. Then ClimateGate got exposed.

          • socilasatelite

            So you think the sun doesn’t affect temperature? am I reading that right?

          • policygeek

            Um no, you are not reading that right. Obviously the sun plays an important role in our climate. What kind of doofus derives that from what I said?

          • CaMaven

            You can’t even spell it right, troll.

          • policygeek

            My phone is shit for quick typing.

          • Billy Ray

            How about trying to make the better argument? Or do you have no argument?

          • CB

            BloodAxe does not have an argument.

            People who yammer dementedly about Al Gore prove they know nothing about climate science and furthermore, are not interested in what’s true!

            Nothing Al Gore could possibly do would change the effect of CO₂ on planetary temperature.

          • abbeyc

            Here’s a little common sense for those who worship at Al Gore’s altar: If the seas are rising from global warming why isn’t he selling his beach house? I will tell you why…because he wants YOU to sell YOURS so he can buy up the property. For a guy whose home uses enough electricity to power a small town you actually believe him? You are EXACTLY the type of person Jonathon Gruber talks about.

          • CB

            “Here’s a little common sense for those who worship at Al Gore’s altar”

            Al Gore didn’t discover CO₂ warms planets. John Tyndall did… over 100 years ago:

            “In January 1859, Tyndall began studying the radiative properties of various gases… Tyndall’s experiments… showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation”

            earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall

            Are you saying he was founding a cult that all scientists on Earth have been a part of for over a century?

            Is that actually what you believe?

          • abbeyc

            ALL scientists DON’T believe it. THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING! The ones who do are mostly government scientists trying to keep their jobs. You need to do a little more research, fella. Your ‘ hypothesis’ is fuckedup.

          • CB

            “ALL scientists DON’T believe it”

            …but all scientists do believe it.

            …and they believe it, because we can actually see CO₂ warming the planet from space:

            http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05

            You have access to the entire internet.

            Why don’t you know this?

          • abbeyc

            Whatever is going on is natural. It has nothing…zero, zippo…with any kind of change. And no..REAL scientists don’t believe Al Gore and his wing nut theorists. Most of their hysterical data comes from computer models. Garbage in; garbage out.

          • greenthinker2012

            You are correct…scientists do not look to Al Gore to form their conclusions on Climate Change. They look at their data.
            I think garbage in garbage out applies to your comments.

          • abbeyc

            Green thinker says it all; Which means you DON’T think. And your stupid assumptions are being proved wrong daily. You and your ilk are very, very foolish people.

          • greenthinker2012

            Your comment does not make sense.
            Who and what are you talking about?

          • Mogumbo Gono

            YOU do not make sense.

          • franknshadow

            Simple answer is that it’s a lie. //…but all scientists do believe it.// That is a lie on it’s face!! In fact it is a ridiculous lie, easily exposed by the list of legitimate scientists who have signed documents refuting anthropogenic climate change!! Please at least make an effort at accuracy..

          • greenthinker2012

            Show me this document.

          • Mogumbo Gono

            Show you the document?

            OK. No problem:

            http://oism.org/pproject

            More than 31,000 American scientists have co-signed that document, saying that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.

            Since that COMPLETELY debunks your alarmist nonsense, I fully expect you to deflect to something else.

          • Nick697

            “Its face,” not “It’s face.” It’s means “it is.”

          • franknshadow

            Ouch..

          • greenthinker2012

            You say it is easily refuted.
            Please show me the document.
            I would like to see.

          • Mogumbo Gono

            CB says:

            …but all scientists do believe it.

            Anyone who makes a baseless assertion like that is either a fool, or completely ignorant. Maybe both…

            The OISM Petition was co-signed by more than 31,000 American scientists, every one of them named, and every one of them was required to have a degree in one of the hard sciences. They do not agree with your nonsense, so your comment above was insanity. At least you said “believe”, wghich shows where you’re coming from.

            Next, you emit:

            …and they believe it, because we can actually see CO₂ warming the planet from space:

            Preposterous nonsense. If that were true, the debate would have been over long ago. Here are some empirical, testable FACTS:

            There is NO scientific evidence that measures any warming cause by CO2. None at all. But there is a mountain of scientific evidence showing conclusively that changes in temperature are THE CAUSE of subsequent changes in CO2.

            Thus, the original alarmist premise — claiming that rising CO2 will cause a measureable rise in global temperature — is flatly debunked.

            The truth is that rising temperature causes rising CO2. That has been observed on all time scales, from months, to hundreds of millennia.

            When you begin with a wrong premise, you are sure to arrive at the wrong conclusion. That is waht happened to the alarmist cult. But being their religion, they cannot admit that they were wrong.

            But everyone else can see it.

          • Dano2

            Me loves me my Internet Performance Art!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

            This hapless, clueless comedy makes me LOLz!

            Best,

            D

          • Mogumbo Gono

            More evidence-free nonsense.

          • Dano2

            Clueless rube embarrasses itself for our amusement!

            Best,

            D

          • Mogumbo Gono

            Still not one fact from the ‘dano’ a-hoe. Only hot air.

            Keep that up, and we might really see some global warming.

          • Dano2

            Thank you for that limp response to your limp defense of the comical OISM – Gono is always good for a laff!

            Best

            D

          • xdream

            We do have empirical evidence of the world with higher CO2 levels. Almost the entire Mesozoic Era was characterized by CO2 level at least six times what they are today – on a planet wide scale. At 2,400 ppmv the Earth was lush with vegetation and critters. The Mesozoic lasted more than 100 Million years. I call that empirical evidence.

          • Nick697

            So it’s Back to the Future and the Flux Capacitor? Actually, satellite and balloon data show no global warming at all.
            .
            You will not get the truth about it from the Washington
            Post, the New York Times, or the rest of the self-regarded
            “establishment” media. They are trying to pretend that there is no
            legitimate scientific debate over whether mankind’s use of low cost, reliable
            energy from oil, coal and natural gas portends catastrophic global warming that
            threatens life on the planet as we know it.
            .
            Recently, the AGW alarmists tried to revive flagging public
            respect for their fading message of doom. The occasion was massively overhyped
            and misrepresented reporting of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST)
            project. But all that was new from that project was the departures from the
            official catechism. Reporting on the recorded temperature history since 1950
            from stations on land, which covers less than 30% of the earth’s surface,
            Berkeley University Earth Surface Temperature project leader Professor Richard
            Muller reported in a Wall Street Journal commentary on October 21, that after
            obtaining and reviewing “more than 1.6 billion measurements from 39,000
            [land based] temperature stations around the world… the result offered no
            independent assessment of the question of “how much of the warming is due
            to humans and what will be the likely effects.”

            .

            But that is the whole issue in the global warming debate.
            Muller also honestly admits that “The [land based] temperature station
            quality is largely awful,” noting that “A careful survey of these
            stations by a team of meteorologists showed that 70% have such poor siting that,
            by the U.S. government’s own measure, they result in temperature uncertainties
            of between two and five degrees Celsius or more. We do not know how much worse
            are the stations in the developing world.” He adds that, “The margin
            of error for the stations is at least three times larger than the estimated
            warming, and that one-third of land based temperature stations worldwide show
            cooling rather than warming.”

            .

            These concessions are important to recount because weather
            satellites measuring atmospheric temperatures worldwide, over land and water,
            which are not subject to the above troubles of land based weather stations,
            show no warming since their record began in 1979, and before that there was
            actually global cooling dating back to 1940. The satellite record regarding
            atmospheric temperatures is independently confirmed by weather balloons.
            Moreover, the computer based climate models utilized by the UN’s own
            Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the atmospheric theory
            they rely upon, all insist that if man’s use of carbon based fuels was warming
            the planet, the atmosphere must be warming faster than the surface.

            .

            In addition, the scientifically recognized temperature proxy
            data from tree rings, ice cores, lake and ocean sediments, and stalagmites also
            show no warming since 1940. Note that the warming before1940 is attributable to
            the global recovery of temperatures from the Little Ice Age, and even the land
            based records show no significant warming over the last 18 years.

            .

            It is very likely that the reported warming during 1978-97
            [from land based weather stations] is simply an artifact – the result of the
            measurement scheme rather than an actual warming. When a letter to the editor
            by Prof. Julius Singer was sent to the global warming cheerleading Washington
            Post, pointing out the above anomalies and his conclusion, he reports the
            peculiar response that “they were willing to publish my letter, but not my
            credentials as emeritus professor at the University of Virginia and former
            director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. Apparently, they were concerned
            that readers might gain the impression that I knew something about
            climate.”

            .

            But there is more. Even the land based temperature record is
            not consistent with the theory of man-caused global warming. That record does
            not show persistent warming following persistent growth of CO2 and other
            greenhouse gases. Rather, it shows an up and down pattern of temperatures more
            consistent with natural causes. Those include solar flare and sun spot cycles,
            and the periodic cycling of warm and cold water in the oceans from top to
            bottom, particularly the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).

            .

            The truth is a vigorous global scientific debate persists
            over whether man’s use of carbon-based fuels threatens to cause catastrophic
            global warming, and the media not reporting that is not performing journalism.
            The most authoritative presentation of this debate can be found in the 856 page
            Climate Change Reconsidered, published by the Heartland Institute in 2009. This
            careful, thoroughly scientific volume co- authored by dozens of fully
            credentialed scientists comprehensively addresses every aspect of global
            warming, and indicates that natural causes are primarily responsible for
            climate patterns of the last century. Heartland has just published a follow up
            416 page Interim Report updating the debate.

            .

            When you run across an AGW alarmist, ask him for his
            rebuttal to Climate Change Reconsidered. You will find the response is
            something derogatory about the Heartland Institute, showing that he hasn’t read
            the report. Liberals don’t need no stinkin’ facts; their minds are made up.
            They know that the Heartland Institute’s report is wrong because someone told
            them so.

            .

            Indeed, the latest and best work actually provides scientific
            proof that the man-caused global warming catechism is false. Fully documented
            work by Roy Spencer, U.S. Science Team Leader for the AMSR-E instrument flying
            on NASA’s Aqua satellite, and Principal Research Scientist for the Earth
            Systems Science Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, shows using
            atmospheric temperature data from NASA’s Terra satellite that much more heat
            escapes back out to space than is assumed captured in the atmosphere by
            greenhouse effects under the UN’s theoretical climate models. This explains why
            the warming temperature changes predicted by the UN’s global warming models
            over the past 20 years have been proved to be false.

            .

            In August, 2011 came the results of a major experiment by
            the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), involving 63 scientists
            from 17 European and U.S. institutes. The results show that the sun’s cosmic
            rays resulting from sunspots have a much greater effect on Earth’s temperatures
            through their effect on cloud cover than the UN’s global warming models have
            been assuming. This helps to explain why the historical pattern of temperature
            changes seems to follow the rise and fall of sunspots, rather than the
            concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This further confirms what Heartland’s
            Climate Change Reconsidered argues – that natural causes have the dominant
            effect on Earth’s temperatures, not greenhouse gases.

            .

            Finally, the UN’s own climate models project that if man’s
            greenhouse gas emissions were causing global warming, there would be a
            particular pattern of temperature distribution in the atmosphere, which
            scientists call “the fingerprint.” Temperatures in the troposphere
            portion of the atmosphere above the tropics would increase with altitude
            producing a “hotspot” near the top of the troposphere, about 6 miles
            above the earth’s surface. Above that, in the stratosphere, there would be
            cooling. But higher quality temperature data from weather balloons and
            satellites now show just the opposite: no increasing warming with altitude in
            the tropical troposphere, but rather a slight cooling, with no hotspot, no
            fingerprint.

            .

            So the scientific foundation for shutting down our modern,
            21st century, industrial economy has been obliterated. But that is not stopping
            religious crusaders, due to the extremist ideology and special interests
            driving the global warming charade.

          • Nick697

            You tinfoil hat guys, with your “man-made
            CO2 increase causes global warming” can’t explain how, during the fastest increase
            in CO2 ever, from 1940 to the early 1970s (the industrialized world went on an
            armament-making spree in WWII, then lots of steel production for post-war
            reconstruction and infrastructure, plus consumer durables like cars and
            refrigerators in the post-war boom, 95% powered by coal-burning power plants)
            ………… and global temperatures went down for all 30+ years. Went down
            enough for the predecessors of today’s AGW nuts to predict, with equal
            confidence, the coming of a New Ice age, and suggest such remedies as
            increasing particulate emission to help the greenhouse blanket, and even
            covering the poles with soot to attract more sun’s heat. Read that again.
            During the fastest increase in atmospheric CO2, global temperatures went down.
            In fact, global warming and more atmospheric CO2 would be beneficial to the
            world’s population. The 2 or 3 degree temperature rise that the AGW alarmist
            industry keeps babbling about (well, they were babbling about it 18 years ago;
            not so much now) would open up hundreds of thousands of square miles of
            currently frozen tundra to agriculture.
            .
            Speaking of agriculture, the other scare tactic the AGW nuts use; eight years
            after the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
            warned of mass starvation from global warming caused by high levels of
            atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), emissions of the greenhouse gas are at record
            levels. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, which was edited by chairman Dr.
            Rajendra Pachauri [see** note at the bottom] and released in 2007, predicted
            with “virtual certainty” that crop yields would plummet in some areas unless
            industrialized nations immediately adopted stricter limits on CO2, which the
            IPCC said was causing “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
            system. By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be
            reduced by up to 50%,” the report predicted.
            .
            But last year, a record level of atmospheric CO2 coincided with farmers reaping
            record-breaking harvests worldwide. In fact, 2014 signified an all-time record
            grain production. Oops. According to a report also released by the U.N.’s Food
            and Agriculture Organization, “world cereal production [wheat, corn, oats,
            barley, rice, etc.] in 2014 is at a new record of 2,532 million tonnes, 7
            million tonnes above the previous peak.” That includes a record level of wheat
            production worldwide, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The
            study stated that the CO2 “fertilization effect is now a significant land
            surface process” and has created “a greening of the globe over recent decades.”
            That greening effect includes a growth spurt among redwoods and giant sequoias
            in California [don’t tell the AGW featherbrains in Hollywood.]
            .
            Claims that global warming and more atmospheric carbon dioxide are harming crop
            production have been proven preposterous by the real-world, objective data. We
            know that in recent decades, we’ve seen an actual tripling of production of the
            most important staple crops: corn, wheat, and rice. There’s been a record
            production of wheat in the past year in much of Asia and Africa, and throughout
            the world where the wheat harvest is important. Instead of diminishing crop
            yields, high levels of CO2 actually help to increase them.
            .
            As we add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, it can be expected that that’s
            going to benefit crop production because carbon dioxide is not a
            “pollutant,” as the IPCC and AGW loons say, but aerial plant
            fertilizer. Horticulturalists pump CO2 into greenhouses to facilitate plant
            growth. Just as people have demonstrated in greenhouses that plants that are
            artificially fed more CO2 grow more rapidly and are more productive, the same
            happens in the natural environment when we’ve had more atmospheric carbon
            dioxide. The link between high levels of CO2 and record crop yields worldwide
            was never discussed at the UN’s climate change conference in Lima last month
            (surprise!) To the extent that crop production is discussed at any United Nation
            meetings, it continues the claim, despite this evidence, that global warming is
            wreaking havoc on crops.
            .
            Understand that the IPCC is a government body with government appointees. Some of
            them are scientists, but most, including the bureaucrats in control, are not.
            And even those who are scientists tend to work for environmental activist
            groups such as The Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace,
            World Wildlife Fund, etc. (The IPCC has even been exposed as including,
            verbatim, propaganda handouts from one of these environmental groups in its
            reports, with bogus claims of snow disappearing from the Himalayas and
            destruction of rain forests because of global warming – then having to retract
            them when exposed.) They have an agenda to push. It’s very little objective
            science. It’s 99 percent politics from an environmental activist agenda. And
            the Summary for Policy Makers that the IPCC non-scientist bureaucrats issue
            every few years is often in total contradiction to what their own scientists
            have reported. Unfortunately, in that environment, the facts simply don’t come
            out if people aren’t doing their own research. If we’re just listening and
            reading the UN press releases, we’re going to believe that a world exists that
            is exactly opposite from what the real world really is. [**Update: IPCC
            chairman Pachauri has been forced to resign after accusations of sexual
            harassment.]

          • Nick697

            There is not the slightest factual data to prove that rising atmospheric CO2 raises global temperatures. In fact, quite the opposite. The fastest increase in atm. CO2 occurred during the WWII years and reconstruction/durable goods boom after – 1940 to the early 1970s. And global temperatures went down, steadily, for the entire 30+ years. Down to the extent that the predecessors of today’s global warming hoax were warning of a New Ice Age, and suggesting incresing greenhouse gases and even covering the poles with soot to absorb more sun’s heat.
            Algore’s lying An Inconvenient Truth showed a graph with lines of CO2 concentration and global temperatures superimposed, with the conclusion “more CO2 means warmer planet.” Scientists and statiticians immediately showed that Gore had deliberately faked the data, by altering the time base. What the data actually showed was the reverse, that higher temperatures cause more CO2. Of course they do, they speed up dead plant decay, which produce methane and CO2.
            You’re just parroting the AGW hoaxters’ propaganda without looking into the facts.

          • xdream

            They are simply gasses that are opaque to various wavelengths of long wave infrared. Gasses that absorb heat expand and rise. Adiabatic lapse causes the rising gas to cool without the loss of heat. At some point the gas will reach a temperature for which it is transparent to long wave infrared. At that point the gas gives off the heat it absorbed in all directions – some to space.

            Whether it is water vapor or CO2, the gas absorbs heat near the surface, rises and releases the heat at altitude. That is all there is to the greenhouse effect.

            CO2 levels have historically been much higher than they are now with no harm to flora, fauna, and sea life. The Mesozoic Era had stretches of time longer than 100 Million years during which the CO2 level exceeded 2,400 ppmv. Life thrived and the planet was just fine.

          • Bruce Wayne

            You’re a special kind of stupid, ain’t ya

          • CaMaven

            Global temperatures have far more correlation to solar activity than anything else. In fact, those temperatures have cooled since 1998.

          • OmaJohn

            Bringing logic to a liberal argument…. Shame on you, CM. :)

          • Archie Dunbar

            CB you made no arguement and your assertion is superficial.

            Quote CB, “Nothing Al Gore could possibly do would change the effect of CO₂ on planetary temperature.”

            OK, why is that? Because the physical phenomenon affecting global weather are so huge that they dwarf any human action and therefore anthropogenic global warming is unlikely? I don’t think this is where you were going. So Al Gore is just one person so his global warning impact is immeasurable and can therefore be disregarded? Or, Al Gore buys carbon credits and this cancels out his profligate consumption? This is my vote for what you meant. Or, you actually believe in anthropogenic global warming but don’t believe one person makes a difference? So how about two people, two hundred people, when does it start to matter? Or is it that you are enthralled and just believe that some people are so imperial that they reach a state in which there excrement fails to produce odor?

          • Mogumbo Gono

            @CB:

            Where did you find those fabricated charts? They are totally bogus.

            Please stop emitting misinformation. It is too easy to debunk. For example, global ice cover is at an all-time high. So how could ice be declining like that?

            If it were not for their lies, the alarmist crowd wouldn’t have anything to say.

          • Nick697

            This is a perfect example of the phrase “how to lie with statistics.” Your cherry-picked graphs end in 2010. Arctic ice mass ncreased 60% 2012-13, an area equal to half of Europe. Antarctic ice increased similarly. Remember the Ship of Fools, the global warming so-called scientists who set out to prove that the Antarctic ice was shrinking last year, and got stuck in ice so thick that the world’s most powerful ice breakers couldn’t reach them?

            As for that lying bloated hypocrite Algore, if you want to know how his much-touted “An Inconvenient Truth” slide show, that he has made $millions showingf to gullible people round the world, has been totally discredited – destroyed, in fact – see this. After the show was shown to schools in Britain, parents and Members of Parliament complained to the High Court that children wer having nightmares about polar bears drowning and that they themselves would be either drowned in rising seas or burned by out of control temperatures. The High Court issued an order that children must be shown the contrary evidence, and also issued a total refutation of Gore’s assertions in Inconvenient Truth. Download the link, then click on the pdf format box:

            http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

          • Nick697

            You obviously didn’t understand my earlier reply to your claim about Algore. If you’re having difficulty in comprehending, have someone explain it to you.

          • OmaJohn

            It doesn’t take a lot to make a better argument than making a point, and having someone go, “that’s irrelevant.” You don’t clarify why you think those points are unrelated to what you see the core issue as being. You just dismiss everything as categorically irrelevant.

            So, speaking of the ‘better argument’, you might practice what you preach. Offer something of actual substance.

          • Billy Ray

            Because there are many arguments being made here that don’t have anything to do with the problem, or the deniers are resorting to ad hominem attacks rather than attempt intellectual debate. Here’s some reading for you: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/09/why-is-antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-levels-despite-global-warming It could very well be a combination of increases in fresh water due to the melting from the undercurrent, a decrease in the ozone (which acts like a greenhouse gas), and an uptick in weather activity. It makes some sense, but weather activity is very complex and tough to understand so there could be other factors. Much of global warming is counterintuitive to the ill informed, like you have global warming actually being partly responsible for the blizzard in Buffalo this past November (the warming waters of Lake Erie led to increased lake effect snow). It also leads to strange events, like hurricanes washing away the middle of Vermont,a state with no sea or ocean coastline. It also has more devastating but not heard of effects like NYC getting flooded and NJ getting washed away by Sandy, and droughts that have dried up the Mississippi River and the state of California and wildfires that burn up the West (All of which would be almost impossible without Global Warming, Keep in mind too, in regards to the Arctic, I believe it was 2012 where we had shocking records of low ice. Also, events have been shown to be influenced by global warming. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hansen-study-extreme-weather-tied-to-climate-change-14760

            Now, instead of someone actually debating me, I get hit with ad hominem insults or excuses that “global warming is a hoax; it’s a socialist government power grab”. I, as a businessman, actually view it not as a political issue but a business risk (see the costs of the droughts and the billions spent cleaning up Hurricane Sandy, or even the businesses in Vermont shut down for good by Hurricane Irene).

          • Mogumbo Gono

            You want debate? I doubt it..

            Globval ice has recovered nicely, which debunks the ‘disappearing ice’ scare.

            ‘Counterintuitive” = “unscientific”

            Vermont is a small ocation. Note the debate is about global warming

            Global warming stopped many years ago

            Every other example you give is cherry-picked confirmation bias, by showing locations, not global effects

            Quoting the Guardian alone loses the argument. It shows you are commenting based on politics, not based on science.

          • Billy Ray

            Sea ice or land ice? Two different things. The land ice is disappearing. The sea ice is more volatile but is also under threat due to warming waters. Counter-intuitive means that the science behind it seemingly defies what on its surface seems logical, but which isn’t actually so or is much more complicated. Global warming rate hit a bit of a “plateau” but that does not mean it stopped; it is still going up and 2014 is likely to be the hottest year on record. The measurements are based on global results, not geographic. I can pull many other signs of evidence of global warming; there really isn’t much evidence to the contrary, or any evidence at all once you factor out what can be dispelled. Global warming is occurring, which there is no doubt about that it is happening. The only questions are how much if any influence human activity has on it, which the evidence points to greatly, and along with that is how much of a threat it is, which seems to be variable but serious.

            Lastly, that was just one article that I pulled from the Guardian. I could pull the same type of data from many other sources. There are still plenty of conservatives out there that are concerned and that hate false propaganda. I could care less about the political issue; it’s a major business and environmental concern; just today I heard a story about how susceptible and exposed to risk our area is to brown-outs and loss of power due to global warming issues that have already and will continue to happen.

          • Burnerjack

            Easy goes it Al.

          • Billy Ray

            Al Gore is right about climate change.

          • them

            really…..tell us more, moron!

          • LH

            I love comedians!

          • them

            No…you hate logic!

          • policygeek

            Sure. I hate logic. You showed me.

          • them

            well, put your tiny little mittens on because you are about to get cold, little Gore groupie. Logic obviously escapes you!

          • RIMSPOKE

            LOGIC , REASON & SCIENCE ALL SAY GLOBAL WARMING IS A FRAUD .
            AGW IS THE MODERN VERSION OF THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY .

            YOUR FIRST CLUE SHOULD BE WHEN THEY SAY THAT THE
            “SCIENCE IS SETTLED” .
            WHENEVER SCIENCE SETTLES , IT HAS STOPPED BEING SCIENCE .

          • policygeek

            TYPING IN ALL CAPS MAKES YOU LOOK ANGRY & CRAZY.

          • RIMSPOKE

            TELLING PEOPLE HOW TO TYPE MAKES YOU LOOK INTOLERANT
            AND UNACCOMMODATING .

            THE POLICY GEEK HAS SPOKEN , IT’S MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY .

          • thor666

            ABSOLUTELY! THAT’S WHY I ALWAYS SHOUT MY MESSAGES!! IF YOU CAN’T GET PAST THE SHOUTING, YOU ARE INTOLERANT AND UNACCOMMODATING!!! LOTS OF EXCLAMATION POINTS ARE GOOD TOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • RIMSPOKE

            TAKE IT UP WITH THE POLICY GEEK .

          • policygeek

            Caps=yelling. That’s basic internet etiquette. I’m just trying to help you not look so stupid, but do what you like.

          • Richard W Ferris

            you should really read ALL the pieces on CLIMATE DEPOT , not just the ones you like.

          • policygeek

            I’ll waste my time reading real science sites. Not garbage denialist propaganda.

          • Mogumbo Gono

            You can start by reading:

            WattsUpWithThat.com

            It has won the internet’s Best Science & Technology Award for the 3rd year running, and it has well over 200 million unique views in only 7 – 8 years. And it has more than one million reader comments. It posts articles all the time, by climatologists, physicists, engineers and scientists. Best of all, it doesn’t censor different points of view.

            But alas, you probably read low-traffic blogs like realscience, and the climate propaganda blog ‘skeptical’ science [run by a neo-Nazi]. No wonder you emit so much misinformation.

          • policygeek

            You know what else is settled science; that the earth is round and revolves around the sun. Back when those ideas were new, Conservatives tried to crush those ideas too.

          • RIMSPOKE

            WATER IS MADE OF HYDROGEN & OXYGEN AND GRAVITY KEEPS US
            ON THE THE EARTH . WHAT ELSE CAN CAPTAIN OBVIOUS TEACH US TODAY ?

            THE AGW PROPONENTS CANNOT TELL US WHAT THE TEMPERATURE SHOULD BE . IS IT TOO COLD OR TOO HOT ?

            THEY HAVE FAILED TO SHOW IF INCREASED CO2 CAUSES HIGH TEMPS
            OR IF HIGHER TEMPS CAUSE CO2 .

            PLEASE LEARN TO SEPARATE WHAT IS OBVIOUS FROM WHAT IS NOT .
            ( GREAT IGNORANT STAB AT CONSERVATIVES BY THE WAY )

            WHAT IS OBVIOUS TO ME IS THAT THE GLOBAL WARMERS ARE THE FLAT EARTHERS OF OUR DAY . TO MANY PARALLELS TO IGNORE .

          • Arminius

            So your argument is because an error occurred 500 years ago (actually it didn’t occur but your history is as good as your physics) a similar error proves your case today. It’s called conflation and is a standard leftist “intellectual” tool.

          • policygeek

            2014 was the hottest year ever recorded. You are arguing with a thermometer.

          • Richard W Ferris

            You are repeating some one else’s lie….repeating a lie does not make it true

          • policygeek

            Actually it is true. Why do you hate science?

          • CaMaven

            No, we’re arguing with a geek. 1934 has the record.

          • Mogumbo Gono

            STOP IT.

            Last year was the SIXTH warmest year of the new century/millennium. Sixth — out of only 14 years.

            Thus, your lame argument crashes and burns. All you have left is a lie. Stop it. We know better.

          • policygeek

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-to-be-hottest-year-ever-measured/

            Well, your wrong. But even if it had been the 6th warmest, that’s still a big red flag.

          • CaMaven

            Some of the same people who push global warming were pushing global freezing a few decades ago,. Whatever gets the grant money. Google ClimateGate, geek.

          • policygeek

            Climategate was a really stupid right wing meme.

          • Richard W Ferris

            So you did not read the e-mails??? or do you have no concern for integrity???

          • CaMaven

            Not even a fraction as stupid as AGW, the biggest wrongheaded diversion of resources in history, geek.

          • policygeek

            Nah, Iraq war trumps all.

          • CaMaven

            Hey troll: Even more than a simultaneous 2-front war against the Germans and Japanese? Even more than QE? Even more than $18 trillion debt and $120 trillion in unfunded liabilities. propel;led by a runaway govt.? Even more than a lose-lose amateur foreign policy? No.

            I was not in favor of Iraq war, but are you aware that 65% of the Senate voted for action against Iraq, including your Shrillary?

          • policygeek

            You would label everyone who disagrees with you a troll, Im sure. Repubs started Iraq. Obama spent the past 6 years cleaning up after your shit storm.

          • CaMaven

            You really are a fool
            1. I’m not a Republican
            2. 75% of the Senate voted to take action against Iraq, including Hillary, Chuckie, Harry, etc.
            3.and yes, since you’re on Climatedepot, you would be a TROLL.

            It’s really unfair for me to be engaged in a battle of wits with you when you are clearly unarmed. Living in your mother’s basement and being a troll must be depressing. Get some gumption in 2015 and go out and get a job. Wait- you have no skills except AGW trolling? Not a good future, slacker. Learn something productive.

          • CaMaven

            Hardly a “meme” and hardly right wing. It’s a major coup of facts and exposing/discrediting of the lies you so fervently embrace. Happy new year, ciao and may you come to your senses in 2015. You’re off to a poor start :-)

          • Richard W Ferris

            people who use the term “settled science” are ignorant of what science is. A sure sign of an ill informed fool is using the term settled science, as SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED, it is always open to new facts or proofs!!!!!

          • Mogumbo Gono

            Science is never settled. That is simply an alarmist tactic to try and shut down debate.

            Didn’t work, did it?

          • policygeek

            So explain to me how the following scientific facts remain unsettled;
            ● the earth is round.
            ● the earth revolves around the sun

            It’s not a tactic. It’s fact. Debate has already been shut down by science.

          • thor666

            I HEAR THAT IF YOU PUT YOUR BULLSHIT IN CAPITALS, IT BECOMES TRUE.

          • RIMSPOKE

            THEN YOU CLEARLY HAVE A PRETTY LOW STANDARD FOR THE TRUTH .

          • policygeek

            That’s not how science works.

          • RIMSPOKE

            SCIENCE WORKS ON WHAT IS PROVABLE , GRAPHABLE , REPEATABLE & PREDICTABLE .

            AGW IS NONE OF THOSE THINGS . OK , THE HOCKEY STICK WAS A GRAPH BUT IT WAS DEBUNKED .

            TO YOU GUYS WITH THE “SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS” SCIENCE IS A POPULARITY CONTEST .

          • policygeek

            Yup. Climate data is graphable and others have duplicated the results. But you guys are so retarded that you think it’s liberal black magic. This shouldn’t be a partisan thing. It’s readings on thermometers. 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded.

          • RIMSPOKE

            ACCORDING TO THE READINGS ON THERMOMETERS ,
            THE HOTTEST YEAR WAS 1934 .
            THEY HAD LESS POLAR ICE BACK THEN TOO .

            http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/globalwarming1922.asp

            AS FAR AS PREDICTABLE , THE AGW “SCIENCE” PREDICTED FLOODED COASTAL CITIES AND OPEN SEAS OVER THE NORTH POLE BY NOW .
            WITH 18 YEARS OF COOLING , MOST PEOPLE HAVE FIGURED OUT THAT THE SKY ISN’T FALLING & HAVE MOVED ON .

            IT REALLY ISN’T THAT WE THINK OF IT AS LIBERAL BLACK MAGIC .
            IT’s JUST THAT YOU KEEP LOOKING LIKE YOU HAVE NO IDEA
            WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT .

          • CaMaven

            Sorry, but it simply isn’t true, for reasons already laid out on this thread.

          • Mogumbo Gono

            Maybe the geek would like to go argue with Snopes about the hottest year.

            For me, I’m an engineer, immersed in the technical end of the global warming issue. It is crystal clear to me that man-made global warming is complete nonsense. There may, possibly, be a minuscule amount of AGW. But it is too small to even measure [my specialty; Metrology].

            The proof? There are NO MEASUREMENTS quantifying AGW. NONE. Thus, when you hear about man-made global warming, it is nothing but a conjecture — an opinion.

            Basing national Policy on nothing more than an opinion is extremely foolish. Isn’t it?

          • CaMaven

            Where are the deluges you predicted, Geek? Did you know that even if te entire N Pole cap melted, it would make almost no difference in sea levels? Do you know why? Why is it that hardly any AGW fans really understand “the science” and those that do are bought off by Govt. to parrot the line. Why did 30,000+ scientists sign a letter debunking AGW?

          • policygeek

            You really think if all the ice melts, sea levels won’t be affected? You really are stupid.

          • CaMaven

            I’m an engineer, stupid. You act like you have a degree in ethnic studies, basket-weaving or just hanging around. If you can shut up for a second, ‘;ll teach you something. Will you try it?

            Get a large glass, add water and ice. Measure the water level. Make a mark at the water level. Go back when the ice melts. It will be the same level.

            The vast majority of the north pole ice cap is on water . get it now?

            Please explain why we weren’t already inundated by the 200+ yr warming period which melted most of the cap (at one time).

            Do you know what the actual sea rise has been? Didn’t think so.

          • policygeek

            It shows your an engineer: you’re closed minded, lack imagination, and you think you’re way smarter than you actually are. You constantly misread the facts and can’t see what’s directly in front of your face. You may be good at math, but you suck at interpretation.

          • CaMaven

            That’s all you have is imagination and BS- no education, no brains, no worldly knowledge. Please try the experiment idiot … and look at a map- or is that too constraining to you? You DO know how to read a map, right?

            I’m obviously way smarter than you.

          • policygeek

            I’m a corporate director and working on my masters at Harvard. I’m not impressed by your engineering degree. Go build a concrete slab you flunky.

          • CaMaven

            You sure don’t act or think like one, so I’m quite dubious. I owned my own company, a fairly “creative one :-))- sold it before I retired. Currently doing a startup for my amusement. I had MBA’s and MS’s working for me, but I wouldn’t be dumb enough to have hired the likes of you. Worked for the company Snowden did early on.

            Seriously, you don’t show that you even know how to think. Regurgitating discredited pablum does not constitute thinking. Until you can answer some of the challenges put forth to you, your credibility is zero with 90% of the people on this site.

          • policygeek

            Lol, I couldn’t care less about validation from the dingbats on this site. This is just my sparing practice on a long weekend.

          • CaMaven

            You obviously need far more practice, weak sister.

          • policygeek

            I liked your post. I want you to know that. I wouldn’t want you to miss it or mistake that like as being from someone else. It’s me.

          • CaMaven

            LOL- have a good weekend.

          • policygeek

            Lol, I couldn’t care less about validation from the dingbats on this site. This is just sparring practice on a long weekend.

          • Mogumbo Gono

            IF that is the case, then Harvard has fallen far lower than even I suspected.

            Really, based on your comments, you don’t know nothin’…

            …at least about science. And keep in mind that we could have gone to the moon without scientists. But not without engineers.

          • policygeek

            Ill spell it out for you: it isn’t the water ice, it is glaciers in Greenland, the artic, and Antarctica that sit on land. They melt too.

          • CaMaven

            You really ARE stupid- and terribly uninformed.

            1 The vast majority of polar ice cap is on water
            2. Greenland’s not nearly as large as it looks on a Mercator projection. You DO know what that is, right?
            3. Antarctic ice has been growing for a long time.
            4. North Pole ice is growing again.
            5. Lastly, explain why melting hasn’t already inundated the algore’s house in Montecito. All your mendacious models said that would already happen. I’ll ask you again, how much has the sea risen, Mr. Smarty pants?

          • RIMSPOKE

            WHY YES I DO . ANY ONE KNOWS THAT ICE FLOATS BECAUSE IT HAS EXPANDED .

            THE DENSITY GOES DOWN AS THE VOLUME GOES UP AND THE AMOUNT OF THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG

            IS EXACTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THAT EXPANSION .

            THIS IS SIMPLE SCIENCE DESPITE HOW STUPID IT SEEMS TO SOUND TO YOU .

            EASY TO PROVE & WORKS EVERY TIME .

            IN OTHER WORDS , THE LEVEL WILL NOT CHANGE AT ALL WHEN THE ICE MELTS .
            AL GORE HAS PROVEN HE HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT NUMEROUS TIMES &

            NOW SO HAVE YOU .

            ICE OVER LAND IS ANOTHER MATTER . THE VOLUME OF ICE IN ANTARCTICA IS STAGGERING .
            BUT THIS TOO IS STAYING PUT WHILE FLOATING ICE AROUND THE CONTINENT IS INCREASING

            DESPITE THE WARMIST’s PREDICTIONS .

            AT SOME POINT YOU WILL HAVE TO WAKE UP AND REALIZE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN HAD .

          • Mogumbo Gono

            He said: IF THE NORTH POLE ICE MELTED…

            That would, IN FACT, have no impact on sea levels.

            Fifth graders know that, and they know why, because thet’s when they learn about Archimedes.

            Go back to the 5th grade, you have some catching up to do, ‘geek’.

          • policygeek

            The north pole is a coloquialism that would include land masses in the artic circle.

          • RIMSPOKE

            I CAN’T BLAME YOU FOR TRYING TO COMPARE REAL SCIENCE WITH WHAT YOU ARE PEDDLING .
            TROUBLE IS , IT DISAGREES WITH YOU . FOR MANY YEARS NOW THAT IS WHY THEY HAD TO DITCH “GLOBAL WARMING” AND CALL IT CLIMATE CHANGE .

            SEEMS LIKE A SAFE HEDGE SINCE THE CLIMATE ALWAYS CHANGES , IT CAN’T BE DISPROVEN .
            BUT THAT DOES NOT GET THE FEARFUL REACTION NEEDED TO ENACT LEGISLATION AND
            MAKE MONEY SO THEY CHANGED IT AGAIN TO “CLIMATE DISRUPTION” .

            WHAT ABOUT THE PREDICTABILITY ? YOUR 2014 WARMEST YEAR IS BASED ON NOAA DATA FOR OCEAN TEMPERATURES BUT THIS FORUM IS DISCUSSING RECORD ICE FORMATION AT BOTH POLES !

            EITHER THEY HAVE REPROGRAMMED WATER TO FREEZE AT 38°F OR SOMETHING IS SERIOUSLY
            WRONG IN CLIMATE CHANGE LAND .

            HAVE ANY OF THEIR PREDICTIONS PANNED OUT ? THEY PREDICTED MASSIVE FREQUENT STORMS .
            DATA SAYS THAT STORMS HAVE DECREASED WORLDWIDE . HURRICANES , TORNADOES AND CYCLONES ARE ALL DOWN .

            THEY PREDICTED RISING SEA LEVELS AND MASSIVE COASTAL FLOODING . I HAVE BEEN TOP THE BEACH & IT LOOKS THE SAME . DATA CONFIRMS THERE HAS BEEN NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES .
            PERHAPS OBAMA REALLY DID STOP THE RISE OF SEA LEVELS .

            TEMPS ARE DOWN WORLDWIDE FOR AT LEAST 18 YEARS . SO WHAT IF IT WENT UP LAST YEAR .
            DON’T YOU GUYS KEEP SAYING THAT ONE YEAR DOESN’T MATTER BUT N OW SUDDENLY IT DOES ?

            SO YES , I CAN’T BLAME YOU FOR TRYING TO HITCH YOUR WAGON TO ANY REAL SCIENCE THAT’s YOU CAN CLAIM . WHAT I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IS THAT YOU KEEP TRYING TO DRIVE THE SCIENCE
            AND PLAY THESE STUPID SHELL GAMES WHEN YOU FIGURE OUT IT IS GOING THE OTHER WAY .

          • Mogumbo Gono

            geek says:

            Climate data is graphable…

            Allow me:

            http://postimg.org/image/4ew9uoiqj/

          • RJR69

            Typical leftie reply… Don’t bring anything to the conversation, and start being obnoxious from the moment you enter.

          • policygeek

            I’ve brought science to the table and just like always conservatives rejected it.

          • Edith

            Horse hockey. You may have brought your version of science to the table. The interesting thing about Gruber, the economist, is that he revealed that science with an agenda is not really science. Your science of global warming was founded on a FRAUD. But, since so much money and so much academic effort floats around global warming, the FRAUD was ignored. Global warming is a left wing political movement to create an excuse to increase control on individuals. It is not science.

          • policygeek

            There aren’t “versions”. There’s the scientific consensus, and the lies Glen beck tells you to believe.

          • Richard W Ferris

            CONSENSUS IS THE HARBOR FOR FOOLS WHO CAN’T UNDERSTAND THAT SCIENCE AND CONSENSUS ARE OPPOSITES

          • policygeek

            So what you’re saying is there’s no such thing as facts. And when it comes to something observable like climate change, you shouldn’t believe your lying eyes.

          • policygeek

            2014 was the hottest year ever recorded. I guess the librals must have faked that too you paranoid doofus.

          • Richard W Ferris

            THERE IS PLENTY OF FACTUAL INFORMATION ON THE ADJUSTMENTS TO TEMPERATURE ( LAND BASED ) THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON TO MAKE THE LIE YOU KEEP TELLING FOOL PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO WILL NOT CHECK OUT THEIR FACTS FROM INDEPENDENT SOURCES. DO YOU PRETEND THAT SATALITE DATA DOES NOT COUNT???

          • policygeek

            So Why don’t any scientists support your globbed up ideas. OMG it must be a Left wing conspiracy ya’ll!!!! Call Glen Beck!!!

          • CaMaven

            At least 30,000 have signed a letter repudiating the AGW lie.

          • policygeek

            mmmkay. I’m sure you’ll make a world wide impact. Lol, best of luck!

          • policygeek

            Your petition gets a mention in this article. Apparently it includeded the respected minds of “the spice girls” and several star wars characters.

            http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/

          • policygeek

            Including the spice girls and several star wars characters according to this article.

            http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

          • policygeek

            Here’s the working link. http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

            As I said before, my Galaxy S5 is a piece of junk. It messes up copy paste and the auto-correct/auto-type regularly changes correct words to garbage. I am posting this as a general info.

            Galaxy S5=crap

          • CaMaven

            I switched from an old I-phone to Galaxy S-5 a few months ago. Lots of raw power, great screen, apps, but I HATE the texting software. Overall, I-phone had a better user interface.

            Re: The Moyers piece- mostly propaganda and full of untruths. I had Monckton speak at one of our events- very entertaining, but does no real research of his own- collects, analyzes papers. He didn’t originate the 1998 warming halt story. It’s based on the discovery that not all station reports are being used and some station are in areas which have gotten much more urbanized (hotter) and skew the data. Bottom line- false data- no longer representative.

            As far as the Santer stuff- he lost all credibility when he said it IS man-made., He has zero proof, only some correlation (there is FAR better correlation with solar activity.).

            If you really want to learn I;ll lead you, but I suspect you’re a”true believer.”

            You still haven’t told me how much you think the sea has risen. Until you can answer- and correctly at that- you have zero credibility.

            You still haven’t acknowledged that the climate “models,” “projections,” guesses,” whatevah, are all way, way off- wrong, wrong wrong.

            I stopped after I read the first two whoppers in that link.

            One more

            “There have been three studies, using different methodologies, that have shown that almost all working climate scientists — 97 percent — accept the consensus view.”

            One does not get work as a client scientist unless one buries ones ethics and buys in to an unproven theory 100%. Again, over 30,000 scientists have repudiated it.

          • policygeek

            Yeah, this is total bunk and gets mentioned in this article. Apparently it was signed by such dignitaries as “the spice girls” and several Star Wars characters.

            http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

          • Mogumbo Gono

            geek, whenever more than 30,000 people sign something, there are bound to be a few fakes.

            But funny thing, I couldn’t find the Spice Girls, or a single Star Wars character in the list.

            So you are lying again. Aren’t you?

            If not, show us those names… liar.

          • policygeek
          • policygeek

            Had this been open to the general public, I might agree, but since it was supposed to only be scientists who signed it, the fact that there were so many fakes should be troubling to anyone attempting to use it to prove their point.

          • Mogumbo Gono

            Every time you say that 2014 was the hottest year EVAH!! you are lying.

            You tell lots of lies, don’t you?

          • policygeek
          • policygeek

            You guys love to throw around “you lie!” like some kind of retarded congressman at a state of the union address, but FYI, I don’t make claims I can’t back up.

          • Richard W Ferris

            you do not seem to understand that science is always about challenging the consensus any more than you seem to understand that consensus is a political term and there is NO equivalent term in science. People who say “CONSENSUS” or “THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED” ARE USING POLITICAL RHETORIC AND ARE NOT DISCUSSING SCIENCE. THEY ARE DISCUSSING POLITICS. THEY ARE PROPAGANDISTS. Policygeek must learn the difference if he is ever going to play a meaningful role or be able to engage in fact based discussions. On this thread he reads as an ignorant fool who gets his science from his tv set.

          • policygeek

            Better than getting it from Sean Hanity.

          • David Langley

            Losing an argument? Strike off in a different direction! Conservatives don’t walk in lockstep with commanding overlords. That’s a Leftist thing. You can only condemn Hannity when you talk about Hannity, and no one else was. He is merely a commentator with Conservative leanings, and not a particularly good one, at that. The beauty of being a free thinker is being able to assimilate facts and come to our own conclusions about what makes sense and what doesn’t. If you believe all te propaganda your masters feed you, how will you know when one of them is lying? Why are questions raised about your ideology met with aggressive hostility? If your cause was just and tenets true, you should welcome the chance to explain you point. Might doesn’t make right, as your union goons and other professional protesters may believe. Physical domination is not a rational debate strategy, but a dishonest bully tactic. Think about why that is such a large part of your movement’s activities.

          • Arminius

            Meanwhile the Clintons invest in Beachfront DR land, you stupid ill educated peasant.

          • franknshadow

            Logic and reason show the whole anthropogenic climate change scientist pool are a bunch of frauds and liars protecting their grant money.. Adjusted numbers.. Fluid models.. You can get a computer to tell you anything you want it to.. And that is exactly what these corrupt “scientists,” are doing.. You people seem to think that when you use the words,”settled science,” that that means the argument is over.. And you want it over on your terms.. NO!!!

          • policygeek

            And your still fighting on an online thread from over a month ago. Loser.

          • Billy Ray

            All irrelevant

          • justsaynotosocialism

            Yes, you are.

          • CB

            “Yes, you are”

            You forgot the word “correct”.

            How might anything Al Gore does change the effect of CO₂ on planetary temperature?

          • Nick697

            He owns a fleet of SUVs, while lecturing us to use bicycles. He uses 20X more electricity than the average American family, ng us to be conservationists, and flies round the world to give his $100,000 speeches (no questions allowed) in his polluting private jet.

          • CB

            “He owns a fleet of SUVs”

            Uh huh, and if Al Gore did own a fleet of SUVs, how might that change the effect of CO₂ on planetary temperature?

            “Without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a frozen -18 degrees Celsius (0 degrees Fahrenheit).”

            earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2380af6ac2b092cc85baa6b23b54164a96dab505bc80f7850d76cabbb159e4d2.gif

          • CaMaven

            REALLY? Why would their commitment of resources not signal their real views?

          • Nick697

            The same hypocrite who forecast some years ago that by now the sea would have risen to engulf coastal areas, like wher he built his hacienda. The same Algore who uses 20X more electricity than the average American family, and flies round the world to give his $100,000 speeches (no questions allowed) in his polluting private jet. The same loon who forecast in 2007 that ALL arctic ice would be melted by 2014 (instead, it grew by 60% 2012-13.)

          • policygeek

            Haha, crazy conservative.

          • bloodaxe

            Shut up fool.
            Your mind is so far gone you can’t even recognize the truth when it’s right under your nose.
            Go out in the street and be run over. Wait for a trash truck.

          • policygeek

            Typical of you right wingers. Always trying to silence disent.

          • labar

            policygeek, you global warming alarmists are the ones trying to silence dissent. And you’re all left wingers. And I base this on your false belief that 98% of the worlds climate scientists all agree that man is the cause of climate change even though the climate has been changing for billions of years before humans even existed.
            Now that’s plain stupid. But, it’s also hilarious because you actually believe you know more about it than any of us do, when you’ve done no experiments yourself that have proved any of what you claim is true.

          • policygeek

            Scientists have proven global warming is fact but you don’t believe them so why would you believe me? Now when the scientists say they all agree it’s a fact, why do you doubt them.

          • Victor Cachat

            Bwahahahahahahahaha!
            The scientists that make their living by garnering grant money?
            The ones that know the government is all for the lie because it gives them more control?
            The ones that are living large on the billions of dollars spent to try to prove what has not been proven?

            What should the temperature be little troll?
            They don’t know.
            They will only say “cooler”.

            But it is getting cooler, and they say it is due to warming.

            Anyone with a brain sees that they are lying.
            Anyone willing to NOT depend on the neo-communist media has seen that real scientists are jumping off the bandwagon in droves.

          • CaMaven

            There has been “Global Warming throughout history- and cooling too.

            There is zero proof that the current round of GW (in remission since 1998) was man-caused. Zero. There is a stronger correlation to solar activity to warming than anything else.

            In addition, it has been proven that the “climate models” are all discredited. They don’t work.

            Actual warming has not taken place since 1998.

            It is also now clear that data were fudged- cherry-picked temperature recording stations, some in areas which have become more urbanized over the years.

            Google ClimateGate, Luddite,

          • policygeek

            I don’t need to. This ol right wing meme has been debunked.

          • policygeek

            2014 was the hottest year ever recorded. You may now attempt to explain that away.

          • CaMaven

            1. No 1934 was silly.
            2. If 2014 was, how come the ice expanded so much?

          • policygeek

            You’re an engineer- figure it out.

          • CaMaven

            I never ask a fool like you a question I don’t already know the answer to. YOU need to figure it out, slacker.

          • policygeek

            http://theconsensusproject.com how’s this for “under your nose”… you have to be wilfully ignorant to deny climate change.

          • Sleepy

            No, you just need to be a realist. Global warming and climate change is merely a scam meant to enrich its proponents while exploiting liberal idealists. The world warms and cools because of sunspot activity and there is no way for taxes to regulate the sun’s cycles. Emissions amount to nothing. In fact, tropical rain forests are benefiting from CO emissions and are growing at a fantastic pace and are producing oxygen for our planet.

            If these Global Warming evangelists want any credibility, they should start by turning over all their global warming wealth to their countries green initiatives. Like that would ever happen. Al Gore and David Suzuki love their high carbon footprint lifestyles.

          • policygeek

            Do You know how retarded you sound? This is why librals laugh at you. ” damn what the actual scientists say, i know what im talking about!”

            And I guarantee you that people in your real life laugh at you behind your back. We really do think you are stupid.

          • Steve

            Let’s pretend for a moment that counting votes who believe or don’t beleive is actually a valid sceintific pursuit in anything outside of politics.

            Let’s talk about your assertion that the 2% (whereever you got that number from) are paid to do so by the oil and gas industries. Let me introduce you to Dr. Roy Spencer who is climatologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. He also is a skeptic of manmade climate change the way it is pushed on us by alarmists.

            I don’t know if the site will allow me to post a link or not, so just to not take a chance, I have given you his name and his titles. You can see that what I posted about him comes from Wikipedia. On his site, you can also find his credentials.

            So here is one that blows up your nice, neat little world where people who don’t believe in catastrophic manmade global warming are all anti-science people, or else on the payroll of oil and gas companies.

            This is just the beginning. Once you see that your scientific law doesn’t hold, it should be on you and your scientific curiosity to find that there are others, and what the science is behind their thinking. Either that, or you can continue to substitute the word “Scientist” for the way that others use “Priest” and continue to use “science” the way others use “Bible” without knowing what either actually mean. It’s up to you. It might lead you to less laughter behind people’s backs if you know more about skeptical scientists, so you have a trade-off, I suppose.

          • policygeek

            One skeptic does not make a trend. The difference between your religious assertion is that science is observable and not dependent on blind faith.

          • RACookPE1978

            Gee. That was 75 self-selected government-paid “scientists” from 13,500 who were surveyed, wasn’t it? That is the 97% “climate scientists” was 75 out 77 – out of 3,500 who returned the survey, then the rest were filtered out.

          • Steve

            This is what people ALWAYS say when they are unable to account for their own cognitive processes, even. It’s much harder than someone may guess to account for such things. It comes into play when your job security is at stake, or grant money may be at stake, too, and so it is essential to look at what may play into someone’s cognitive processes.

            You attempted this when you said that the scientists that did not believe in global warming were only 2% (something that doesn’t add up any way I am aware of) and that they are paid to do so by the oil and gas industry.

            I showed you the first one that was not. This disproves your assertion. If there is one, there are probably others, right? So do you search and see if there is a measurable trend, or do you now go into defense mode for your pre-conceived idea that there are only 2%, and that those are all paid-for by the oil and gas industry.

            It seems at that point, you lost your curiosity, and reverted to your faith.

            Look, I know it’s convenient to believe that everybody who is “Scientific” agrees with you. The simple fact is, that is incorrect. So if not all do, then it becomes necessary to know a little bit about the measurements, who makes them, whether or not they are adjusting them, how the measurements are taken over time, how they are analyzed, how the projections are made, etc. I’ve spent a little bit of time on this, and my thought at this point is that there is plenty to question. There are a lot of people using such appeals to authority as “Scientists say … ” then they continue on without really knowing what any scientist says, or how any other scientist counter-claims. That’s easy to do. However; the un-adjusted data is inconclusive, and the sattelite data is both very short term, and not showing the same thing that the land-based measurements are showing. So science deals in something measurable … when it is measured properly.

            And of course, there is plenty of question about the models that are built. When you can hindcast, but cannot forecast with a model, that is going back to what your algebra teacher in the 7th or 8th grade got onto you about when you didn’t show your work: Getting the right answer for the wrong reason. The climate models have proven unskillful in forecasting, even when made to be able to hindcast. Likely they are programmed into hindcasting to the point of overfit (something data scientists will understand well, but someone who puts blind faith in scientists may not). Whether it is faulty association, overfitting, or something else, models, quite simply, have not proven skillful thus far in forecasting climate conditions, and they take very few conditions and parameters into account in a system as large as earth’s climate.

            I think there is plenty to question, and there are climate scientists who think the same.

          • policygeek

            You know what makes a trend? 9,135 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors recognize that Global Warming is happening and the burning of fossil fuels is the cause. http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming

          • policygeek
          • policygeek

            At some point in the neAR future, you guys are going to have to recognize that there is nothing “conservative” about climate change denial.

          • Billy Ray

            Roy Spencer is not an independent scientists and works for skeptical organizations, even political ones. http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

          • Steve

            GASP!

            Oh wait! By that definition, we may not have any climate scientists we can believe. After all, there may be some that work for non-skeptical political organizations. If we have to disqualify one, then we might need to disqualify those, too, right?

            My reply was directed to someone that asserted that there were only 2% of scientists that did not “believe” in manmade global warming, and that those were paid for by the oil and gas industry. I found him one that did not fit with his assertion.

            Now to you: Are you familiar with the “Science” that Roy Spencer does? It seems that NASA respects it. What part of it is wrong? Just the part where he doesn’t support global warming with hisurement and processing of data that you can point to that is incorrect? or that doesn’t support the conclusions he asserts?

          • USMC2010

            …says the man-child who previously said that “electric” was the best future power source.

          • Billy Ray

            Sunspots have been disproven as the main cause of global warming. The government also has no interest in lying about the issue.

          • RACookPE1978

            Those anonymous and unknown government-paid “scientists” reviewing government-selected papers running government programs inside government bureaucracies using government computers in government labs with government grants issued by government bureaucrats promoted by government policies have 1.3 trillion dollars a year in new taxes and trillions more in “carbon credits” trading issued by government-favored banks and insurance companies that crave government approval?

          • Billy Ray

            Please talk science and not paranoia. It is not in the government’s interest to lie on this issue.

          • RACookPE1978

            Your democrat politicians have a n intense psychological hate-filled need to destroy the energy and oil companies they hate, the need to control the population and the population’s energy supply of low-cost fuels and food, and most of all – a need for the 1.3 trillion dollars in new tax revenues to fund their programs. Your CAGW beliefs are all based on the politics of the energy situation, and NONE on the science nor the measurements.

          • Ozzone

            Sunspots have an impact on the earth’s climate. Being the main cause has not been proven or unproven.

            Obama’s administration lies about everything. Why should global warming be an exception?

          • tobythetiger

            And you don,t believe this story Sparkey???Call me..I can make u a deal on buying New York..No money down and I will throw in New Jersey if u call tonight..

          • Burnerjack

            Leave New Jersey out of it and you’ve got yerself a deal!

          • Billy Ray

            I agree. Deniers are willfully ignorant. It is an environmental issue, not a political one. Also, much of the problem is from overpopulation. The Earth simply can’t handle 7.2 billion people very well.

          • policygeek

            It could but would require extensive regulating.

          • Slappy

            You are more than welcome to round up as many people as you want and follow the lead of Reverend Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple from back in 1978. I understand some concern about overpopulation but saying ridiculous things like that 5 billion people on the planet basically need to disappear (as you wrote below) is insane. You sound like a despotic leader who actually justifies the killing of millions because it benefits the “greater good,” whatever that specifically is in their mind (e.g., rid the world of another tribe, race, religion, etc.). You’re a psychopath in training.

          • Billy Ray

            Right, because 7.2 billion is so sustainable….

          • Seven

            Did you know that the worlds population could all be put in Texas, give everyone a large yard, a car and have room for all to drive on the highways? The world is a pretty big place and sparsely populated in many areas. The argument should not be what should we do about warming or cooling, but about using the energy resources we have in responsible ways until better and more efficient forms of energy are developed. Developing countries that are denied carbon fuels now and in the near future will be harmed greatly by even more poverty. No matter what the U.S. Does in this matter, China, India, South Africa and others will still burn their dirtiest coal with impunity.

          • Billy Ray

            The world’s population could fit into Texas but it would have the density of NYC, so no extra space, plus you have to figure in still meeting the food, energy, water, and other resources needed. Managing a world population of1 or 2 billion would be easier.

          • Burnerjack

            FACT: “Climate change is constant because the Earth is a dynamic, and has been occurring long before people and will continue to do so long after we’re gone.”

          • policygeek

            Yeah, no it wasnt, not like this. We have ice cores that prove it.

          • Right of left

            Ice cores prove what? It’s been much hotter and much cooler in the past. The funny thing is that your global warming religion can’t even explain the ice ages with any certainty. Not to mention you can barely predict next weeks weather.

          • Billy Ray

            The greenhouse gas effect is proven. The more gas the more heat that gets retained.

          • Eric

            Ice cores are NOT continuous records like tree rings. They record the cold years, but the warm years melt away and are not recorded.

          • policygeek

            Looks like we’ve got an artic expert here! Look out!

          • King_Solomon1

            YOU ARE AN ARROGANT LIBERAL FOOL. NO ONE ON EARTH DENIES CLIMATE CHANGE. IT HAS BEEN CHANGING FOR 4 AND 1/2 BILLION YEARS. LONG BEFORE MAN EXISTED, THE EARTH HAS FROZEN OVER AND THEN THE ICE ALL MELTED AND THEN IT FROZE AGAIN, ETC. THIS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL OUR SUN DIES BILLIONS OF YEARS FROM NOW. THE SAHARA GOES FROM DESERT TO LUSH FOREST EVERY 20,000 YEARS. MAN HAS ZERO TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS. YOU ARE A DISGUSTING ARROGANT ASSS FOR NOT REALIZING THAT YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS ABSOULTELY NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. SO GO VISIT URANUS NOW WITH YOUR LIBERAL FRIENDS AND LEAVE THE ADULTS ALONE.

          • Billy Ray

            Real adults don’t use all caps and can present an argument.

          • King_Solomon1

            I JUST DID AND IT DESTROYS EVERYTHING YOU HAVE SAID. FACE IT—–YOU ARE IGNORANT AND A LIBERAL HYPOCRITE WHO CAN NOT DEAL WITH OR COUNTER REAL “FACTS”.

          • Billy Ray

            You can’t make one argument that I can’t counter with something more compelling. Your credibility is hurt by your use of all caps

          • Russ

            This website is for third graders. Proves nothing. Says very little. Pathetic!

          • Billy Ray

            Then do new reading on the facts and research.

          • Billy Ray

            How about a counter argument instead of name-calling?

          • King_Solomon1

            THE TRUTH HURTS DOESN’T IT LOON??? NO WARMING FOR MORE THAN 2 DECADES. RECORD SEA ICE ALL OVER THE WORLD. YOU BETTER DRESS WARM BECAUSE YOUR LIBERAL CHARADE IS COLLAPSING LIKE A HOUSE OF CARDS.

          • policygeek

            You clearly have no understanding how this stuff works.

          • bloodaxe

            Neither do you. You’re a cut & paste copycat, a stupid little parrot endlessly squawking the latest leftist hogwash.

            Have a peanut.

          • CaMaven

            Nor do you.

          • policygeek

            Yeah, actually I do. leftwithrightbrain already explained it in this thread.

          • Billy Ray

            Cut the ignorance and the all caps. 2014 was hottest year on record, and statistically speaking all the recent weather events and disasters would not have happened without global warming.

          • King_Solomon1

            KEEP DRINKING THE LOONEY TOON KOOL-AID BECAUSE NO ONE WITH A BRAIN BELIEVES YOU ANY MORE. THE WORLD IS NOT WARMING. THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE SCIENCE TO BACK YOU UP. YOU RELY SOLELY ON “SCIENTISTS” WHO WILL GET NO FUNDING UNLESS THEY SAY THAT. NO HONEST SCIENTIST AGREES. DRESS WARM LOON. WE WILL FREEZE BEFORE WE GET HOTTER.

          • Billy Ray

            2014 was the hottest year.

          • Rick

            What disasters? Was Florida swept away and I missed it? Floods, tornados, hurricanes, droughts…all have been occurring for some time. Pretty sure they’ll continue.

          • CaMaven

            Utter nonsense. This is not the Liberal AGW echo chamber, kid.

          • Billy Ray

            Al Gore raised awareness of a major environmental issue. Where did he lie in that video?

          • Globull

            Where did algore lie? For starters… He said man made globull warming was a fact. Next he said the solution was to pay taxes to solve it. Guess who would make massive income if these taxes got past the congress?

          • Billy Ray

            Global warming essentially is fact. Carbon taxes can be effective and the revenues can be used to clean up the mess and invest in better energy technology.

          • John Campbell

            Free market economies and capitalism really seem to be your pet peeve. So much for rights.

          • Rick

            No it’s not a fact, a lot of common beliefs are not facts. Scientist will tell you the planet has experienced periods where the Earth was much warmer than it is now, before, industrialization, and much colder than it is now again before industriazation (I prefer warmer, from what I have read the Ice Age sucked, pardon my vernacular). Imagine an ice sheet that extended as far south as Washington State. Much of the geography in the Northwest was caused by the Missoula Floods, huge ice dams created vast lakes into Canada and during brief periods of warming gigantic floods covered the Northwest. The planet gets warmer and the planet cools and it will continue to do so long after we’re gone.

          • CheshireKitty

            Gimme a break. Isn’t it time to break out of the polluting model of an oil-based economy? You really don’t think human ingenuity can come up with less polluting alternatives? We should just wait around and see what will happen – and meanwhile the entire planet gets poisoned? I think you’re short-changing man’s ability to change, adapt, invent.

          • pugwis

            atomic energy for starters. There simply isn’t anything that produces as much energy as a drop of oil. Some day in the long-distant future, there will be efficient solar systems, but not in this century. The physics won’t allow it.

          • TomInGreeley

            I don’t know for sure but I think our Solar System us pretty efficient.

          • justsaynotosocialism

            The green energy boondoggle is simply the most effective means liberals like obama and gore have to redistribute money and then launder it back through the economy to their chosen entities – themselves and the democrat party.

          • Angie Smith

            She says, posting on a computer made from plastics and heavy metals, using power straight from a coal fired plant, eating food that was delivered by truck, staying warm with that natural gas. It’s so good to be a hypocrite!!!

          • bloodaxe

            Your idiocy is on a remarkable level.

          • TroyGale

            And I think you don’t know crap about what you are talking about.
            Currently, all the gushing idiots who think Solar and Wind power are reasonable alternatives to coal, oil, gas, and nuke power are just that, Idiots. You can’t generate enough power for present day society using any of the so called “Green” technologies. They’ve had almost 100years to improve refine, and make them feasible, but they have failed. Why? They can’t do the job period. You want an energy source that doesn’t pollute, fusion is the only technology being evaluated today which has a hope of doing so.
            So let me get this straight, it is okay to ruin the lives of billions of people because you are afraid of something you don’t even come close to understanding? Right!
            Also, CO2 isn’t a pollutant! You people make it easy for your masters to take your money, destroy your economy, and ruin billions of human lives.

          • TipiTom

            The technology is available and improving constantly. The impediment is lack of political will. In the US, our elected representative are, for the most part, “owned” by the fossil fuel lobbies and do their bidding. The ensuing climate chaos has already shown how it will “take your money, destroy your economy, and ruin billions of human lives.”

          • TroyGale

            This alternative energy technology has been available for 100 years, IT ISN’T CAPABLE OF PROVIDING OUR NEEDS, IT ISN’T EVEN CAPABLE OF PROVIDING 15% OF OUR NEEDS! Do you understand?
            If it were 5 times better, it still wouldn’t be capable or good enough.
            Solar won’t do it, and neither will wind.

          • Stormrdr

            Name one technology that is as easy to generate, transport, and power equipment as fossil fuels. It also has to be able to produce the same efficency of fuel-to-power that fossil fuels generate.

            The whole reason why we rely on these polluting technologies is that there is, still, nothing else that competes with them for efficiency.

            If you’re so convinced that techs can come up with a better mouse-trap, sink your money into a company, develop it yourself, and enjoy all the riches that will beat a path to your door.

          • CaMaven

            95% of oil pollutants have already been eliminated via technology of refining, engines, filters, catalytic converters, etc.. As better methods come on stream, they will be used.

            In any case, they aren’t causing “Global Warming,” which is far more correlated with solar activity than anything else.

          • Don’tspyonme

            Making a few extremely extremely wealthy

          • justsaynotosocialism

            You mean, like Solyndra and most of obama’s other failed ‘enterprises’?

          • TipiTom

            “Despite the program’s failures, the department now projects a profit of between $5 billion and $6 billion over the next 20 to 25 years. Overall, 20 of the program’s 30 enterprises are operating and generating revenues so far, according to the department.”

            http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/Program-that-backed-Solyndra-now-showing-successes-5983233.php

          • CaMaven

            1. Why believe anything the department projects, as it has been so wrong?
            2. The projected profit is based on how much investment? What would alternative investments have generated.

            I love it when Liberal Arts majors talk technological and investing issues.

          • Angie Smith

            no, it’s not. no, they can’t be effective. see how easy it is just to ‘state a fact with no proof’? even i can do it. the only difference is that i see how stupid it really is, but you think you’re a top-notch debater.

          • bloodaxe

            Boolsheet.

          • Bruce Wayne

            You sound like a smart-ass know-it-all 16 year old that , in reality, knows nothing.

          • RJR69

            God, you have guzzled gallons of the Kool-aide haven’t you?

          • Todd Edward Parker

            “Essentially”? Please explain.

          • Jeff Craig

            500 years ago, they said the world was flat. Did they have a flat tax? Just asking.

          • RACookPE1978

            The courts in the UK have established 29 separate and specific lies that Gore made in his video. And another 14 some-odd exaggerations and projections – that will not come true. It has now been steady global average temperatures for 18 years, 3 months. The earth has NOT warmed since 1996, despite a 35% percent increase in CO2 levels. Antarctic sea ice set a record high in June this year at 2.06 million “excess” square kilometers – the same reflective area as the ENTIRE land area of Greenland (2.16 Mkm^2).

          • Billy Ray

            Excess sea ice, not land ice, is not inconsistent with global warming. Al Gore was broadly accurate http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm

          • RACookPE1978

            False: The continental average Antarctic air temperatures have NOT risen (instead, have declined slightly) since 1979, so the twisted “logic” of land ice diluting the 20 million sq kilometers of sea water around Antarctica that “causes” is proved wrong because the change in sea water salinity is too small to matter. Loss of arctic sea ice between August and April each year leads only to increased heat loss from the open ocean – compared to the insulating effect of the sea ice cover.

          • D B Russell

            ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

          • justsaynotosocialism

            And, you are “broadly” sycophantic.

          • Angie Smith

            People that said that the world was flat were considered broadly accurate 500 years ago. Now they’re just considered morons.

          • nickshaw

            Being “broadly accurate” that there would be more sea ice (which is the only kind of ice at the North Pole) jibes with his prediction that there would be no ice at the North Pole by,… what was it now?, 2012 or 2014?… how again?

          • bloodaxe

            Arguing with idiots can be very frustrating.

          • bloodaxe

            You’re a special kinda stoopit, ain’tcha?

          • Bruce Wayne

            Did Al Gore leave his wife for you? Come on, you can tell us.

          • CaMaven

            lol

          • Dave

            The courts in England decided he did lie and so have ruled against his movie being shown in schools.

          • justsaynotosocialism

            Algeria raised awareness in the same way that the Ferguson thug protesters are raising awareness of racial discrimination by burning and looting.

          • bloodaxe

            Everywhere. From beginning to end. There isn’t a grain of truth in it. Not a molecule. Not an atom.

          • http://Www.soulkuhl.com Traveler1055

            Right on !!

          • Jerseyvet

            Al Gore has become completely irrelevant. The last thing I remember about him after he left his wife is that he was standing next to a masseuse and pointing down and saying, “What are you going to do about this?”

          • CaMaven

            Only a small problem for her to solve.

          • RIMSPOKE

            IT IS MUCH WORSE THAN JUST THE MONEY HE HAS TAKEN .

            REAL POLLUTION PROBLEMS ARE IGNORED AS THEY TRY TO FIX SOMETHING THAT ISN’T EVEN A PROBLEM .

            MONEY AND RESOURCES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN USED TO CLEAN
            THE ENVIRONMENT HAVE BEEN SQUANDERED ON REDUCING CO2
            WHICH IS A NATURAL , NECESSARY & VERY SMALL PART OF THE ATMOSPHERE .

            AL GORE IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMINAL WHO HAS HARMED
            THE EARTH WHILE HE HAS BEEN HELPING HIMSELF .

          • policygeek

            Comments like this win you no love. Keep it up.

          • policygeek

            So classy.

          • Billy Ray

            Right, because it’s ok to murder liberals… Also who said the parents or the fetus were liberal?

          • TroyGale

            I believe Hitler had similar thoughts and plans.

          • Larry Schmit

            I could not possibly agree more, and gay marriage is better yet; no spawn, and no murder

          • OmaJohn

            Just like you can’t presume that a baby whose mother does drugs will go up to be a drug user, you can’t pass on the sin of liberalism/socialism to an innocent child.

            It’s not old enough to support a political ideology, so we can’t lay the burden of tyranny at his/her feet.

            Innocent lives deserve protecting. Particularly defenseless innocent lives.

          • Billy Ray

            It’s a zygote, etc. Not a baby yet.

          • facebook is Dero

            tough call, the types who choose abortion based on having a child being inconvenient probably result in one less abused fatherless child.

          • Nick697

            Take, say, a 12-year-old raped by her mother’s boyfriend. Would you force her to endure nine months of being reminded, every day, of the violent act? Would you take care of the new baby? Take a mother – probably a Catholic – becoming pregnant and giving birth year after year because the Church forbids effective contraception, until her body can’t stand the strain any more. And now she’s pregnant again, and her doctors sday it threatens her health. You would compel her to go through the birth again? And probably more until it kills her? How about a woman with an ectopic pregnancy. Don’t know what that is? It occurs in about one in 200 conceptions; the fertilized ovum nidates (attaches) to the fallopian tube wall instead of reaching the uterus. It is, always, inevitably fatal to mother and fetus; it’s just a question of time. A timely operation to remove the fetus is needed, unless the mother is to die in unspeakable agony. Technically, because at the moment it means removing a living fetus, it’s an abortion. You would forbid that, calling it murder?

          • Stewie Driscol

            Good job bringing up exceptions., which may account for .5-1% of pregnancies. Also kudos for calling it a fetus. Does that make you feel better?

          • Nick697

            I guess you missed the point, which is that certain extremists, especially the Roman Catholic church and its hierarchy (who are unlikely to become pregnant) dig their heels in and declare “no abortions, ever, for any reason.” Yet, its concurrent forbidding of its members from using effective birth control itself is responsible for millions of abortions, worldwide. (Don’t even think of citing “natural” family planning, the so-called “safe period” method. A woman using only this during her fertile years will on average have five unplanned pregnancies.)
            .
            And, as in so many things, the Church is the arch-hypocrite when it directly affects itself. My uncle was a member of Medecins sand Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) in Afrca in the late 50s and early 60s. He was in the Congro in 1960 when the Congolese army mutinied, killed its officers and went on a rampage of murder and rape. Many nuns in missions in the country were raped, and many became pregnant as a result. They were, with few exceptions, quietly aborted by the mission doctors. Catholic nuns. Catholic doctors. What they did was merciful and right, but it directly breached a Church law. No doubt they were absolved by the priests.
            .
            It didn’t have to be this way. Did you know that a commission set up by an earlier pope recommended by a large majority that the Chuch make an exception to its anti-contraception law with the “pill.” Of course you didin’t.
            .
            The story begins with the Second Vatican Council in the early l960s and the decision of two popes to re-examine the
            church’s position on birth control. Pope John XXIII had intended to begin that re-examination, but he died before he
            could begin the process. His successor, Pope Paul VI, appointed a Papal Commission on Population and Birth Control. It consisted of 79 members, cardinals, bishops and lay experts representing a variet of disciplines. After two years of study, the commission – with majorities from both the lay and clerical groups – voted 69 to 10 to change the position on birth control using the “pill,” because it did not involve any kind of physical barrier, and, more important, because it was the right thing
            to do.
            .
            Oops; not what the pope had expected or wanted to hear. Luckily for him, a dissenting minority report was later submitted, co-authored by a Polish archbishop, Karol Wojtyla, who later became Pope John Paul II. A Roman Catholic historian and theologian, August Bernhard Hasler, tells the story in his 1979 book, How the Pope Became Infallible. He provided the following quotation from that minority report, which was the one accepted: “If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself, then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on the side of the Protestant churches in
            1930 (when the encyclical Casti Connubi was promulgated) and in 1951 (Pius XII’s address delivered before the Society of Hematologists). “It should likewise have to be admitted that for half a century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII, and a large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error. This would mean that the leaders of the Church had condemned
            thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding, under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same acts would now he declared licit on the grounds of
            principles cited by the Protestants, which popes and bishops have either condemned or at least not approved” (page 170).
            .
            Dr. Hasler concluded: “Thus it became only too clear that the core of the problem was not the pill, but the authority, continuity, and infallibility of the Church’s magisterium.” In conformity with this minority report, Pope Paul VI issued his 1968 encyclical, Humnae Vitae, in which he condemned every form of contraceptive birth control. Hasler wrote: “After the
            promulgation of the encyclical. . . the Church conducted a massive purge of its key personnel wherever it could” (page 283). In other words, the problems associated with countries that are overpopulated and the political campaign in the United States to deny reproductive freedom to women are all due to the papal decision to protect the authority and “infallibility” of the papacy.
            .
            Hans Kung, arguably the world’s leading Catholic theologian, wrote: “This teaching [against contraceptive birth control] has laid a heav burden on the conscience of innumerable people … for the people in many under-developed countries, especially in Latin America, it constitutes a source of incalculable harm, a crime in which the Church has implicated itself” (cited in Stephen Mumford, The Life and Death of NSSM 200, page 203).
            .
            Unfortunately the Vatican was not content with applying its dogma against contraceptive birth control to members of the Roman Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II in his Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation declared that Catholic teaching must become law. The Instruction states: “Politicians must commit themselves,
            through this intervention upon public opinion, to securing the widest possible consensus on such essential points.” They are expected to enact into law “appropriate legal sanctions” for violations of the law. The Vatican wants to outlaw contraceptive birth control because of its stance that there should be no interference with conception [and an uninterrupted supply of new Catholics.].
            .
            These strictures, if enacted into law, would put the majority of the population, which is non-Catholic, along with non-conforming Catholics, into the position of being law breakers. Non-Catholics even today are affected if they use Catholic hospitals and compliant physicians. since these are forbidden to provide information about contraceptives or to prescribe
            or apply them – even emergency contraception for a raped woman.

            .
            The problem with papal infallibility, aside from its requirement that Catholics are expected to accept it without question, is that
            no human being is free from error. We are all creatures of our culture, our education, our vested interests and our prejudices. The pope tries to avoid this criticism by insisting that he is the vicar or spokesman for God or Christ; yet he was an ordinary
            man, elected by vote to his exalted position by other ordinary men, and “proves” his authority to speak for the Almighty by the circular argument that it is so because he says it is. Yet the very fact that he asserts infallible authority over millions of people who must obey him is a radical departure from the teachings of Jesus, who told his disciples: “You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant.” (Mark 10:42-43) Also: “In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine rules made by men.”
            .
            One could with justification say that in rejecting the conclusion of the overwhelming majority of his own commission, Paul VI, and successive popes, are directly responsible for millions of abortions worldwide, and also child deaths from malnutrition in underdeveloped countries unable to feed their populations, and early deaths from exhaustion by women unable to stem multiple closely-spaced births. One can add to this list a proportion of the millions of deaths from AIDS, especially in Africa, and the millions of consequent orphans, because the Church also bans the use of the only reliable means to prevent the spread of the disease, the condom.

          • greyfox

            Democrats are “tolerant” of everything, so they say, except an unborn fetus. This they cannot tolerate, kill it, abort it. There may be medical reasons for an abortion but birth control isn’t one of them. For criminals it’s “you do the crime, you do the time” in other words, we, society will make you responsible for your actions. Not so with pregnancy, you are not responsible for your actions so we will provide you with an abortion. Responsibility by selection, the democratic way.

          • policygeek

            You’re funny.

          • greyfox

            I should be I went to funny school.

          • dougmann

            Have you ever considered, like a very conservative Christian recently told me, that abortion as bad as it is, is like ‘weed killer’ for future Democrats and future welfare recipients.

            The African American community is destroying their future voting base

          • libtarded

            That might be a good argument– but (Liberal) Democrats aren’t necessarily created in the womb. They’re created in public schools.

          • Billy Ray

            Ignorant and off topic

          • tibet

            Oh, so THAT explains the recent major importation of future Democrats.

          • Billy Ray

            Ignorant and off topic.

          • Billy Ray

            Off topic and ignorant.

          • Billy Ray

            Off topic.

          • labar

            Greyfox, Democrats aren’t very tolerant of black conservatives. Neither are they tolerant of Christians in general. They only tolerate people who agree with them and their junk science.
            Their science is junk because it’s ripe with fraud. That’s why I don’t believe anything they say any more.
            The scientists have always claimed throughout my lifetime that milk was good for the body.
            But, I saw a report recently that said milk does more harm to the body than it does good.
            And In the 80’s, eggs were demonized by the scientific community because of cholesterol. Cholesterol was causing heart attacks and clogging of the arteries. But, in the past few years we are now being told that eggs aren’t as bad for us as was thought.
            So, the science was not settled on eggs and milk either, I guess. Even though you could read ads and hear commercials on the tv and radio telling us to lower our cholesterol intake and drink plenty of milk.
            How did that settled science end up being debated on decades later. Because of new research and more advanced equipment and methods? Probably. So, in science, the debate is never over. I’m talking to you Al Gore.

          • greyfox

            We’re on the same page, but I would make one slight change and suggest that perhaps most democrats fit the template you described. As far as the scientific community is concerned they are always ,on most things, coming up with new findings. Some things are absolute but many things are still up for debate. As far as food is concerned, eggs, milk etc, moderation is the key word. My only thought on Al Gore is: Al Gore is a putz, a liar and an egotistical jerk. He cares only about Al Gore. Remember this, when experts disagree, everyone becomes an expert. Have a great New Year.

          • CheshireKitty

            I wonder why China climbed to the #1 spot on Earth – at least as measured by wealth and size of their economy – with a State-enforced strict 1-child limit. Doesn’t seem to make sense, does it?

          • Nome Sane

            Cheap labor and huge exports = booming economy. There, that was easy.

          • Perplexed

            Don’t forget: No EPA or OSHA or Labor laws.

          • policygeek

            What’s funny is you’re advocating for the US to be more like China in what is quite literally one of their worse aspects. (Their piss poor working conditions for average workers)

          • Perplexed

            I’m not advocating anything, just stating facts. You’re reading something that simply isn’t there. That’s how the telephone game in a group of people works.

          • policygeek

            So you agree we are better off thanks to the EPA and labor laws then?

          • Billy Ray

            Hence they have marathoners running marathons with masks on.

          • CheshireKitty

            Low wages yes – but nobody has families of 14 or 15 to support either. Meanwhile, the wages are inching up, they’re bound to.

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            1) Slave labor
            2) That 1 child limit is NOT as strictly enforced as one might think.
            3) With more than a billion people over a huge patch of prime real estate, it’s a sign of the failure of Communism that it’s economy has been such a basket case for so long. Its only the fact that The Party has begun allowing something like a modern industrial economy exist at all that they are beginning to advance.
            4) Compare the mainland with Hong Kong to truly appreciate the difference between a government regulated slave-labor economy and Western-style free markets.

          • CheshireKitty

            That can’t make sense. Wasn’t the US #1 until just recently without slave labor?

            In general, the 1 child limit is enforced.

            Communism didn’t result in prosperity, it resulted in universal poverty/want, but the system did keep their country together and the communists did eject imperial Japan (as well as the other Western imperial powers that had footholds in China) despite their “poverty.” You have to admire the rag-tag communists prevailing over industrial, genocidal, cruel imperial Japan.

            And, at one point in the war, the US backed Mao.

            So Mao is still venerated in China, just like George Washington is venerated here.

            Industrialization and investments are allowed in the special economic zones.. whole new cities have sprung up as well. As Deng said: What difference does it make if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice. The Chinese approach is pragmatic, flexible, rather than doctrinaire. I suppose you could say that they have abandoned their “paranoia” about the West encroaching on their country again – as long as they can continue to play off Russia vs. the US, what do they care? They are happy to rake in money to build up their country.

            HK? An ex-UK colony? How is HK supposed to be “representative” of capitalism? Or maybe you feel colonialism is the way to go.. exploitation of a “native” population by a colonial power, such as the UK. Isn’t that system anathema to us, though, as ex-UK colonies ourselves?

          • bloodaxe

            There are 1 billion, 350 million Chinese. Over 1 billion of them live in abject poverty, squalor and servitude under the Communist yoke. Maybe 1% of them have a standard of living equal to our middle class. I used to catch plenty of them sneaking across the border. Ever notice how no one wants to sneak into Red China? Does that suggest anything to you?
            Most of what they make is cheap junk.

          • DaveT

            Why do you think your kids will not be liberals?

          • SteamingPileofObama

            Read a study years ago the said most abortions end up aborting future liberals. So no great loss to humanity there.

          • Liddel

            There will be no more gays if they keep aborting.

            Wait.. how does that work.

            lol

          • Billy Ray

            7.2 billion people is at least 5 billion too many

          • Jerseyvet

            I have this distinct feeling that in this generation and the generation to follow we’ll see one race or one tribe or one country abort itself out of existence. For example, the USA, which may be rescued by Catholic Hispanics.

          • hargen

            Interesting final solution. I think someone had the same idea before only they added Jews to the list. Thanks for posting Adolf.

          • bloodaxe

            GFY asswipe.

          • hargen

            I guess you don’t understand sarcasm or you agree with Hitler.

          • bloodaxe

            You guessed wrong on both counts.

          • Seth Dominick

            What about normal left-wing people? (not the lunatic kind).

          • CheshireKitty

            Look at the victory last year of Mayor de Blasio in NYC. He won by a land-slide. By that measure, we would have to say that the overwhelming majority of the largest city in the US are on the left, or at least progressive politically. Does that mean that the majority of the people in the most influential city in the US are wackos?

          • nickshaw

            LOL! A landslide among the 24% of eligible voters of NYC is not really something to crow about.

          • Billy Ray

            Just like the 2014 elections.

          • CheshireKitty

            Well ditto on that: You could have hardly expected the electorate to vote for someone like Romney – out of touch with the masses. Remember: Republicans may have money, but they don’t have the electoral edge, the votes. Republicans can buy politicians but they cannot buy every American voter.

          • CheshireKitty

            That sounds like sour grapes to me. Accept it: Your ideas are rejected by the majority of the people of the most influential city in the US.

          • nickshaw

            And that sounds like delusional to me.
            If you think 70% of 24% of eligible voters equals “the majority” you have bigger problems than clinging to the sinking ship of human induced Gorebull warming.
            And the idea that burning fossil fuels had anything to do with Hurricane Sandy (that wasn’t even a hurricane when it came ashore) or reducing the use of fossil fuels would have prevented the storm strays into the land of people who are locked up before they hurt themselves.
            The US has not had a hurricane make landfall in 9 years. Do you realize how much money has been actually saved in that time?
            Accept it, .7 of a degree Celsius of warming (if we accept that a measurement that small, worldwide over 120 years is even significant) and 50ppm of additional CO2 in the atmosphere (even if it was all attributable to the activities of man, which NO expert does) has resulted in 8 to 10% more vegetation cover of the planet according to NASA, fewer hurricanes, fewer wildfires and fewer tornadoes.
            I forget, what was the problem again?

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            Correct, and yes.

          • CheshireKitty

            My oh my – the airy conclusions we draw. Because we want regs on businesses so they are less polluting, then the population of the entire E. seaboard is considered “wacko.” Luckily for the survival of the US, we have learned the lessons of Sandy, although you would have us remain ignorant of the truth. Regs on business are the logical answer to climate change.

          • Guest

            They’ve renamed themselves as Conservative. Classical liberal were what we consider the Tea Party now. People think the Tea Party is evangelical. They’re not. They are looking for small government, personal freedom, fewer taxes. The GOP hijacked the movement, as did the socialists. It’s why those of us who understand the mess have such a quandary in 2016. Bush and Clinton are the same candidate. In this, I will give Obama credit. He has officially created a one-party system.

          • CheshireKitty

            A world without political parties… well, you could try living in China or Cuba, which effectively have outlawed all parties except for the communist party. A one-party state is more or less like living with no political parties. Or are you advocating anarchy perhaps?

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            Sorry, he didn’t say that.

          • bloodaxe

            They disabled the down arrow to spare airheads como tu unbearable embarrassment. Too bad. You’d be rackin’ ’em up by the score.

          • CheshireKitty

            So you have run out of arguments and resorted to name-calling. Tsk tsk tsk.

            Meanwhile – expect arguments from all sides, when it comes to dirty oil. The US is not a one-party State. Just sayin.’

          • bloodaxe

            I have only one argument and it is this: The so-called “Theory of Global Warming” or, in its latest incarnation, “Climate Change” is the biggest fraud, the biggest crock of shiit to come down the pike in the entire history of man. That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.

            You can cut & paste all the latest leftwing talking points you want. It is all bullshiit. That means bovine excrement. It means it is a pack of lies and has no value whatsoever.

            Don’t be a fool. It’s unbecoming.

          • tibet

            Don’t forget Gaia cultists. Any human activity is raping their Mother.

          • policygeek

            See, from our perspective it looks like your love of exploitative capitalism and materialism is threatening both the economic wellbeing of our nation’s middle class and communities across the country. The investor class has bounced back from the great resession of 07-08, but the middle and working classes havent seen any of the growth; only stagnant wages. It’s the perfect illustration of the failure of trickle down economics.

          • bloodaxe

            You come across as a communist fool, a complete, total and utter ass of stupidity and a wannabe mass murderer. GFY you a-hole.

          • policygeek

            Will do, “bloodaxe”. Aka D-bag.

          • bloodaxe

            Get to it, jerk. Make it hurt.

          • policygeek

            Why DO you guys have all these wierd rape-y fantasies?

          • bloodaxe

            I can only speak for myself- I have no such fantasies. I merely consider it my civic duty to insult lowlife leftist scum in the vilest possible terms. They deserve it. Someone has to do it. So piss off, you hateful little creep.

          • policygeek

            Lol, try a little harder.

          • Billy Ray

            Those with graduate degrees are more likely to be liberal

          • Billy Ray

            Make an argument. Not a personal attack

          • bloodaxe

            No. I refuse. I like making personal insults against various obnoxious jerks whom I deem deserving of mockery, scorn and contempt. You’re one of them and you can take your stupid climate change charts and shove ’em where the sun don’t shine.

            It’s colder than a witch’s tit outside and this is Sandy Eggo!

            If you don’t like my comments don’t read ’em.

          • Billy Ray

            That’s only because you can’t make an argument.

          • libtarded

            The “investment class” bounced back from the housing bubble because the Fed was/is printing $85B per month and shoving it into the stock market.

            Now who’s idea was that?

          • policygeek

            Seems to have worked. Are we arguing over who should get credit?

          • libtarded

            Yes… and the Community Reinvestment folks were real happy with the numbers of home loans created by lowering standards. Until it tiped over because the people who took the loans were unable to pay for them.

            The danger of printing money is that money represents labor (what you do to produce something). Printing it out of thin air ultimately devalues the rest of the money in circulation (it is inflationary because it doesn’t represent anyting of value). Ultimately, widening the income gap and making life harder on the middle to lower end.

          • policygeek

            So where’s the runaway inflation your conservative overlords have been screaming about? Nowhere.

          • libtarded

            Lets see what the BLS and USDA have to say….

            Consumer price index (CPI) An inflationary indicator that measures the change in the cost of a fixed basket of products and services, including housing, electricity, food, and transportation. The CPI is published monthly. also called cost-of-living index.

            CPI Jan 2009: 211.143.
            CPI Nov 2014: 236.151 (increased 11.84% since the recovery)

            Median Income 2009: 26,558 dollars
            Median Income 2013: 28,829 (increased only 8.55% since the recovery)

            Food stamp enrollment 2009: 33,490,000 persons
            Food stamp enrollment 2014: 46,536,000 (increase 38.95% since the recovery)

          • Billy Ray

            Ahhhhem…KKK? A conservative group? Also ISIS is conservative

          • CheshireKitty

            Go take a swim in Brooklyn’s Gowanus Canal if you feel the Earth, its air, and waterways are so “…unspeakably powerful…” The Earth isn’t self-cleaning or self-correcting. Do you have any idea how many tons of chemicals have to be dumped into your drinking water to disinfect it and make it potable? That isn’t because it’s “pure” to begin with.

          • bloodaxe

            No, Miss Kitty. Tell us all about the various chemicals and the tonnages of each dumped into our drinking water. We breathlessly await your detailed report.

          • Sanity&Reason

            Certainly there is pollution- I would never deny that and it needs to be stopped and cleaned up. But, how about the millions of dead fish that wash up on the shores because of algae?? It’s completely natural. How about the huge number of deadly plumes of thousand year old NATURAL Methane and Hydrogen sulfide that bubble up from the bottom of the ocean? There are approximately 30 volcanoes going off on the earth every given day. How about the sulfur dioxide and other deadly gasses coming out of them? Pyroclastic flows? Any idea of what this does to our oxygen and water? Look up “The year without a summer”. OF COURSE we need to do a better job in many places but we already have in many more places. Please also read my reply to Billy Ray, above. 2015 is going to be the year of debunking all of this hysteria about people destroying the earth. Unfortunately, it won’t stop our politicians from using the hysteria to steal more of your tax money in the guise of “healing the planet”. GAWD, what a racket.

          • Billy Ray

            Oh? And we don’t pollute, litter, or destroy?

          • Sanity&Reason

            Yes, of course we do. I never would deny that there is bad behavior. However, this idea that people are bad for the planet is just embarrassingly ignorant. I could write 30 pages on this but instead, I will put it into perspective for you, in a brief way. The land mass of earth is about 29%. The rest is water. Some parts of that water are 25 THOUSAND feet deep. Human beings take up about 7% of the land mass of earth. Earth is ENORMOUS, mostly unpopulated and incredibly powerful- FAR more powerful than we are. The ocean contains an enzyme that eats petroleum. The Gulf, that was supposed to have been spoiled forever is now TEEMING with fish. Global warming is a freaking joke and now it’s being proven that greenhouse gas is GOOD. In the 1960’s & 70’s, we used to have 3rd stage smog alerts in Los Angeles. The air here is now SOOOO much cleaner. So, maybe stay off the liberal sites and get some real science so you can feel OK about being human and having built that pipeline in Alaska that provides so much warmth that the Caribou population is exploding.

          • Nick697

            Its, not it’s. It’s means “it is.” The next poster, Guest, uses it correctly.

          • Sanity&Reason

            You’re right. Thanks for taking the time to point out my error. :-)

          • truthoutnow

            Much ado, not “to do” – apparently you are neither a scholar of Olde English or Shakespeare.

            “Mother” nature, it has been said, is nothing more (or less) than the laws of chemistry, biology, and physics creating new equilibriums when previous equilibriums have been disturbed. The earth is incapable of “intend”ing to do anything. The last laugh will be on our species, not from it.

          • mbrj

            correction: “much ado about nothing”…G-D promised never to destroy the earth again after the Great Flood. I believe Him!!!

          • dwf73

            In other words, you believe in God.

            The notion that humans can control nature in any way is nothing short of extreme arrogance. I agree with you, btw. And with that I add that climate science is no different than religion and can only be proven or disproven with the death of humans. I’m not advocating such. I just find the irony humorous given how many environmentalists would strip religious freedom first if given the chance.

          • CheshireKitty

            It isn’t just global warming and the effects of global warming such as Sandy. It’s also what development run rampant has done to the environment. The biggest culprits in that regard were the ecocide of the old Soviet Union and E. Europe under communism, and now the rape of the Earth’s environment by the hybrid capitalist-communist economic system of China.

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            Well, I’m sure there’s a solution to be found somewhere in the middle if the climate were to start changing catastrophically.

          • WorkerBee

            Its all about tax dollars…

          • tdrag

            GOD is in charge of the climate and everything else on Earth even if Liberals don’t want to admit it.

          • Billy Ray

            Much worse. We will be alive, but hindered for a long time. It’s already happening

          • David169

            Well said!

          • SHERA

            Exactly.
            Jesus taught us to give with a glad heart.
            How glad is your heart when you are giving away >39% taken by force by the jackboots known as the IRS and WASTED on things like studying the sexual habits of snails?

          • Hopsaregood

            Or used to support liberal progressive dogma via NPR.

          • Hopsaregood

            Yes, a bit like Obamas ‘wealth redistribution.” Take from the worker and give to the drone.

          • happylada

            Its called extortion 😉

          • willsk8sjax

            Yep, like a forced apology…it means nothing.

          • John Galt

            Excellent point. The Catholic Church in particular has masked Marxism as charity.

          • CheshireKitty

            C’mon – what do you think our own system of taxation, as well as tax systems around the world represent: Legalized transfer of great wealth from those that have to those that don’t, enforced by the force of arms (the State). If you don’t like paying taxes to support the social safety net, you should go off the grid, and go live in an uncharted part of the Earth. There is no way to evade taxation otherwise.

          • mdinaz

            “Forced charity” is also called extortion. Or robbery.

          • Billy Ray

            Jesus wants us to take care of the Earth and not bury our heads in ignorance!

          • http://www.dunningmarketing.com Todd Dunning

            Billy Ray, who is opposed to taking care of the earth, and who put you in charge of defining it?

          • Billy Ray

            The deniers are opposed.

          • Stormrdr

            Yes, He does, which is why, as good stewards of our environment, we should examine the claims on their merits and evidence, not blindly accept the proclamations of those who are invested in the Green Energy companies.

            Windmills and solar panels have a marginal impact on our power production, by some estimates less than 10%. However, they are having a major detrimental impact to bird populations, including endangered species like the Bald Eagle. The blades literally knock the birds out of the skies, and solar reflectors can burn them to death as they fly over.

            Ethanol, it turns out, actually has a greater Carbon footprint to manufacture than Gasoline manufacture AND use has. It’s also causing food price increases across the board, since farmers are using farm land to grow fuel crop instead of food crop. Ethanol is also less efficient, so when mixed with gas it actually causes more gallons to be consumed per load than pure gas does.

            Battery manufacturing on the scale necessary for Electric cars causes massive amounts of chemical pollutants, which can contaminate ground waters and other water sources.

            All other so-called “Green Energy” technologies are still in the test-tube phase, and not nearly ready for ‘prime time’.

            In addition, the very reason that these technologies are being developed is being increasingly thrown into debate.

            All of the predictions that the Global Warming models have generated over the past 30 years have missed the mark by miles. We are actually setting record cold temperatures in many areas, and the Global Warming scientists have recently been reduced to throwing theories against the wall to see what sticks. The actual evidence doesn’t support any of their theoretical models.

          • Garet43

            Oh good. So you’re saying that religious morality is no longer morality when it is enforced by the state, correct? In that case, you should agree that abortion and gay marriage are individual choices and individuals who want to engage in those activities should not be subject to laws restricting them.

          • Stormrdr

            Um…huh? Charity is a voluntary endeavor, by its very definition. When something is forcibly taken from you (i.e. taxes), it is, by definition, not Charity, since you don’t have the choice in the matter. Whether or not that confiscated income is for a just and moral purpose, such as feeding the poor or caring for the sick, or if it is instead being used to fund the drowning of kittens, that is irrelevant to the fact that, since it is law, you don’t have the choice in supporting it. Therefore, it is, by definition, not Charity.
            As I’ve said before in other places, if the Government were to structure their social programs such that they were entirely funded by voluntary donations, as opposed to required taxation, I would have zero issue with it. That, actually, would be in line with Christian teachings.
            And, by the way, your own sarcastic (and completely irrelevant to this discussion) logic on morality doesn’t hold weight. Murder and rape are individual choices, too. I’m assuming you’re not advocating for neutralizing laws pertaining to those, simply because some people might believe these are acceptable behaviors.

          • HarryObrian

            Global warming is a tax to make politicians rich not make the poor less poor. AND how did a story of global warming influence degrade into a conversation about religion so fast??

          • Michael

            “how did a story of global warming influence degrade into a conversation about religion so fast??”

            Uhh, you’ll need to check with the Pope on that one.

          • jimtrees

            Can’t wait to see what the Pope thinks about abortion.

          • Smiddywesson

            He’s being inundated for waivers of the celebacy requirement. He’s pro gay agenda. He’s pro big government NWO types. He’s pro global warming. He’s probably pro Monsanto for Christ’s sake. Err, let me rephrase that.

          • LuppersMom

            Antipope. Just like the 14th century.

          • jj

            Seriously Harry, where have you been for the past week?

          • EyesOpen

            Because both Catholocism and global warming are religious sects. The difference is that at least there is proof that Jesus existed, unlike global warming data.

          • S Johnson

            Where is this proof you speak of? And if you have any proof that he actually did miracles I would like that too. No, text in a rewritten book aimed at controlling the masses does not equal proof. You are beginning to sound like the AGW believers.

            Seriously though, I have been searching for the proof my whole life.

          • bigpinch

            I thought “S Johnson” was Bill Clinton’s nick-name.

          • Ben Dover

            Yep. Look at Al Gore. How rich has he become profiting from Global Warming, his tours, books, etc…?

          • Defiant

            But that’s not from him somehow getting the taxes collected in the name of Global Warming. HIS money comes from idiots paying him to hear his tripe.

          • http://batman-news.com Godot

            “There’s a “devotee” born every minute”

          • Truthasaurus Rex

            Big fat Al’s partner at Generation Investment Management is David Blood…Blood and Gore…http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/

          • http://batman-news.com Godot

            That JET of his spews a TON of horrible carbon…Al, Al, how COULD you?

          • Don Rubottom

            He is a Jesuit.

          • formerusaf

            He left the Jesuit order to take on a parish. However, upon becoming a cardinal he became the authority for the Jesuits in Argentina, but within two years as a cardinal, the head of that Jesuit region petitioned the pope, I believe Benedict XVI, to remove him as their authority. It was granted and that responsibility was striped from him. Simply put, he is practicing Liberation Theologian that was forged by the last five decades in Argentina.

          • Herbert Parker

            The Pope said so!

          • Defiant

            LOL! “The rich” don’t get Global Warming tax! It’s just spent by government.

          • gfm2012

            LOL! You’ve got to be kidding… Where does the money get “spent?” Why do you think Warren Buffett strongly opposes the Keystone pipeline? Because his fleet of tankers carry the oil now! Obama’s biggest bestest friend has made a fortune being a crony of the Kenyan Interloper. Multiply this by 1000 and maybe we approach the magnitude of corruption in the Obama administration.

          • Stormrdr

            Actually, it’s because of the fall of the oil prices. Buffett is losing a fortune on his oil futures. The Keystone Pipeline would make oil prices crater even more than the Dakotas operations already are.
            With the Keystone built, it would be obvious how much we’re paying in taxes, and that’s the last think liberals want the public aware of. Oil gets down to $10/barrel, yet gas is still averaging $2/Gal, someone’s gonna have some ‘splainin to do….

          • EyesOpen

            Right, just like all those temporary taxes that are only there long enough to get us past whatever trumped up catastrophe is in the headlines.

          • Smiddywesson

            “AND how did a story of global warming influence degrade into a conversation about religion so fast??”
            Because the Pope just openly declared war on us, and vowed to use everything he’s got to cram Global Warming Theory down our throats. That’s current events, not “degrading” the conversation.

          • GodSaveUs

            I agree, Smiddy, and I’m a Roman Catholic.

          • Eric

            AND how did a story of global warming influence degrade into a conversation about religion so fast??

            The Pope threw his hat into the ring earlier this week.

          • Michael

            Not only against the teachings of Jesus, but the Ten Commandments as well.
            Commandments nine and ten:

            16 “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
            17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” Exodus 20:16-17 (KJV)

            So don’t lie and don’t covet anything that isn’t yours. That pretty much eliminates the Liberal agenda.

          • mardec

            No wonder they hate God, the Bible and especially Christians.

          • paganpink

            Yes. It is based on envy- not fairness.

          • S Johnson

            Covet: yearn to possess or have (something).

          • Recovering Liberal

            Short version: Your NEED is not a claim upon MY productivity.

          • Recovering Liberal

            What about my neighbor’s wife’s ass? Can I covet that?

          • The Pope is a Socialist

            Someone needs to tell the Pope that. I’m sure he wouldn’t want millions to blindly follow something and subjugate themselves to someone else’s authority. I mean, he’s the Pope. Wait, what?

          • no

            Bingo!

          • fcabanski

            There you go. Well written.

          • Kenneth Wiley

            So a rich man has the same chance as the poor man to get into heaven

          • bigpinch

            Yes. Rich and poor have the exact same requirement for getting into heaven. Jesus said it was harder for a rich man to get into heaven than it was for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle. The reason it is more difficult is that wealth can give rise to the illusion of power; possession of personal power by which one can set terms. It is easier (usually) for a poor person to recognize that he brings nothing to the relationship with God and to accept the free gift of eternal life. But poverty doesn’t put a person at the head of the line.

          • truthoutnow

            Can you please explain how and where you think Jesus is pro capitalism and anti socialism? We would appreciate specific gospel references.

          • OmaJohn

            I appreciate your wording. Very telling.

            When I was young, I needed everything written down in really simple terms, too.

            I don’t mind giving food to the least of these, but feeding the trolls is simply a waste of time. And the bible doesn’t use have specific verses differentiating “trolls,” either.

            You should try actually reading it some time.

          • rimmini

            funny I dont think Jesus ever mentions monetary charity. Rather you should take care of the less fortunate. But if it is money that concerns you “charity” can be either voluntary or enforced. Of course, given the trillions floating on Wall Street these days you could just pay a decent wage to every one who works to fill the market with our toys before you pay millions the CEO’s and other useless ULM (to include boards of directors), and then Wall Street.

          • hargen

            Jesus admonished people to help the poor. Notice he wanted the “people”, not government. Somehow the socialists have hijacked this message and believe the government should tax the people, subject the people, and then decide which people receive the benefit.

          • Wucash421

            That’s not socialism you false flag troll. And yes, Jesus’ words are the epitome of socialism. Don’t get rich while others are starving and dying. Christ, you people are delusional.

          • CheshireKitty

            It really depends on how you read Jesus’ teachings. The liberation theologians certainly saw a similarity in Jesus’ teachings and the teachings of socialism. The meek shall inherit the earth certainly doesn’t sound like the rich shall inherit the earth. Just sayin’.

          • Burnerjack

            “The problem with socialism is, eventually you run out of other people’s money.”- Margret Thatcher

          • Billy Ray

            Flagstaff lies like, pumping greenhouse gases into the air causes problems?

          • TipiTom

            Acts 2:45King James Version (KJV)
            45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

        • Scary Pope

          Being a scripture reading Catholic, are you now a Catholic without a Pope? Kind of throws out the whole infallible things out of the window doesn’t it? Maybe the protestants had something there?

          • Defiant

            Infallibility thing? That’s been spoiled since…well…back when PJP admitted that there just might be something to this whole “evolution thing!” LOL! Oh yeah…and the whole “maybe homosexuality is OK after all” gambit. Oh…and the “we don’t REALLY need to eat fish on Fridays” revelation. And as if those weren’t enough…there was the whole “maybe there IS room for the existence of ET in the Catholic philosophy…”

            This is DEFINITELY not the first reversal from a Pope.

          • EyesOpen

            My recollection of PJP was that he suggested that evolution could be a reason for adaptation of species. He did not imply that is was a substitute for intelligent design.

          • S Johnson

            Don’t you dare shake their faith…

          • cabinboy422

            Papal infallibility does not mean the Pope is never wrong.

          • paganpink

            Papal infallibility has to do only with matters of church doctrine. You shouldn’t try to tell Catholics what their religion says.

          • fasd

            And Catholics should not try to tell Christians what their beliefs should and shouldn’t be.

          • LuppersMom

            Well, you are using our Scriptures….just saying.

          • S Johnson

            ??? You know those scriptures existed long before the Catholic church, right? Some fables (AKA Scriptures) even existed during Sumerian times. You really should look at alternate sources of history.

          • LuppersMom

            Papal infallibility means that in matters of faith and morals, when teaching within the line of Catholic Tradition and within a limited scope, the Pope is infallible. (Tradition with a capital T has a specific theological meaning.)
            A pope can be totally wrong on topics not related to faith and morals: science being the foremost example.

          • S Johnson

            And since each Pope seems to differ in their opinion of faith and morals, they are all correct??? Wait… What?

          • happylada

            I doubt most thinking Catholics over the decades had any misconceptions about papal infallibility. To many glaring examples that its just a myth. For hundreds of years.

        • ERIC STREAM

          His actions are that of a typical Franciscan. HIS philosophy was to be expected. It also should be understood that as a native of a third world country he expects redistribution of wealth.

          • paganpink

            He is a Jesuit! The first one. They are social justice priests.

        • Bill Booth

          Scripture reading Catholics is a relatively new thing It has not been all that long ago that Catholics were admonished not to read the Bible for themselves.

          • Defiant

            I was raised as a Catholic…never ever heard that…

          • The Truth

            Man…what priest were you under? I always heard that.

          • KMat

            That is non-sense. Seriously where do you cats come up with this stuff? Sign me “A Scripture reading Catholic from a very old and long line of Scripture Reading Catholics”. And FWIW, El Papa’s credibility is spiraling fast, at least among us scripture reading Catholics.

          • paganpink

            That’s utter nonsense.

          • jc c

            I guess you do not know Catholic history. Back when Catholics did not read the Bible, it was because not many people could read. Not many people in the world could read period. Relatively new? The USA is relatively new compared to the world. So is England, for that matter man kind when compared to the age of the earth.

          • LuppersMom

            Wow, sounds like you’re well-read in Jack Chick.
            Here’s a brain bender: reading Scripture merits a partial indulgence.

        • jimtrees

          Nothing scary about this guy. Bring in the money is the number one thing with the church. If he happens to look like an idiot doing it, then so be it.

        • johmill

          Maybe it’s time for you to seriously consider why Martin Luther nailed the 95 theses to the Wittenburg door.

          • Don’tspyonme

            Yes except the liberal agenda has infected many churches out there Protestant included

        • AsleepNoMore

          As a scripture reading recovered Catholic, I agree with you. When he said that atheists can go to Heaven if they do good, he refuted so many of Jesus’ teachings. He said that he’d like to meet aliens (thought by some Christians to be demons) and baptize them. He needs to refresh himself on the Bible before he jumps into defending the false religion CCC (Climate Change Cult).

          • Harry Schwart

            The Pope really said atheists can go to Heaven?

          • AsleepNoMore

            Yes and then the Vatican backtracked to try to say he was misunderstood.

        • Seerightthere!

          He scares all true Christians.

        • Eric Zombrow

          Amen…scary scary time for the Church, and its flock.

        • Recovering Liberal

          They forced Ratzinger out. That should scare everyone.

        • happylada

          It scares a lot of NON-catholics as well

        • EeebeeE

          Jesus never intended for governments to take care of the poor. His view was that charity and concern for one’s fellow man was more effective. Give freely all you can give to those in need. The socialist view is that “poverty can be eradicated.” The Biblical view is that “The poor will always be with us” (stated in some way shape or form as early in the Bible as Deuteronomy). In the past 3,500 years or so, the Bible’s view has yet to be proven wrong.

        • James Morrison

          I think you said what a lot of us are thinking. I feel like Francis may be the “Obama” of popes.

        • Ed Nolan

          I’m not a Catholic but I liked this Pope at first. He actually has some life in him.

          But if he’s going to get into this warming farce…..

        • swingblade

          Amen.

        • bloodaxe

          It looks like the communists have managed to infiltrate the Vatican.

        • fatwaforall

          Really a scripture reading Catholic? Catholics you know can’t read? So you are going to repeat protestant garbage to make yourself look better? Good Job.

        • JB

          To be fair, as a scripture reading Catholic you’re also probably frightened by yoga.

        • Wucash421

          Which scriptures? The ones based on Jesus’ teachings that the Jesuit pope is peddling or the ones that the romans put in that are often contradictory to the aforementioned ones?

          Does “turning the other cheek” mean making it easier to hit all of your transgressor’s face?

        • CheshireKitty

          Even so, I wouldn’t under-estimate his popularity. Italy itself has a large number of left-wingers. Greece is about to elect a new left-wing government. There is bound to be a “reaction” to the “austerity” imposed by the neo-liberal market capitalist system – if the austerity always is at the expense of the poor.

        • Gotham Knight

          As a scripture reading catholic any pope should scare you, along with indulgences, Mary worship, purgatory, the confessional, etc.

        • Gingersnap_

          hes a socialist, which is fine for a church (they aren’t taxing you), but its deadly to a govt.

        • britain

          Any Pope should scare everyone.

        • tubaman

          this pope will be the last pope.he is the false prophet who will help the anti-Christ rule the world for seven years.

        • Billy Ray

          Are you truly scared of someone who accepts gays and those of other faiths? Also which interpretation of the scripture are you reading?

          • Don’tspyonme

            Nope just scared of someone who supports the corporate and political elites to think that global warming has something to do with helping the planet is like thinking Obamacare improves healthcare or that common core is about education wake up follow the money take the red pill

          • Billy Ray

            Climate change and global warming are real and are problems.

          • Don’tspyonme

            Ok sure let’s say it is but just understand its fix is another money grab the players are aligned and there’s trillions at stake reminds me of some Dylan lyrics “after he took from you ever thing he could steal” how does it feel
            anyway it would be great if it was some grand humanitarian effort but when you peel back the onion it will be disappointing unfortunately

        • So Cal Guest

          I don’t understand him either.

        • zonable

          Amen!

        • abbeyc

          Me too. I wouldn’t follow this leader of ‘the flock’ across the street.

        • Engineeer

          Hey a pope for the end times…..

        • abbeyc

          Me too. I wouldn’t follow this ‘shepherd’ across the street.

      • Lorinda

        Very well put, D New. Thank you.

      • marque2

        The problem is Christ’s path is a personal path. As individuals we should give to the poor, who are por through no fault of their own. Jesus didn’t say force your neighbor to pay for your charitable desires, nor did he ask Cesar to pay for the poor.

        • Herbert Parker

          I think the Pope is all about the collective? Christ is for the up lifting of the individual. Big difference.

          • marque2

            Pope 7 of 9?

          • Herbert Parker

            I’m not sure if I can answer. Your question, I lack comprehension. Respectfully.

        • ERIC STREAM

          Socialists have used the bible particularly the New Testament to preach social justice when in fact its more concerned with the individual and and forgiveness of his sins and place in heaven

          • dgsf

            Christ is ONLY about the individual – the Cathollic Church is about the masses (pardon the pun). There are no party reservations in Heaven – nor is there any Pope in the BIble, never mind apostolic succession…

          • happylada

            True – Jesus did NOTHING for the poor apart from a couple lunches.

      • Rascal69

        And the Pope wants you to pay for all costs associated with Global Warming, whether anything can actually be done is not his problem. See, he and the Catholic Church have invested their money (thank you for the tithe) into elaborate, ornate and very expensive gold hardware and all the trimmings. I can see how concerned they are for the poor around the world by the quantity of icons and idols they possess.

        • OmaJohn

          Not sure we need to bash the entire Catholic Church for disagreeing with the pope.

          The implication that donations to the Catholic Church are commonly used poorly because of this example is false. The Catholic Church does a lot of good in the world today, and millions owe it a meaningful debt of gratitude.

          That said, I have no use for the man. I’m as opposed to his policies as I am any big-government leader. The fact that he puts a friendly face on it and goes down and helps poor people himself doesn’t mean he’s less promoting of tyranny.

        • happylada

          The percentage of Catholics who tithe is too small to calculate.

      • Pope is a Fraud

        Just proves that the Pope is a fraud. He is supposedly the mouth-piece of God but he can’t seem to get it right. Kind of goes back to the fact that a person is not a prophet of God (Old Testament) if he gets one thing wrong. Soooooo….the Catholics need to figure out what to do because the Catholic church is now defunct.

        • OmaJohn

          It’s important to remember that a temporary figurehead does not render an entire organization dead.

          • Pope is a Fraud

            But it does if that organization deems that “figurehead” to be “infallible” and then has it as its entire basis for much of its structure and then that “figurehead” is shown to be fallible.

          • cabinboy422

            Papal Infallibility does not mean the Pope is never wrong, or cannot make a mistake.

          • Loren Drzal

            Actually, that is exactly what papal infallibility means.

          • cabinboy422

            Actually, Papal Infallibility ONLY applies in certain circumstances. Specifically when the Pope is speaking on matters directly related to the practices, beliefs, and/or morals of the church, whether in Council with Bishops, or when issuing an Encyclical. The Pope is allowed to profess his personal opinions about anything without it meaning that he is binding the entire Catholic population the that same belief. Here is a link to a more thorough explanation.

            http://www.staycatholic.com/papal_infalibillity.htm

          • dhf

            Excellent now explain the purpose for a Pope – is he the one that relates all the mistakes God makes? Or is that how you muppets work it – if he’s wrong it’s him if he’s right it’s God? Dishonesty insyitutionalized…

          • cabinboy422

            I would love to, however its obvious you would rather mock my church than try to understand it – which is a shame.

          • sdgf

            unless of course someone points that out – then the back pedalling comes and eventually the ones that tell everyone else what to do start saying “don’t tell us what to do”

          • dhf

            it does when the entire organization is fruadulent…

        • jj

          I would love to see what would happen if all the Catholics at odds with the Pope’s environ’mental’ stance stopped giving to the donation tray in protest. Yes, the money goes to help that specific Catholic franchise and not to the Vatican, but it would certainly be interesting to see the uproar created by the priests.

        • cabinboy422

          IF the Catholic Church was based on anything at all to do with the weather, OR if the Catholic Church proclaimed that the Pope was indeed a prophet, or is somehow endowed by God with Divine Wisdom, then you might have a shot at making this argument. But since church doctrin has nothing to do with climate change, and since the Pope is not endowed with any special revelations from God regarding weather forecasting, your argument is false.

          • dhf

            or you can’t deal with the hypocrisy in your club… wait until the second coming when Jesus says “you followed who?”

          • S Johnson

            That is such a weak argument. If he is the mouthpiece of God, he would not say such statements because it is not his place.

          • cabinboy422

            The Pope is human and as a human has free will. He also has – as he will freely admit – the ability to commit sin. He can and does make mistakes – as I am also sure he will freely admit he has. He is not incapable of being wrong. but he is also not prevented from expressing his own opinions, regardless of topic

            Whatever your profession is – are you restricted to only having opinions related to that profession? Are accountants incapable of having a opinion regarding anything outside the scope of accounting practices? This is no different. The Pope is no more an authority on climate change than Al Gore or Obama, but that does not mean he does not have the right as a world leader to express his opinions on the matter.

            However, if I disagree with the Pope regarding climate change, and what to do about it – I am not at odds with the Catholic Church or Catholic doctrine. Whereas if I disagree with the Pope about something like at the core of the Catholic faith, like abortion, then I am at odds.

        • happylada

          Actually, that’s a BIT out of context. BUT certainly the number of times popes have been wrong SHOULD have decimated the church by NOW, If the goof folk in the pew were actually awake on Sunday.

      • 1stAfterburner

        He truly pissed me off when he went to the anti-suicide Palestinian bomber wall in Israel and prayed,..for what? that more freaking suicide anti-Jewish bombers could kill more people in restaurants?l,..the Pope showed his true anti-Semitic colors then and there.

      • Kevin

        Yes. It’s all about controlling the people. Whether you are talking about politically, legally, religiously, whatever. It has always been about being able to tell someone else what to do. The Church today uses peer pressure, guilt, prophetic commands, and vicarian directive. The progressive left uses law, regulation, demonization, and ignorance.

        • ruledbysound

          Are you being sarcastic? That’s exactly what jesuits have done throughout history

        • happylada

          Don’t apply that to ALL Christendom. There’s a REASON for the thesis on the door.

      • Pope is a Fraud

        Someone needs to teach the Pope that his beliefs in wealth distribution is actually Fabian Socialism. In it, people are all bowing down to the socialist leaders. That is, unless, that is now his god.

      • PapaLouie

        Who said this?

        “The processes of globalization, suitably understood and directed, open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale…” — Pope Benedict in 2009 encyclical

      • NYCFiredog

        I’m Catholic and you took the words right out of my mouth. This contamination of South American Liberation Theology which is Communism with the face of Christ as a disguise. I love my Pope, but he is no economist. America is not Argentina where they only have rich and poor and the poor stay poor. These are the lenses he looks through.

      • William556

        He’s probably one of those Liberation Theologists. They preached socialism with a thin veneer of Christianity on top to give is respectability and trick people into swallowing socialism. I rather suspected as soon as he got the nomination that he would turn out this way.

      • RagsOnYouSchwags

        the pope is just trying to keep his church tax exempt, so he’ll say the pc bs he needs to say to keep various national gubments of his back, lol. there’s no reform going on at the vatican, they aren’t melting the papal gold down to buy food and shelter for the meek. it’s lip service, all for show….just like everything is in the 21st century new world order.

      • Eric Zombrow

        The Argentines failure culminated in 1982-83 a lost war to sure up nationalism due to an economy that was horrific…they totally collapsed in 83. Now it seems its coming full circle yet again with this kook running their nation. She just purchased bombers from Russia…but the nation as a whole has defaulted on many of its loans world wide. My point is that the Pope is no stranger to Socialist/Marxist ideals. He has seen its horrific results firsthand .

      • Kenneth Wiley

        Was Jesus a capitalist? Thou shall not covet?

      • Hopsaregood

        The church historically has been totalitarian. This pope would like to return it to that status. Of course like all liberals he wants to be in charge.

        • Kenneth Wiley

          Because he wants the Catholic Church to be more for the less fortunate and the Catholic hierarchy to less regal in lifestyle?

      • http://www.theantiliberalzone.com/ Gunny G Alz

        I left the Catholic Church long ago when I heard them yapping about “social justice.” This new pope is as bad as Oblahblah.

      • CactusPatch

        As you’ve observed, global warming is nothing but a vehicle for wealth redistribution.

      • sal Hillal

        The popes are the breath of the beast.

      • Jeffrey9167

        The pope is a dope that has no worries. He will never be laid off, never get hungry, never lack medical care.

      • Tricky Dick

        He’s a stinking Communist. I’ll never attend Catholic church again.

      • sydbloom

        Religious fanatics and these Algorian lunatics are drinking from the same coolaid cup. When hard science is applied they lose all credibility.

      • Pouteria

        But you haven’t lost any liberty in the USA?

      • breeze510

        Exquisitely stated!

      • Alucard_the_last

        He advocates ‘redistribution of wealth’ but won’t sell off the billions of dollars of wealth that the Catholic church has stolen through the centuries.

      • eric_in_NJ

        Very thoughtful comment. Kudos

      • drofmanythings

        Thank you for a thoughtful response. Elitist progressives are always leveraging policy to promote frenzied egalitarianism and transfer of wealth through taxation and regulation. The framing of climate change as a vehicle for transformative societal change is just the latest of many veiled efforts by the control freaks of the left. These principles are embedded into almost every decision or bureaucratic regulation. They will use anything, absolutely anything, toward that end. Whether the Pope is a tool or a willing participant is incidental. Natural climate variation has been redefined as humanity’s self destruction due to capitalism, greed, and excessive use of finite resources. Yes, Argentina could have been a great nation, until it veered into leftist ideology and statism. I am reminded of Cuba’s descent into poverty and loss of personal liberties. In 1950, not so long ago, Cuba’s GNP was higher than Mother Spain, as was its average wage for workers. Who knew that climatologists would soon become politicized and provide a huge boost to the progressive objectives of elitist politicians? I suppose the boredom of tedious daily climatology research can be relieved by the sublime notion that you are saving the world from the evils of capitalism, while preserving those cuddly polar bear cubs. I sense that those who profess to save the world are one in the same as those who desire to control the world. The Pope seems like a fine fellow, but is he a monkey wrench for the Greenies?

      • Mike Conlon

        D New,

        The Pope may feel great comfort with socialism, but please understand that the clergy of my church are indoctrinated with that idea, in many seminaries (Catholic Priest colleges). As a Catholic, I know that our religion does not consider a Pope to be infallible on non-religious issues. The Pope has been elevated by an elective body within my church called the College of Cardinals (those of you who saw the “Davinci Code” movie may remember the red-robed men voting for a new Pope-thats the College of Cardinals). Cardinals are the highest rank below Pope. He and any Pope can say anything and everything, or nothing, and I and most of my fellow catholics will continue to give him our love. But-especially in the American Catholic church-many catholics will be free with disagreement.

        You see examples of that in news of retired American Cardinals making public comments-noted in the news yesterday-clearly disagreeing in a general way with the Pope. Neither they nor I suggested or suggest lack of love for him-but within Catholicism., American Catholic freedom of expression and thought is notorious.

        We will undoubtedly see more American Catholic disagreement because the Pope comes from a land where my Church had many high and low clergy joining with socialist revolutionaries in the name or (I think this was it) “liberation theology.”

        Our modern, developed “free markets informed with law and love”-no joke, Libs-school of thought can educate and erode support from the emotion laden and simplistic “give to this cause ’cause, gosh, this group and all these other groups say its a good cause” school of thought.

      • Rich Rochester

        “…give freely to the needy in order to follow the path that Christ set forth as the way to God.”

        Scripture does not teach salvation by works. It teaches salvation by faith, period. Read Paul’s letter to the Romans, 4.1-5. James also writes about works as being an eventuality in the life of a believer if he has true faith. In other words, if your faith is true, you will join God in His work for He is constantly at work around us (John 5.17). It’s like the fruits of the Spirit spoken of in Galatians 5.22. All the fruits listed will show themselves in the life of the true believer as they are “worked out” in the process of the believer’s sanctification (Phil 2.12-13).

      • CheshireKitty

        Juan Peron was a socialist?! Plus – what would you call Bismark? The German arch-conservative was the first to introduce socialist reforms in mid-19th C Germany such as the entire suite of benefits known today as the social safety net i.e. Social Security, unemployment insurance, and so forth. I wonder why an arch-conservative would do so – maybe to pre-empt social revolution? Now, there’s an idea!

      • MAredneck

        You’re right. It’s all about the money, Global warming has always been about the money.

      • not a ranter

        For a discussion of climate, things escalated quickly here.

      • SteamingPileofObama

        I say let the needy die out. Do we really want to let people too stupid and lazy to better themselves bring down the rest of us. Sink or swim, your choice. Let nature weed out the bad seeds.

      • britain

        The one thing about socialism that always holds true is that eventually they start killing people to get their way.

      • Billy Ray

        Right, because the Pope follows Argentinian fiscal and economic policy…

      • Mike Knox

        The US took the same turn but has those pesky Bill Of Rights holding up progress-ives.

      • them

        I like this pope at first. I am Catholic. But there is something wrong with the whole picture of him lately. I have decided he can’t be trusted and is not a man of God….just my opinion. Not trying to get anyone riled up!

      • policygeek

        It’s really funny to see you guys walling off the pope as a heritic to your ideology. You are isolated.

      • Jerseyvet

        I respect the Pope but they are becoming increasingly more irrelevant for most people. Probably, the last time they were relevant was when Pope John Paul II teamed up with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to bring down the Soviet Empire.

      • WalterByrd123

        Free market is the most efficient producer of goods and services to ever exist on planet earth..no doubt, hands down, this is TRUE.
        What is missing is controlling the wicked human heart…greed, abuse, and selfishness destroy human beings…not the free market.
        The free market exists in an ethical void. One must bring ethics, morality and compassion, best demonstrated by the life, teachings and resurrection of Jesus. Combining real mercy and free market wins every time, all through the system….China now has free market, but no mercy…just central power….

      • YuriTahrded

        I read somewhere that he is referred to as a “Peronist Marxist”. I’m no fan of him but as a Catholic I believe the church will survive him.

      • JBar595

        If this was 1943 this Pope would be having dinner with Hitler.

      • McFerguson

        Somebody’s misinterpreting something here. Christ’s admonition was for individuals to give freely of themselves to help others. Not for governments to extract money from those who have in order to pass it on to those who don’t. The same thing holds for nation to nation transfers, which defeats the uplifting morality of charity which, after all, is an individual quality.

    • BenDoverPls

      That’s why they had to change their mantra from “Global Warming” to “Climat4e Change”.

      • Emperor Zurg

        Is that the change we’re supposedly hoping for?

        • OmaJohn

          Al Gore’s stock broker was, anyway. It’s definitely come to fruition, and served him well.

      • truthm0ng3r

        “Global warming” to “global cooling” to “climate change” to “climate disruption” to “we can’t think of any more! Just shut up and send us a check”

        • BenDoverPls

          How inconvenient.

      • Marcelo

        The IPCC was established in the 80s. The CC stands for climate change. You don’t know what you are talking about. Why post nonsense? And just who is they you refer to?

        • BenDoverPls

          All the fraudsters who were jetting all over the planet ranting about Global Warming and selling carbon offsets. Most notably Al Gore.

    • B S Eridicator

      “Would somebody please forward this data along to the Pope?”

      Or you could even forward it to some “scientists”.

    • Tater Lumkin

      The pope should give away the money in the Vatican Bank and sell off all their non church properties and give it to the poor. That would help his credibility.

      • Tmos

        Never gonna happen.

        • Pope is a Scam

          Yep…because Catholicism is a scam. It’s hardly even based on the Bible when you make some man the “mouth-piece of God”. If they were serious about the poor, they would give up their own money.

          • Kelly Lape

            If you’ve ever been to the Vatican Museum and seen the incredible amount of art that is on display (we can only imagine what isn’t on display) – then you know of the incredible wealth of the church.

            On the one hand it is a very valid argument that the Church should sell these works and use the money to help the poor. However, it is equally valid to argue that the Church is the custodian of these priceless works of art and to sell them to private collectors would deny the poor of our opportunity to appreciate these works by being able to visit them in person – (note: you don’t have to be Catholic to visit the museum).

          • jc c

            You have no idea what you are talking about. Who do you follow? You have no idea whomuch money Catholic Charities gives to the poor do you? You just see with your eyes and what little information your brain knows. So why don’t you sell off everything you have and give to the poor?

          • dfh

            A) You don’t know that he hasn’t b) More interestingly, have you? c) exactly how does his not having sold off everything excuse the Pope (or you for that matter) from being a hypocrite?

          • happylada

            Some do. Most don’t

      • drofmanythings

        The Pope has foolishly bought into the global warming mantra, but he has indeed been very focused on assisting the poor and lives simply as compared to the more opulent Popes. I am not Catholic, by the way….

    • Loren Drzal

      Duh, the fact that you are cold has nothing to do with world wide climate. Last year was the warmest on record. Scientists were shocked at the rapid increase in the ocean temperature. Last year the east coast froze while Anchorage, Alaska had its first year without below 0 temperature. Siberia was warm and Australia baked.

      • MicheleLloyd

        Wow… The we should stand outside naked when it is below zero, except for you… You should wear a thong.

      • kidchaos

        Everything you stated has been proven to be untrue with just a little bit of research into information coming from sources other than liberal. It’s sad that so many of you can be so easily misled by people claiming to be scientists. The fact is, any cooling or warming that may be occurring is due to “Natural Climate Change” which has been occurring since the dawn of the planet. “Man-made Climate Change” is a myth. Absolutely. It is used as a tool of redistribution and governmental control. Go ahead and be a sheep/lemming. It’s climbing over your dead body that the left gains it’s power…

      • Datadumper

        Loren, can you share your reference material?

        • AuldGuy

          Loren can’t share any source material because there is no source material…

      • Sean Patrick Murphy sr

        Just spewing out the usual lies.

      • Tmos

        There is one simple question that all the climate change advocates will not address. If climate change is man made, why did the IPCC have to manipulate (fudge) the data to make the “hockey stick” graph work? You seem to have all of the facts, so what is your explanation?

        • cuje

          If climate change is man made, what was man doing to cause the ice-sheets that covered North America a few thousand years ago to completely recede?

          • Attm Motob

            According to the AAT Ancient Astronaut theorists, this occurred because of the vast amount of power they used to make pyramids world wide! LOL

          • Ron Burgandy

            And Greenland got it’s name because it was lush green- key word “was”. Your point?

        • Rascal69

          They had limited Mann-power.

      • And Yet It Moves

        You know that Global Warming (i.e. Climate Change) was first used as a scam to offset the socialist parties in the U.K. by the Thatcher parliament, right? You do know that all of the predictions on what would happen by climatologists that supported global warming were grossly off?

        Oh wait, you’re just reliant on the very liberal press and your paradigm of religious bigotry in worshiping the state. Real science (the real one that relies on double blind studies and would not block out objectional views) would never play in your religion. That is why you ignore the thousands of scientists that say “wait a second, your data makes no sense”. That is why your “scientists” have to grossly skew the data to secure more funding (I use to work for one of these guys in the early 90s…it was horrible to see how we skewed the data).

        You might skewer us for pointing to the facts but as Galileo said to the religious zealots of the day “and yet it moves”. You can have your religious view and worship the Earth with Al Gore and the Pope, just leave us alone and let us live in peace.

      • 1776 Patriot

        I don’t care what you say. My AZZ is cold….

      • Ron Hewitt

        Shocked I tell you!

      • Squalus

        PT Barnum comes to mind.

      • Squalus

        Lorens response. The sound of crickets chirping.

        • All about the feeling

          It’s because she’s a liberal. Facts don’t matter. It is how you feel. She feeeeellllls that it is warm and so it is. She feeeeelllllls for the illegal so she invites them into her neighbors home (because her compassion only goes so far and wouldn’t let them camp in her home). She feeeelllllls for the poor so she takes someone else’s money and gives it to someone else. She doesn’t respond because she can’t type feelings.

      • Guest

        your ignorance is appalling…this year’s high school graduates will not have experienced “global warming” in their entire lifetime…

      • Tmos

        When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

        Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

        This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

        Watch: Climate change explained in 60 second animation

        Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

        Related Articles

        Barack Obama’s personal battle against climate change 23 Jan 2015

        Rise in sea levels is ‘faster than we thought’ 14 Jan 2015

        Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.

        One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.

        Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.

        Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.

    • AuldGuy

      Don’t worry… Just to try an help out I left both of the trucks idling in the driveway for an extra half hour this morning…

      Hope that helps!!

      • Rascal69

        Okay, that’s a start. Now take one of the trucks for a nice long ride on the Freeway. I’ll wave as we pass.

      • Kelly Lape

        The oil industry thanks you for your devotion.

        • AuldGuy

          Rather give it to the oil industry than some leftist monkey…

          • Kelly Lape

            Can a conservative use “monkey” and not be accused of being a racist?

          • jj

            No.

          • Stormrdr

            A Conservative is accused of racism because of their existence, not their vocabulary.

    • WalkingHorse

      It is fitting that the Pope holds forth on Global Warming/Climate Change, since he is uniquely qualified to express opinions upon matters of religious faith.

      • Honked OFF

        Yes, but will they let him wear that really awesome hat, when he pontificates at The Church of Unnatural Warming?

        That could be a deal breaker.

    • Emperor Zurg

      You’re not cold — you’re just shivering in denial.

    • 1911

      the only hot air I’ve seen these days has been the stuff coming out of the warming conspirators mouths.

    • Spanky T Smackme

      As can be CLEARLY SEEN from the graphs, the warm and cold peaks are a NATYRAL< CYCLIC event that occurs again and again, NOT caused by man.
      The global warming morons are no better than chicken little crying the sky is falling, EXCEPT, they are making PROFIT off it at the expense of the people.

    • Bill Booth

      Forward this to Al Gore.

      • Kevin

        He doesn’t care. He has made so much money on this scam, it sets a new bar. Sooooooooooo much worse than Enron, since this fraud is perpetrated on the entire globe.

    • Jorge

      I am a Catholic without a Pope, next in line will be gay marriages in the Catholic Church.

    • DaMav

      It is a real shame that the Pope foolishly stuck his nose into this fraud.

    • Smiddywesson

      The Pope’s getting up there in years. Maybe he’s due to have his infallibilty changed and his slippers rotated?

    • willie11

      I think the Pope needs to give God a little credit for climate changes.
      You can take the Pope out of south America , but you can’t take South America out of the Pope.
      Fortunately the half life of Popes is quite short and a new one can’t be far behind

      • http://batman-news.com Godot

        If I were the Pope I’d have a remote starter for my Popemobile. :)

    • kingdad

      The words Global Warming are NOT Found within any of the stories other than the made-up Headlines. Climate Change, Yes. You have been duped by the leftist anti-Catholic Media. What abject fools some of you bigots are.

    • Start A Revolt

      Are you talking about that homosexual marriage approving Pope?

    • JDD

      The Pope says Algore explained everything so now please buy some carbon credits. If you don’t know how to reach him then send me the money to me and I will pass it on (wink).

    • Steve

      Permanent ice (4+yrsold) melts into the ocean. Desalinates the water. Fresh water freezes at Warner temperatures then salt water. Come winter you get more sea ice then normal due to the increase of fresh water, from the massive amounts of permanent ice melt. Then the warmer then normal sea pushes air currents like the polar vortex south, resulting in record snow falls and freezing temperatures for eastern North America. Global warming refers only to the upper atmosphere. Hotter summers and colder winters are a direct result of climate change.

      • makamae

        Actually, Steve, in this current discussion of AGW, they’re talking about complete global warming, including the sea temperatures. The prediction was that we would have a dramatic increase in the number of massive hurricanes due to the rise in water temperatures (which haven’t happened.)

        Further, this article isn’t about an increase in ice in winter compared to summer. This is a year over year study. Plus, you really ought to think before spouting – Antarctica is now in it’s summer, not it’s winter.

    • Marcelo

      The warmists don’t say anything about the weather. They talk about the climate. Your point is akin to standing in front of an open freezer and saying “how can there be global warming when I feel cold”. Its the global measurements which matter. Its also not the extent of sea ice, but its volume which is more important. However even that is not greatly significant as ice volumes can increase in a warming world. Atmospheric dynamics are not as simple as you make out.

    • http://www.earlysda.com earlysda

      The pope (of long ago) changed God’s day of worship from Saturday (7th) to Sunday (1st), in order to gain influence and power in the world. This latest show of support for Evolution and Global Warming by the current pope is along the same vein.

    • Pepsi_Freak

      Never mind the Pope, mention it to Algore.

    • SaveOurNation

      Liberal demorats have found a way to professionalize lying… They are just the best at lying….
      Think about it for a moment, right before they die they must think to themselves- all I can be proud of is deceit and being a liar. Their mothers would be proud…..

    • Bam Bam

      The Pope knows that this global warming (or is it chaos, climate change….what????) scam is just a redistribution of wealth scheme which he is in favor of. I am Catholic…and this Pope scares the hell out of me.

    • XUSAMABO

      I think the Pope see this as an opportunity to transfer wealth to the third world, and whether Climate Change is real or not really doesn’t matter to him as this can be a tool to scratch his ‘social justice itch’ either way.

    • Hillary McBush

      actual scientists (not agenda pushing liberal dishonest manipulative douche bags masquerading as men of science) have been forecasting that we started entering a mild ice age in the 70s

    • Earl P. Holt III

      The Pope does not share your enthusiasm for evidence…

    • krusatyr

      Put the poser pope in the lake, baptize the crossjacking guerrilla jesuit in the light of the truth

      • zarnon

        Wondered how long it’d take a Conservadunce to suggest killing the pope. If Jesus was alive it’d be TBaggers that crucified him while calling him a Marxist.

    • bcmugger

      Current Pope speaks like a communist.

    • nick

      Superior had ice until like july?

    • CheshireKitty

      The Pope? What about a staunch Republican like Michael Bloomberg – one of the biggest believers in global warming, out to remove as many cars as possible from NYC streets! There are many believers in the ills of a carbon fuel based economy in both political camps!

      • Kenya_Diggit

        He was no staunch Republican, in fact he went independent. Nice try though.

        • CheshireKitty

          So in your opinion, every Republican politician is pro air/water pollution?

          • Kenya_Diggit

            Would you like a brain with that strawman?

          • CheshireKitty

            Well, you can’t have it both ways. Either BB was a Republican Mayor of NYC who tried to crack down hard on cars – even tried to impose E. River bridge tolls – expanded bike lanes, and worked to get buildings to upgrade their oil burners so that they are no longer spewing pollution into the air – or he wasn’t. I was trying to point out that even conservatives can be pro-environment. You seem to think that unless someone is pro-oil lobby, they aren’t a Republican. That is just not true.

    • G

      It is sad that the Pope has been snookered with bad data. The good thing is that although wise to strongly consider what he is saying all knowledgeable Catholics including the Pope himself would say this is his opinion and not theology and Catholics in good standing can reject this as its not a teaching ex cathedra.

      (a good reading: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/122914-732485-anti-human-green-movement-is-the-antithesis-of-the-catholic-church.htm?ref=SeeAlso)

    • David Harrison

      He’s too busy helping Pedophiles.

    • flackjacket5

      Al Gore will have to add another limousine to his global warming/climate change touring circus…after he converts to Catholicism.

    • Gingersnap_

      last year was great for the great lakes….water levels were up 10 inches in most all of them.

    • Billy Ray

      The Pope knows. Also I take it you don’t live in an area hit by a drought or hurricane or flood or ice storm. 2014 looks to be the hottest year on record.

    • josh

      climate and weather are two different things. look it up?

    • CheshireKitty

      Please read the data: 2014 was the warmest year on record. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30311816

      There are many additional news articles based on the same meteorological measurements.

    • argh32

      the pope is a dope. He is simply the head pedophile.

    • CaMaven

      Popes have a very poor record on scientific issues, made even worse by directives and Inquisitions to back them up.

    • Garet43

      Impressive logic. The world can’t possibly be warming if it is cold outside of my house. The media plays with anecdotes, scientists work with data (if you don’t know the difference, please learn it). The time trend is that high temperatures are highly correlated with high CO2 levels. This relationship is robust throughout geological history and across planets (compare Earth with Venus and Mars to see for yourself). Scientists stopped debating whether global warming was happening decades ago in the face of overwhelming evidence and they are now identifying to what degree it is occurring and what its effects will be. Spoiler alert: its not looking good for us if we sit on our butts and do nothing to reduce our emissions.

    • leonffs

      How many times do we have to tell you people that your experience in one tiny part of the world doesn’t mean shit? The world, on average, is warming. Just because you had a cold winter doesn’t disprove a massive trend.

    • Scott Webb

      It’s easy to make a case for global warming when your just looking at the past 150 yrs of data. Look at the last 3000 yrs and tell me what you see (http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf). That is unless your too scared to get your facts from science and prefer to stick with the media.

      • drofmanythings

        How reliable are those 3,000 years, Scott? Climate has changed dramatically several times since the time of Moses and the Bronze Age. I do have facts on my side and I am a statistically competent individual. Frankly, the media is on YOUR side in this. The problem is that the carbon based models simply do not seem to work no matter how they are tweaked to shoehorn themselves into current data. CO2, in my reasoned judgment, simply is inadequate in predicting climate changes. Then there is the political perversion in the equation. Who knew climatologists would be so easily bought by those who want to profess saving the world in order to control it. Your point man, Dr James Hanson, is an educated buffoon whose outrageous predictions are so absurd that they should have led to his scorn, ridicule, and contempt. However, he is still esteemed by those who care more of ideology than truth. On top of it all, my mature lemon trees froze to death, really ticking me off! Damn cold weather….

  • Clay Cullum

    This must be a matter of climate change, because it can’t be global warming.

  • TheBigMachine

    Just more evidence that ‘Global Warming’ is a BS farce. Oh wait, it’s now ‘Climate Change’ since ‘Global Warming’ is being thoroughly debunked with each passing day, right? Whatever it takes to give more power to government and green-leftists wanting to enrich themselves, and make the rest of us poor saps have to pay more just to live. Thank heavens for fracking and horizontal drilling on PRIVATE LAND, or we’d still be paying astronomical prices at the pump like our ‘dear messiah’ would prefer.

    • Rich Lavino

      no no no you must have missed the memo. it’s called climate disruption now

      • truthm0ng3r

        That one is bombing already. How about “climate weirdness?”

      • Conservative American Voter

        it’s always something new and frightening to those that place feelings/fears over facts…in the 50s nuclear annihilation, then the Population Bomb, then New Ice Age, then Global Pandemic, then AGW, now “Climate Change (aka “Seasons and Weather”)…whatever…after 40 or 50 years of observation, it becomes repetitive and boring…these people that perpetually tout this nonsense are ignorant cowards all…

    • Ernest – TrollFighter#1

      before it was global warming, it was global cooling and we were all on our way to the next ice age….al gore and his followers are as close to a dog chasing its tail as you can get

  • High Plains Drifter

    The earth is in immediate peril!!!!! Prince Charles and Al Gore have said as much. Increasing arctic ice is a clear sign of the disruptive forces of man made global warming. Its settled science, you know and those who think otherwise are ignorant southern folks.

  • Paul Gandy

    Can you say global warming?

    • HowCanThisBe

      I can’t without laughing.

  • globalwarmingmyazz

    All you Global Warming deniers are flirting with the fires of hell. The Pope recently said that the UN must do more to stop Climate Change. What more proof do you need?

    • Hillary McBush

      send your money to teh aspca instead of all gore…you will help more dogs that way.

    • RIMSPOKE

      DENIERS ? THERE ARE NO DENIERS .

      THE CLIMATE HAS ALWAYS CHANGED AND IT ALWAYS WILL CHANGE .

      THE TRULY CRAZY PEOPLE ARE THE ONES WHO THINK THEY CAN STOP IT .

  • BigKnuckles

    This is good news. Now Sheryl Crow can use more than one square of toilet paper when she goes number 2.

    • Mark Moser

      Not for tp….

  • PoeTentiate

    They should all be locked up like Copernicus so that the Church of Global Warming doesn’t have to listen to their heresies (inconvenient data).

  • Dax75

    This is why they changed it to climate change… But they have also been bantering around that 14 was the warmest year on record also…. don’t see how thats possible with this data.

    • Scott Norris

      And my climate changes every single day.
      Today – Raining and 70 degrees.
      Yesterday – Partly cloudy and 84 degrees
      2 Days ago – Partly cloudy and 80 degrees.
      3 Days ago – Sunny and 84
      The sky is falling!!!!

      • Kelly Lape

        To confuse weather with climate indicates your complete inability to apply critical thinking to your environment.

  • phillyhawk

    Don’t look for this tidbit of reality in the mainstream press anytime soon

    • RIMSPOKE

      TIDBITS ARE OUT .
      TRUTH IS MEASURED IN “SMIDGENS” THESE DAYS .

  • Lisa martin

    The Word of God says satan comes to steal.kiII and destroy and so does his son gay 0bama..

    BOOK OF DANIEL

    The King Who Exalts Himself

    36 “The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place. 37 He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all. 38 Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his ancestors he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. 39 He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price.[d]

    40 “At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. 41 He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. 42 He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape. 43 He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Cushites[e] in submission. 44 But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. 45 He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at[f] the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.

    2 Thessalonians 2:8

    And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming…………

    • PoeTentiate

      … thus the non sequiturs appear out of thin air.

  • Hillary McBush

    It is so cold today…Where the F is that global warming?

    • BigKnuckles

      All the smarty pants global warming nuts will tell you this is the “polar vortex” in action.

      • Curmudgeon

        It’s only a matter of time before they find a way to collect $$ to combat polar vorteces.

    • RollModel

      Isn’t Hillary beautiful? Just look at the picture!

  • Darko714

    I’m waiting for the “scientists” to start rationalizing this inconvenient data.

    • tex

      One started it a few years ago when there were a few reports of possible global cooling. He said, yea maybe, but if we go into a mini ice age we won’t go as deep and when we eventually come out of it the heat will return with such force we’ll all be toast. They’ll move the prediction however far into the future it requires. They are not going allow anything to cause doubt of their dire warnings cuz they’ll change their predictions – and they have a lot of ’em, many contradicting.

      • Darko714

        I actually expect the warming trend to continue. The earth has been warming since the last glacial period, and may continue to do so for another 50,000 years. But since no one really knows what causes glacial cycles, that’s only a guess. To blame climate cycles on the activities of mankind is premature, at best.

        • tex

          Seems like we may be due for a mini-ice age sooner rather than later. Aren’t they on a 10-11,000 yr cycle & the current cycle has been going for about that time?

  • Scott Norris

    But thy Lord God Obama and Al “Jesus” Gore told us that we’re melting and will be gone in a few years if we don’t spend trillions of dollars to cool the planet. Are you trying to tell me that they are lying?

  • ThisHasGottaEnd

    Does anyone seriously believe that the portrayal of the devil in that Jesus mini-series just COINCIDENTALLY looked like Obama? The producers SWEAR they did not do it on purpose. I believe them. Them SOMEBODY was sending us a message. Don’t you think?

  • kiva

    Apparently there is no lack of anti-science skewed data for the ignorant to consume.

  • phil

    LMFAO!! and I thought that the sky was falling!! NOT!

  • Comrade Ogilvy

    “My oh my but what a dust storm I create,” said the fly on the wagon….

  • warpsix

    Tar and feather those that made money off the lies.

    • BigKnuckles

      Gruber

  • TomSmithIsBack

    Did they fire their photoshop crew? By now the usually have pictures of the ice missing and the world ending

  • Barakobammy

    The dirty secret is that “climate change” is about world control and one world socialist government, the Democrats ultimate goal. They just need more mindless idiot voters they can buy off to keep them in Power.

  • fairtv

    Why won’t 60 Minutes report this?

  • Nishjo

    Global (yawn…zzzzzz) Warming.

  • Jeremy Meister

    See I told you Global Warming is real.

  • Darko714

    Crisis!! The data doesn’t fit the narrative!!

    • Attm Motob

      Just ignore that data it. Or maybe it is because of the poor economy, fewer cars park next to the weather sensors and they don’t get as warm

  • user z

    I did a like to share this on facebook but it didn’t work. Facebook blocking it?

    • MacDaddio

      Well since Al Gore INVENTED the internet, probably yes.

  • Lurch47

    I love it when Greenies get bitten on the patootie! =0)

  • Jolat

    If our planet freezes again, we are all dead for sure. We better hope that global warming is real.

  • jim

    Satellite data shows that the global temperature is in a cooling trend. NASA which doesn’t use satellite data to compute their global temperature results say that 2014 is the warmest year on record. What a bunch of BS. Their computer models SUCK!!

    • Rascal69

      Interesting point…NASA, the organization that brought us “space” doesn’t use satellite data. Who’d a thunk it?

      • Attm Motob

        0 changed their focus from space to finding scientific advances made by Islam.

  • You Didit

    What a racist planet we live on…

  • shem

    What is wrong with you folks? Can’t you see that Al Gore’s efforts have been successful? Global warming, er climate change or whatever they are calling it now has been eradicated! You should be dancing in the streets and sending Al and the Pope and whoever else more money…

  • dennis1960

    We must stop global cooling or in ten years we will all be living in igloos and eating seal blubber.

    • shem

      seal blubber hater?

    • nearboston

      Ooooooohhh…..bluuuuuuuber….

      • Attm Motob

        Oooooooooooooohh Gluuuuuuuuuuuber?

  • truthteller13

    uh…..what about that so called “global warming”??? Will man made global cooling be next crisis for the foamimg at the mouth greentards?

    • RIMSPOKE

      IF IT IS , THEN THEY HAVE COME FULL CIRCLE .

  • BigKnuckles

    To the global warming crowd….you have a better chance at setting the earth straight on its axis than you do controlling the climate.

  • David allen

    I remember Global Cooling back in the 1970’s. There was undeniable scientific proof that we’d be in the middle of a nuclear winter by 2000. Uh oh. Then the Ozone Hole would cook us, Acid Rain would melt us and the Rain Forest would be gone. Then Global Warming (aka Anthropomorphic causation, or something) that morphed into Climate Change. Gee, the climate is changing. Thanks. Climate change is like global sun rise. Shame on us for even listening to this anymore. Liberals remain on the wrong side of everything and are slowly being exposed for frauds because science is always in favor of the truth. Truth to Liberals is like a crucifix to a vampire, or for that matter a crucifix to a Liberal (same effect).

  • Kelly Lape

    If you actually look at this article you’ll see that the only data shown is over the last 30 years. There is no significant statistical conclusion possible for variation in the sea ice over just 30 years.

    Climate change research is based on data over 10’s of thousands of years from many sources. The most significant corollary in data is the direct connection between CO2 and mean global temperature. To have gone from 300ppm to 400ppm in a half a century is a 25% increase.

    It is not theory that global extinction events over thousands of years have resulted from smaller variations in global CO2 levels. It is not theory that CO2 has rose 25% in a half century. It IS theory that the same forces that destroyed species in the past will do so in the future. Personally I believe it is reasonably sound to rely on the oft stated saying “History repeats itself” to ignore this threat to civilization.

    So what happens if climate science is correct? Sea level increases of several feet will force Billions of people from their coastal homes. Where will they go? What levels of toxicity will inundate the oceans as cities are flooded? Do you really want to leave this type of planet to your children and grandchildren? Don’t they deserve better?

    • RIMSPOKE

      DOES THE TEMPERATURE GO UP BECAUSE OF CO2 OR DOES THE CO2 GO UP BECAUSE OF THE TEMPERATURE ?
      THEY NEVER ANSWER THAT QUESTION .

      NOT THAT IT MATTERS , CO2 IS LESS THAN 0.04% OF THE ATMOSPHERE .
      THIS HAS ONLY CHANGED FROM 0.03% IN 150 YEARS SO ALL THE HUBBUB IS OVER ONE PART IN 10,000 .

      THEY CALL IT A 30% INCREASE AND MEASURE IN TONS TO MAKE IT EMOTIONAL & SOUND SCARY ~
      BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBERS REALISTICALLY , IT IS A GREAT DEAL OF NOTHING .

      • Kelly Lape

        Please note that in the last 400,000 years CO2 levels haven’t risen above 300ppm.

        We are now passing 400ppm. Of course why would anyone care about unprecedented levels of greenhouse gas?

        http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

        • oldspeak

          Unprecedented? Are you some kind of moron? How old is the Earth? 500,000 years?

          • Kelly Lape

            You mean it wasn’t “created” on October 26th 4004 BC according to Catholic Dogma. It was a Tuesday if I’m not mistaken.

            However, we can only speak of what we have discovered. We can be willing to reanalyze given data when new information is revealed through investigative research.

          • RIMSPOKE

            JAMES USSHER WASN’T A CATHOLIC .
            YOU SEEM TO BE GETTING A LOT OF THINGS WRONG HERE .

          • Kelly Lape

            My mistake – I get all these sects confused occasionally. C of E, C of I, Catholics – it all gets a bit confusing when new churches are formed because a king wants a bit of crumpet.

          • RIMSPOKE

            AND SO IT GOES WITH GLOBAL WARMING .

          • Kelly Lape

            Yup, Al Gore wanted to screw America so Climate Change isn’t real.

          • oldspeak

            Al Gore wanted to screw poor people, so he lobbied for a carbon exchange, where carbon credits and offsets are purchased and sold. Wealthy people like Al care not for the cost of “using” the carbon since they can easily afford the fees. But the rest of us would be paying what amounts to added taxes on our energy. I assume you know nothing about economics, as most liberals don’t, so you probably don’t understand the taxes kill wealth accumulation, keeping the wealth in the hands of the few and never in the hands of the many, but take my word for it.

          • Kelly Lape

            well as long as I have your word for it, I guess I don’t need to research anything else.

            Supply side economics is the theory that all of us will do better when the wealthy “create” more jobs because they have more money. Where are those jobs that should have miraculously appeared over the last 30 years?

            Demand side economics is the theory that all of us will do better when everyone has sufficient means to purchase the goods we make – Henry Ford was the epitome of Demand Side economics when he recreated the assembly line and insisted on paying his employees enough money to buy one of his cars.

            In the early 1980’s when Reagan ran on Supply Side, Bush the senior referred to that theory as “voodoo economics” – Reagan’s top economic adviser David Stockman has already repudiated Supply Side economics, will you?

            Converting our economy from Carbon Based energy to renewable resources will create American Jobs – why are you against that?

          • oldspeak

            Did that feel good? My, you’re insecure. The religious cult of AGW is much more pathetic, any day of the week, than Catholicism or any other religion, and that includes the pederastic Islam.

          • Kelly Lape

            I have no idea what your going on about.

          • oldspeak

            Kelly, when someone makes fun of what others believe, it is because they are insecure about themselves. If you felt strongly in your conviction that Catholicism and its followers are stupid, then you’d have no need for the sarcasm. It’s interesting you go there, too, since I didn’t (500,000 years has nothing to do with 6,000 years – a date also shared by the Jewish calendar), especially considering the status of “climate science.” Not a theory has been correct, many of the original supporters are now detractors, and the entire belief rests on thinking more powerful central governance has the knowledge and the ability to stop it. There’s nothing more arrogant for atheists than to think humanity is the pinnacle of being. And that’s what you have here: atheists thinking they can play “god” by altering the global climate. We have a better shot at relocating the Earth.

          • Kelly Lape

            It is not “making fun” of anyone’s beliefs to use religious dogma in a discussion. If you find the dogma offensive, find another religion.

          • oldspeak

            Yes, I thought you had poor reading comprehension.

          • Kelly Lape

            Science pointing out that we’ve entered a dangerous zone of greenhouse gas levels is not trying to change the world. It is trying to inform the world of the consequences of inaction. I pity the future, when it is dependent upon the ignorant.

          • oldspeak

            But see, Kelly. That’s not what they’re doing. If they were merely “trying to inform” they wouldn’t be regulating the coal industry to extinction, capping emissions on everything from vehicles to your lawn mower, and discussing massive wealth transfers to the third world in order to pay “reparations.” You really are a fool.

          • Kelly Lape

            Regulating Coal Industry is a political decision based on science. If you disagree with the political decision vote for the GOP.

            Nationally the country prefers Obama to your version of America.

          • Herbert Parker

            Kelly? Name calling is what you do when you have no answers. Typical lib.

        • RIMSPOKE

          LIKE I SAID , AN INCREASE OF 1 IN 10,000 .

          BARELY MEASURABLE & LITERALLY NO EFFECT ON THE CLIMATE

          • Kelly Lape

            Oh, well if you say it, then it must be true. Go back to your Fox News and listen to more truth.

          • oldspeak

            Nothing funnier than someone who’s done none of the work, who just reads what others have done, telling someone else they’re being spoonfed lies. See, the difference is Fox news doesn’t make a claim one way or the other. Anyone who can still think critically and independently knows to run the other way when non-scientists are telling you “science is settled.” Did you hear? A scientist recently put forth a peer reviewed paper claiming the big bang is incorrect.

            Every single claim that has been about global cooling/warming/change has been wrong! The moronic koolaid drinker is the idiot who doesn’t know that.

    • golfinjesse

      We have 10’s of thousands of years of climate change research ?

      • Kelly Lape

        Yes.

    • Herbert Parker

      What? CO2 levels have steadily increased, while the temperatures are decreasing to make more ice? Your synopsis (bad example) is not working. It would be a lot better if it was warming. A lot healthier for humans. Be sides their is nothing you can do about it anyway?

      • Kelly Lape

        Please note that in the last 400,000 years CO2 levels haven’t risen above 300ppm.

        We are now passing 400ppm. Of course why would anyone care about unprecedented levels of greenhouse gas?

        http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

        • Herbert Parker

          We all know what you are about. Reparations, anybody? But what can you do about it?

          • Kelly Lape

            It’s not what can “you or I” do about it. It’s what are we willing to do.

            Are we willing to continue as a carbon based economy subservient to the political needs of an Islamic overlord? Or are we willing to invest in renewable energy infrastructure here in the U.S. freeing us from the Middle East as well as creating jobs here in the U.S.?

            Of course that would mean thinking and investing rather than calling libtards and Gore/Obama names. It’s a lot easier to go on doing the same than it is to embrace change, no matter the benefits.

          • Herbert Parker

            Let me explain, the warming theory would be like urinating in the ocean to make it salty.

          • Kelly Lape

            Well that clears up everything. Who cares about science now that you’ve talked about pissing? Turning climate change into a pissing contest – you win.

          • Dr. Dennis Bonnette

            Catholic teaching, known technically as the Magisterium, is ordered to matters of faith and morals. Hence, when a pope affirms the intrinsic immorality of murder, abortion, contraception, or even masturbation, Catholics must accept that such acts are by their very nature contrary to the natural law of God. The popes can even teach authoritatively that Catholics are bound to be good stewards of the planet and are not allowed morally to engage in economic practices that impede the honest efforts of other entrepreneurs. But when a pope tells Catholics that the planet is warming or that the planet is harmed by production of carbon dioxide, he is teaching outside the realm of faith and morals, which alone are the legitimate province of the Magisterium. Catholics must listen respectfully, but are not bound by such scientific opinions.

            Moreover, the Magisterium lays down general principles, but allows that Catholics must make prudential judgments about how those principles are to be implemented. That means that while a Catholic may never commit murder, he may licitly conclude that being a good steward of the planet does not necessarily entail committing economic suicide by a cap and trade policy that is based on erroneous scientific claims.

          • Kelly Lape

            “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility
            in virtue of his office, when, as Supreme Pastor and teacher of all the
            faithful–who confirms his brethren in the faith–he proclaims by a
            definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals….The
            infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of
            bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, ‘they exercise the
            supreme Magisterium,’ above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the
            Church through its supreme Magistrium proposes a doctrine ‘for belief as
            being divinely revealed,’ and as the teaching of Christ, the
            definitions ‘must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.’ This
            infallibility extends as far as the doposit of divine revelation
            itself.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, #891, 1994 edition.

            At a recent United Nations conference devoted to climate change, the
            Holy See’s representative said that “the critical problem of global
            warming is inextricably bound to the search for authentic human
            development.”

            http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=23600

            So please enlighten me. Is the Pope fallible and wrong? Or is the Pope capable of examining the facts before him and God and does his opinion have the Weight of the Throne of God?